"Guderian - Father of the Blitzkrieg?" Topic

Does Heinz Guderian deserve the title, "Father of the Blitzkrieg"?

* yes
* no
* no opinion

I'd say he's got a strong claim.

Liddell-Hart & JFC Fuller provided good thinking on the subject between the wars and even towards the end of the Great War, Sir John Monash on the Western Front and Allenby in Palestine can make great claims on developing pieces of the concept.

There were 'proto-blitzkriegs', improvised combined arms attacks but he was the one that systemised it.

Napoleon on the Ulm

He doesn't because calling him the "father" implies it was all him. And I'm sure he thought it was all him, but he built off ideas put forward by others previously. Guderian's one really big contribution to its development was to distribute radios to all vehicles, because he spent WWI in the signals corps.

I remember reading somewhere that Liddell-Hart actually got most of his material from somewhere else – German or otherwise, but I haven't been able to confirm that. I'd say, yes, he has a pretty good claim to it.

The term Blitzkrieg was first coined in a 1938 book by a Jewish, Marxist, political economist named Fritz Sternberg who published a book in English called "Germany and a Lightning War" The following year it was translated into German and the term "Blitzkrieg" was used in the text but strangely not in the title.
The German concept of highly mobile forces concentrating to attack an enemy where the enemy was unable to resist the attack was "Schwerepunkt" and the decisive battle was"vernichtungsschlacht". This was the idea which Guderian spring-boarded off of in his famous book "Achtung Panzer!" (1937).
So no, Guderian is the father of some kind of mobile warfare based on the principle of maneuver and schwerpunkt but the term Blitzkrieg does not belong to him.
Guderian must also share credit with Marshal Tukhachevsky who was another pioneer of combined arms mobile warfare (the Deep Battle principle) but his life was ended by Stalin's Purges in 1937(?) and his ideas did not see implementation until after his death.
Rod Robertson

Oh, and there was a Frenchman too but I have forgotten his name and can't be bothered to look him up right now.
Rod Robertson

The first mention of (modern) combined arms warfare I seem to remember is in "War and the Future" by HG Wells (about 1917)

Guderian actually made deep operations work, unlike the other theorists, so he gets my vote.

"If I have seen so far it is only because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants"

Although Liddell-Hart always struck me as a bit of an expletive deleted.

"If I have seen so far it is only because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants"

Although Liddell-Hart always struck me as a bit of an expletive deleted.

I have seen it suggested that Liddell-Hart persuaded Guderian to give him more credit than he was due in Panzer Leader. Does anyone have definitive evidence on this?

The British by the end of WW1 had all the elements normally associated with Blitzkreig. Tanks, armoured infantry carriers, SP artillery, specialist ground attack aircraft. The one thing it lacked was the reliability to push the offensive deep into the enemy rear areas. Which is why they settled for the bite and hold. In theory cavalry could have fulfilled the deep penetration role, but in practice the lack of heavy weapons meant that relstively small numbers of troops with artillery and machine guns could hold up cavalry.

Martin makes an excellent point, Napoleon didn't invent the army corps system, but he certainly put it into practice in a way that made everyone else immitate the French army organisation over the next century or so. The rest of the world has tried very hard to immitate what Guderian did in Poland, France and Russia ever since, so while I have no problem with the idea that a lot of others made very significant theoretical contributions, the man whose actions the rest of the world is immitating is Guderian. Thats good enough for me to call him 'Father of the Blitzkrieg'.

Yes.

Clearly a lot of theorists thought and wrote about changes in warfare, but Guderian was the guy who actually proved it worked

I agree that Tukhachevsky gave it a lot of thought but Guderian showed it worked – poor old Tukhachevsky having got on the wrong side of Uncle Joe

Just remember the French were extremely upset when the British used their tanks too early in WWI. The original plan was for both nations to amass enough tanks to break through the line at the same time in two separate areas. But the British in desperate need of a propaganda victory committed too early , too little and in the wrong spot. There were a lot of smart French officers too who had good ideas.

It isn't just about tanks though, it is about combined arms which simultaneously strike the full depth of the enemy position (in Guderians words), the concentration of extreme violence on a narrow front (yet broad enough to be effective) and in great depth to force a breakthrough, coupled with a rapid, deep and sustainable exploitation.

Easy to write down, so hard to pull off.

As noted, he's not the only one to explore or perhaps perfect the concept/paradigm. I think the saying goes, "Success has many Fathers, but failure is an orphan … "

So who else got it to work before Guderian Legion 4? As has been pointed out theory and ideas are a long way from practice. Bit like the atomic bomb. Lots of people had the theory sorted, but only one team got it to work.

So who else got it to work before Guderian Legion 4?

Georgi Zhukov at Kholkin Gol in 1939?

I have seen it suggested that Liddell-Hart persuaded Guderian to give him more credit than he was due in Panzer Leader. Does anyone have definitive evidence on this?

I don't think my copy makes much of a mention of Liddell-Hart, but then again it is an abridged version and might be missing relevant bits.

For comparison, I would recommend checking Achtung Panzer (published around 1937) and see what Guderian writes there – he has an extensive review of earlier tank development and usage, and there might also be a discussion about tank theorists from other countries (unfortunately it has been a while since I read it).

If you read thru the posts Fred … there were a number of "fathers" or "stepfathers" … The Germans got it to work, because they were the first to have a reason to …

Gustavus Adolphus might be considered the "Father of Blitzkrieg" as he got highly mobile, combined arms warfare with a concentration of firepower and a emphasis on maneuver down pat during the 30 Years War! OK, no tanks or airplanes but as has been mentioned above he was the first to actually put it into practice and get it done! Horse Cavalry, Artillery and and Infantry in various forms is almost as good.
As for Guderian: "Guderian's Achtung Panzer! (1937) relied heavily on other theorists such as Ludwig Ritter von Eimannsberger, whose major book, The Tank War (Der Kampfwagenkrieg) (1934) gained a wide audience in the German Army.[143] Another theorist, Ernst Volckheim, was also used by Guderian, and wrote a huge amount on tank and combined arms tactics, and is not acknowledged by Guderian." quoted from Wikipedia "Blitzkrieg".
Maybe Guderian should be considered a step-father of Baby-Blitzy.
The Germans practiced their "Blitzkrieg" with the Soviets at Kazan and another place which I can not remember. Who was in charge of that? Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky! This was in the mid 1920's IIRC and so Guderian may have learned a great deal from the doomed Soviet Marshal.
Finally the military historian Karl Hanz Freiser (did I spell that right?) argued that there never was a german military doctrine like Blitzkrieg and that it was a myth created after the fact to explain the rapid and shocking German victories of early WW II. He argues that the German doctrine was an outgrowth of the technological and technical nature of the German army and was an organic and unplanned symptom of mechanized warfare rather than a guiding principle of it. I love his book because it has really good maps and is a gold mine for scenarios set in France.
Can anyone remind me of the name of the French theorist who I can't seem to recall – its driving me nuts and I cant look him up because I can't remember his name!
Rod Robertson

Georgi Zhukov at Kholkin Gol in 1939?

Hmmm! I think that is pushing it a bit since it only encircled a single Japanese division and didn't go very deep into Japanese territory.

If you read thru the posts Fred … there were a number of "fathers" or "stepfathers" … The Germans got it to work, because they were the first to have a reason to …

So no-one else then! :-) My nod goes to Guderian for both sorting the theory and putting it into practice.

French theorist you are lookin for is probably De Gaulle. He wrote The Army of the Future, in 1934.

bledin:
No that's not the chap I'm trying to remember. This fellow was an interwar theorist. Doh, stupid memory!
Rod ?

So no-one else then! :-) My nod goes to Guderian for both sorting the theory and putting it into practice.

Well if ya put it that way ! Funny in WWI the Germans only made 20 tanks, the A7V plus used some captured Allied tanks. I guess they figured out after using Stoss Truppen in WWI, they'd try to do it with Panzers the next time around …

Maybe Nachin or Mayer, as mentioned here:

link

Jean-Baptiste Estienne! That was the Frenchman's name! An old coot from the Artillery who formed the French tank corps in WW I and in the interwar years he theorized about a highly mobile, mechanized and professional French Army. He dreamed of 100,000 motorized and mechanized troops as the core of the French Army. He was opposed by the proponents of the "Methodical Battle' doctrine and generally poo-pooed, but Charles Degaulle was exposed to his ideas which were ultimately the template for the creation and expansion of DLM's of the French Army IIRC. Thank heavens it came to me as I was going mad trying to remember it.
Rod Robertson.

I would give Guderian the nod, specifically (as Martin highlighted) because he was the guy who actually made it work!

But there is little agreement about what "Blitzkrieg" actually was. At least in the comments here …

I see most of the key components present, but they are not all put together. Most posts highlight separate pieces, indicating perhaps that there is little consensus on what the word means…

To me, blitzkrieg means not just what the Germans did in 1939-42. If that, then the "father" must be German, because there were no French or Russian or British generals in the German army at that time…

So to me it means something more. What DID the Germans do, that was so effective? I believe the operational doctrine had the following components that directly led to it's overwhelming success:

1) Combined arms operation
2) High levels of mechanization
3) High levels of communications
4) Command from the front, high levels of autonomy for local decision-making
5) Focus on high tempo of operations
6) Focus on disruption of the enemy's command and communications
7) Concentrating overwhelming forces on a narrow point/axis of attack
8) Spearheads that bypass centers of resistance
9) Destruction of enemy forces by large-scale maneuvers / encirclements (rather than attrition)

Many of these factors amplify each other. Several of these factors were present in the theoretical writings of others. But putting it all together, and into practice …. the credit goes to Guderian.

Monash had 1, 2 and 7. Weak on 4. Completely missed 8 and 9.
Fuller had 2, 3 and some of 5 and 7. Very weak on 1. No mention of 8 or 9.
Liddel-Hart was not much involved in any of it, mostly an ex-post-facto fictional participant.
DeGaul was not strong on 3 or 8
Patton was strong on 2, 4, 7 and 8, doesn't give much credence to 1.
Tukeschevski missed 3 and 9, but pretty strong on the rest. But unable to put them into practice … theory only.
Guderian seems to have gotten them all, and made them work.

That's my take…

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Pretty much all of those points are studied and very much valid today …

Yes.

The most direct and comprehensive definition of blitzkrieg might be "what the Germans did in 1939-1941". But Mark1 has me persuaded. If "father" implies to some an intellectual parentage to the concept, Guderian has earned the title "Master of Blitzkrieg".

I would argue that Manstein was the "Master of Blitzkrieg"

What about Alexander the Great?
Rod Robertson

Guderian's offensives tended to be gambles so the real father's of the blitzkrieg were the French high command who let him get away with it.

(But overrating Guderian does at least save their reputations)

"What if he had rolled a 1" ? :-)

What about Alexander the Great?

Modest on 1, weak on 2 and 3, half-way on 4 (yes HE commanded from the front, but gave little autonomy to his other frontline commanders), good on 5 and 7, no hint of 8, 9 only at the tactical level (not the operational level).

The heart of Alexander's success was 7. He had a tactically stronger center than his adversaries. For more blitzkrieg-esque combat you really need to look at the Romans (more combined arms, more operational maneuver).

Guderian's offensives tended to be gambles so the real father's of the blitzkrieg were the French high command who let him get away with it.

Let us not forget that the Brits were standing (and fleeing) with the French. And the Soviets lost more territory, troop strength and resources faster than the French. And the French withstood the onslaught longer and inflicted far greater casualties than the Poles.

Yes, the French contributed to the German's success. So did every army they faced from 1939 to 1942. During that time the Germans had a formula that no one else could withstand. No one.

One could similarly say that the Egyptians contributed to the Israeli success in 1956 and 1967. Except that the Syrians, Jordanians and even a few Iraqis also contributed to those same Israeli successes.

One against one -- yes you can say the loser lost as much as the winner won. One against many, and you have to look more carefully at how the winner won.

"What if he had rolled a 1" ?

He would have cursed his dice, stomped around the room declaring "You are SO lucky!" and vowed to give up this stupid game, because it is all luck. Then he would have showed up at the next con with a new army and new dice.

In truth, he did throw 1s from time-to-time. As did the whole German army during the Blitzkrieg era. But when your operational strengths give you an advantage on 20 different battlefields in a cohesive operation, you find that the one or two battlefields where you perform poorly are side-notes to the story of your success.

Let the Franco-files expound on S-35s at the Gembloux gap, the fans of proud Albion brag of Matildas at Arras, and the Russo-files recount the lone KV-2 at Resieniai.* They are side-notes, interesting for their tactical results … and meaningless in the operational contexts of the campaigns.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

*And let the Panzerfans tell the story of ANY Tiger engagement. (Runs for cover…)

"What if he had rolled a 1" ?

Is that a square edged die or a round edged die?

Guderian implemented it and also included Aircraft to support the attacks such as the Stuka. The theory belongs to Liddell-Hart who always struggled to get the top British Brass especially those of the cavalry to listen and adopt his theory.

Just my penny's worth

Plan 1919 was the blueprint for a 'proto-blitzkrieg'

… every available bombing machine should concentrate on the various supply and road centres. The signal communication should not be destroyed, for it is important that the confusion resulting from the dual attack carried out by the Medium D tanks and aeroplanes should be circulated by the enemy. Bad news confuses, confusion stimulates panic …. (then) a carefully mounted tank, infantry and artillery attack should be launched, the objective of which is the zone of the enemy's guns: namely the secondary tactical zone some 10,000 yeards deep.[1]
so does an army depend for its power on the will of its Commander and his Staff: cut that will off and the army will be paralyzed. He proposed using Medium D tanks to disorganise the enemy's Command in rear of the entrenched zone.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919

It's principal author, JFC Fuller probably has as good a claim to fatherhood as any. Post war his writings had an influence on many of the German pioneers, including Guderian. link Fuller was an odd character who was more than a little mad in later life.

It's also worth noting that the 1918 Battle of Amiens incorporated many elements that would be considered to be part of blitzkrieg. See link

Liddell-Hart probably exaggerated his role in the development of the underlying theory. He had a more limited influence than he would have us believe. See link link has a balanced discussion.

What Etranger said, Liddell Hart had various axes to grind.

If you are gong pre-20th century, then the true fathers of what would be called the blitzkrieg would be the Mongols.

Also Mongol armies never had to worry about running out of fuel :)