"Guderian - Father of the Blitzkrieg?" Topic

I voted yes for a simple reason: there were a LOT of others involved in development of the theory of blitzkrieg or deep penetration (to use the Soviet term) warfare. BUT Guderian is the one most responsible for putting it into practice in Poland, France and Russia. We refer to 19th Century 'corps d'armee' warfare 'Napoleonic' even though Napoleon was no innovator, Alexander the Great (and Frederick the Great for that matter) get the credit for using the armies their fathers developed. Seems only reasonable to give Guderian the laurel for blitzkrieg.

Yes, because he was the first one to actually make it work (if we accept there was actually a thing which can be labelled 'blitzkrieg' even if they didn't call it that at the time).

Agreed! Da Vinci wrote a plan for an airplane but it was the Wright brothers who put it in the air

Maneuver warfare/blitzkrieg was not first used in WWII.
Sherman's march to the sea was all about the rules of blitzkrieg. 1: attack where the other side is weak 2: move fast around his strength. 3: cut them off from support.

Yes, but Sherman didn't successfully integrate aircraft, motorised infantry and tanks (and support arms) into mechanised armies capable of sustained operations in the full depth of the enemy position controlled by wireless.

Perhaps we need a definition of 'Blitzkrieg'….

NO Sherman successfully integrated infantry, Calvary, guns wagons and trains to make a Maneuver warfare/blitzkrieg attack. The weapons and transport and tech used really has nothing to do with what makes a Maneuver warfare/blitzkrieg attack. its all about the 3 rules on making this form of attack work. If any thing modern mechanized armies make it easier to pull off in mass.

I think the Mongols under Temujin and his immediate successors have a great claim to have invented what we call blitzkrieg.

I don't know who invented it but I know its a lot older then WWII, I just used Sherman as a well known example of it.

Actually, as I understand it, the term was indeed coined in the 20th century in response to the German invasion of Poland. It was a journalists tool to sell papers describing a 'frightening new form' of warfare, which, of course, people had to buy the newspapers to learn about…

But while I agree with everyone who says that maneuver warfare was practiced well before the WW2, I don't know of anyone that calls it 'blitzkrieg'.

On a similar theme, 'blitzkrieg' requires quick victory (a la Poland and France). It was Frederick the Great who (again as far as I know) enunciated this principle as 'Ours must be short and lively wars.' in his Instructions to Generals. Blitzkrieg isn't just maneuver, it is quick victory as well.

Interestingly, there seems to be a growing trend in academic thought that the German High Command should have realised they had lost within about 2 months of invading the Soviet Union, and done something about it.

So, no, to me, blitzkrieg starts in the 20th century, and certainly requires the integration of tanks and ground attack aircraft.

(Note: my original post contained the term 'deep penetration' I believe I should actually have said 'deep battle'.)

I tend to think that Blitzkrieg had more than one father with Hart & JFC Fuller being contributors as well.