"Blitzkrieg" - What most people get Wrong - Myth vs "Reality"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ส.ค. 2017
- "Blitzkrieg" is probably the most wrongly used word when it comes to Military History. It's buzzword effect is widely known. The question is what was "Blitzkrieg" actually and is it used "correctly" at all? Additionally, the question if "Blitzkrieg" was something unique to the Wehrmacht will be answered? What was Blitzkrieg?
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» TH-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Citino, Robert M.: The German Way of War
Hughes, Daniel J.: Blitzkrieg, in: Brassey's Encyclopedia of Land Forces and Warfare, p. 155-162
Ong, Weichong: Blitzkrieg: Revolution or Evolution?, in: RUSI December 2017 - Vol. 152 No. 6, p. 82-87
Harris, J.P.: The Myth of Blitzkrieg, in War in History 1995 2 (3), p. 335-352
Frieser, Karl-Heinz: The Blitzkrieg Legend
Frieser, Karl-Heinz: The war in the West, 1939-1940: an unplanned Blitzkrieg. In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I: p. 287-314
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](/img/tr.png)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like balanced, nuanced and well-sourced Military History, considering supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/ Remember every single dollar helps.
I think outside Germany the term Blitzkrieg just means a rapid overwhelming attack, but used mainly just in reference to Nazi Germany in the early part of WW2. In American football a shortened version "blitz" is used for a play to do basically same thing. Whether the term was indeed used by the German military at the time isn't really what most people think of. You might say it is an English term that may or may not directly correspond to it's German origin.
At one point in your video you state that the ideas of the various tactics was not innovation and as such does not really constitute a blitzkrieg. Though I agree with the statement that individually they do not, the innovation is that this was the first time that many of those tactics were utilized in combination with each other and quickly evolved to become a different tactic (normally of some other nature listed), together they do constitute the ideology of a blitzkrieg. One of the key factors that the German High Command had was that most military strategies did not combine land, sea, and air effectively where during the campaigns from 1939 until 1941 by the Germans definitely did effectively use all these forces and the communication was such that tactics could change on the battlefield nearly instantaneously allowing for the battles to take place and be won very quickly... aka lightning fast.
Granted the idea of this video is to debunk the myth that blitzkrieg was itself a tactic that was generally used and understood, it was however a term given to the German military by their foes for their ability to quickly maneuver their units and win battles/wars during that time frame. Credit where credit is due, the German military was efficient in the beginning of the war.
@Jason Sosinski
well it was clearly innovation. The point is that the concept is not revolutionary but evolutionary.
Very enlightening ( and I have also learnt the correct pronunciation of German names!). So the more correct word to use would be Bewegunskrieg?
@Mark Dallinger the correct term in english would be "mobile warfare". If you are speaking german it is Bewegungskrieg.
Even my high school history textbook says: "Germany quickly invaded Poland, Belgium, the Low Countries and France with a new strategy called Blitzkrieg"
It's not wrong, it never mentioned anything about doctrine.
in school they also taught us that certain parts of the tongue are made for tasting certain tastes... it is complete bull.
but it wasn't the strategy they followed, it would be less confusing to say that Germany did win those campaigns quickly and then it was called Blitzkrieg
History books can be wrong.
chema1994 YES!!! I agree with you completely!!! American education is the most dumbed down, super abridged, stereotype reinforcing, "hollywoodized" garbage that anyone could come up with.
"Hey! can u teach me 3,500+ years of history in one, under 200 page, low-grade reading level, large print face book so I can tell people I am an expert in history?"
"Why of course little joey! You deserve to be told completely erroneous, but easy to swallow bullshit while having your ego stroked. After all, you are an American teenager!!!"
I dunno why, but hearing a German say 'bullshit bingo' in English was beautiful.
Dave Gunner Austrian, but yeah. I giggled a bit there.
Ooooh bingo!!!!!! (Inglorious bastards)
_BULLSCHIET BINGO_
I didn't understand a goddamn word he said.
Using 4 terms would have ensured tactical … BINGO!
(or possibly a 3x3 grid, still a win, but as Tic-Tac(tical?)-Toe)
Blitzkrieg is what everyone tried to do in WWI, but without the technology and combined arms tactics to actually achieve it.
When WWI started, all the powers expected a quick, fluid war of maneuver, but the new technology gave them a stalemate. When WWII started, all the powers expected a stalemate, but the new technology gave them quick maneuvers.
lel
"it's ironic" -a pale as fuck senator
#Borjigin : Indeed there are several attempts on 'blitzkrieg' in WWI. Beginning with Schlieffens 'Sichelschnitt'. Imperial Germany feared a war against France and Russia at the same time. They assumed that the French would mobilize fast, but would be as easily or even more easly overwhelmed as in 1870, if the German army circumvented the French border fortifications and instead attacked via (neutral)Belgium. They planned to beat France decisively within 6 weeks. But with the 'miracle at the Marne' this plan went teribbly wrong. And they falsely assumed, that Russia needed for mobilization about these 6 weeks. But the Russians were miraculously war- ready within days. Much better organised than in today's war of Russia against Ukraine.
Other examples of attempted 'Blitzkrieg' are 1.the last Isonzo-offensive, that took Italy by surprise and stopped finaly at the river Piave. Logistics weren't good enough in those times and the offensive ran out of steam, and 2. the German spring offensive of 1918 that produced some initial effects, but Germany's power then was already too weak agaist the combined forces of France, Great Britain and the USA to gain strategic breakthroughs.
@@helmrichharms2225 jesus christ of course people always figure out how to associate anything they can talk about from the hair on their asshole to a buzzword from a magazine, they can figure out how to make it talk about ukraine.
@@thiccthighssavelives5866 “he could save others from death, but not himself.”
I think the Myth that started the statement of "Blitzkrieg was revolutionary" was because of how different WW1 was to WW2. People only think it's revolutionary because they're comparing it to WW1 and not ones before that.
Renaissance would be a better word than revolution.
Yeah you are totaly right its also because we all think that everyone was preparing for trench warfare eaven if its true for france for others it wasn't realy the plan
You have a good point when refering to the WW1 Western front. But if you read Rommels "Infantry Attacks" he was using in a smaller scale the form of maneuver warfare in the Eastern front. In a lot of ways, it was just scaled up and used new technology in WW2
@@cameronsmyth8565 Rommel served briefly in Romania, but that was in the early stages of the war, when the trenches had yet to develop to it's full scale, and his actions were not much different from the other units around there, as skirmishing was a bit more fluid on the Russian front.
It was in Italy where Rommel succesfully experimented with 'modern' maneuver warfare using infiltration tactics with infantry, using terrain features to approach from flanks or unexpected angles. To say that served as an inspiration to the German campaigns of 1939 and 1940 is a bit far-fetched, but these infiltration tactics were later implemented on a larger scale on the Western Front too, seeing limited but much desired success. Of course the question is whether Rommel was the one who came up with it or just got chosen as the guy to try out the new tactics, but even if he only carried out orders designed by superior officers, his actions in WWI probably meant more for German tactical doctrines than his actions in WWII.
And the best part is that there comparison isn't even good. Its entirely Western European Centric and only looks at post 1914
"Blitzkrieg" tactics, much like Motti tactics, were not an actual set of tactics, but rather a natural evolution of warfare as a result of the operational challenges faced and the specific circumstances of the situation the soldiers found themselves in.
i don't even find it to be an evolution of 'modern' tactics. Philip II of Macedon understood completely that merely being able to march a small force into someone else's dominion within a few hours was more than enough to keep his neighbor's in line. He passed this philosophy on to Alexander as well. Later, Gauis Ceasar of the Julii would use the mere act of marching as a form of war in itself. Marching at break-neck paces across all of Western Europe and confronting hostile tribes separately in their home turf, rarely allowing them to converge into one mass. And later against his Roman contemporaries.
HItler just did with tanks what napoleon and Alexander did with horses and Ceasar managed to do with footmen.
@@maxdecphoenix there's also Genghis Khan I think?
“The most certain way of insuring victory is to march briskly and in good order against the enemy, always endeavoring to gain ground.”
- Frederick the Great
Things like this happen in engineering as well. "The iPhone is a revolution!" What part? "The touch screen." It has been around for years and Apple did not invent it. "It has Apps!" We have had apps since Java was release years before, and it was not released by Apple. On, and on, and on. No, the iPhone was an evolution caused by certain technologies getting smaller and less expensive so that they could integrated into a handheld system. Here, war of movement gets the same treatment as other misunderstood German terms. "That is a King Tiger tank." What! Where? Behind the Bengal Tiger tank? "No, it is the Bengal Tiger tank." Nein, it is the Panzer VII Ausf.B. "Dude, Tiger II is not sexy, we want to be fighting cool, sexy tanks, otherwise we look like wimps." Okay, King Tiger it is. Medals for all. "I do not have the heart to tell him is was a Panzer IV with Schürzen armor."
I mostly agree, except the iPhone is a poor example, because it brought all mentioned functions together And made it a desirable product which changed how we use mobile phones. Phones today are, because of it, all more or less touch screen mini-computers, so it did lead a minor revolution.
@@09csr My example was from an engineering perspective, and there it is a great example. However, it is still just a PC you hold in your hand from a technology standpoint. The rest just follows from portability.
@@09csr It wasnt the first product to do that. It was just the first to succeed, because it was the first to come after the point at which advances in technology made it possible. It was a product whose time had come. Apple just got lucky to be the one attempt that made it big. And we all suffer now because of it, as everything Apple has done with their design driver position since then has been to make the things ever more poorly designed. If it wasnt for the vastly improving hardware, no one would buy the ever crappier newer models.
Revolution by evolution. As often before, you might have a revolution based on combining already established technologies.
The most "revolutionary" aspect of the 2007 iPhone was the virtual keyboard that could hide away when not needed.
Before the iPhone, every mobile device looked like the Blackberry. After 2007, every mobile device looks like an iPhone.
If i'm not mistaken, the German high command wasn't necessarily hoping to conquer France as fast as it did. The commander of the 7th panzer division had disobeyed orders and continued advancing. There was a lot of luck involved.
That's correct, the German high command was expecting a crushing counterattack against their spearhead in Belgium from the French/British because it's what they, or the Allies of 1914-1918, would have done in their place (and did happen at the Battle of the Marne). Had they done so, without infantry support the Panzer divisions could have been cut off and destroyed piecemeal. The Allied command of 1940, however, were paralyzed or in full denial of the situation until it was way too late to retrieve it.
As you said, luck had a lot to do with it, as well as how feeble Allied generalship was at the time.
This comment is criminally underrated
@@brianu2229 No thats simply not true, both french and brittish armies were within a day in belgium and did counter attack and even beat german advancing troops and tanks (Gembloux for example where the french trounced the german tanks who were inferior at the time). The problem is they resorted to the old fashioned ww1 thinking: defend and hold. So instead of using their victory and continue the counter attack they dug in and let them be destroyed piece by piece once the germand regroupe and repaired.
@@k995100When I say "crushing counterattack" I don't mean individual divisions, not working in concert and largely operating on their own initiative: I mean a concerted counteroffensive of dozens of divisions, which the Allies did during WWI on several occasions and was a centerpiece of German defensive doctrine. Had the Allies actually done so they would have likely destroyed the German spearheads, but the Allied high command basically spent the first critical days either in denial or ineffectively trying to coordinate the counteroffensive that never materialized.
@@brianu2229 They never got the chance, brittish and french doctrine at the time was the fight a defensive war so they could pin the german army and let the french and brittish reserves be mobilized. The baatle of hannut is a fine example of that, that was several brigades of tanks and apc's on both sides giving a 500 french tanks vs 600 german with a french victory. yet they only used it to try and create a defensive line as their doctrine and plan dictated , not push into german forces. You see that all troughout that camapgn: troops were told to withdraw or hold as was the general plan, yet the germans were able to push through, causing the entire defensive lines to be withdawn to be setup further back, rince and repeat. Its not that they didnt want to counter attack, but they first wanted a stable front and never got it due to the german tactics.
I thought this was common knowledge...
Oh wait right documentaries and school.
Don't forget the History Channel
"Next on history channel: This secret nazi treasure has laid hidden for CENTURIES!, You won't believe what this celebrity diggyman discovers! "
Also on the History Channel: "Did the Nazi's communicate with Aliens?"
TheDude234576 of course history channel how could I forget
Blitzkrieg Propaganda used in schools and media since a long time ago, huh.
I've always heard "Blitzkrieg" used less as a revolutionary military strategy, and more as a force of nature. A demonstration. It was what the civilians felt as they saw the Germans roll in, not what the Germans themselves were thinking
Airplane bombers in large scales were revolutionary since their opponents still used horses. Mr.H demanded that all focus should be on constructing bombers when they needed interceptors to fund his blitzkrieg. Like lighting it came from the sky unprovoked and unpredictable. Blitzkrieg is also known as lighting war. Because it came from above.
no, no, germans were told to push as hard as possible. they days leading up to the invasion of France and Belgium they gave a lot of there troops drugs so they go faster, work, longer, and do more. a german solder can do a lot more if they were awake for 4 days in a row and working at 120%. while the French solder had to sleep and are human and cant work for more then 18+ hours none stop. remember this is the war that was led with drugs
@@robertagren9360 as a german i think, the lightning is extremly fast and powerful and can destroy a tree in a blink, so the blitzkrieg is a war that destroys/defeated a country very fast, in a few days, or weeks instead of years.
One could say that the famous Roman Dictator, Gaius Iulius Cæsar practiced a form of "Blitzkrieg" during his consistent use of forced marches, circumvallations and careful choosing of the battlefield. For example, when the Gallic Army had mustered along the western bank of the Rhône River to catch the Romans as they came out of the Massif Centrale (due to extreme winter conditions), Cæsar had bypassed them altogether and was fifty miles away sacking the Arverni oppidum of Gergovia. This is a tactic he repeated throughout his career as a general.
Me and Caesar used to be best buds.
Julia Nadeau Maybe but there is a difference in that the Germans and Prussians actively sought out decisive battles whereas the Romans never focused on those and that was in fact on of their strengths since they could afford to take losses and continue a war.
I think Napoleon would be a better historic example than Caesar.
SkipperPlaysTW i hope you played NTW.
Because ofc there is a full scale of speed and there was only one person to be famous for his marches during that time:
Nicolas Davout, the "robbespierre of hamburg" right hand of napoleon
Second place probably blucher
Yep, NTW is my favourite of the TW games!
It's basically the Kesselschlacht or "cauldron battle" in the 1870s, evolving into shock trooper tactics during WW1, and amplifying them with motor transport in WW2. That is, the main battle tank, communication, close air support, rapid movement of troops and concentration of force, i.e Schwerpunkt (focal point), avoiding strong points in the defense.
We call this maneuver warfare. Blitzkrieg is the mechanized version of it.
- Tempo
- Schwerpunkt
- Surprise: based on deception and surprise
- Combined arms
- Flexibility: well rounded, self-contained and redundant
- Decentralized command: changing situations out pace communications. Intent (schwerpunkt, surprise etc.) is enough
So yeah the right word is Panzerkrieg
Thank you for this excellent video. One other factor in the Blitzkreig myth is how much luck and an ill prepared opposition played in it's creation. Poland was impossible to defend because of it's geography, the French tried to fight the wrong war and the Soviet army was in chaos. The Nazis, like the Japanese, had no option but to ride their luck until it ran out, which it inevitably did.
An excellent summary of the second world war. As I delve more into the war I find evidence to suggest that the western powers, even at the time thought the same thing.
The Germans could have avoided their downfall if they didn't support the Japanese, even after barbarossa, since if the British didn't get active support like after 1941, they wouldn't have survived much.
Is the Prussian "insignia" at 4:30 made up of a helmet and mustaches? If so, that's awesome.
Steve P. Either that or they've somehow drafted Cthulhu.
I thought for a second it was some kind of Prussian version of the Hydra Logo at first.
Its clearly a lightnig mustache Pickelhaube......:)
Three moustaches! Very scary.
i used to have this moustache ... , it has his effect, but a lot of work too.
Well Poland knows very well what a BLITZKRIEG is
And Poland don't know "help" "alliance" "France" "Britain"
they also know very well what a costly rearmament is
When ur high school socials textbook refer to the German strategy as the blitzkrieg...public education ftw 😂
Good stuff! Not enough facial hair on the Prussian icon though. :D
I thought the German spring offensive of 1918 was considered a 'blitzkrieg' of sorts.
Nope. The spring offensive was brute force married to infiltration tactics. They moved forward only as fast as an infantryman with a full pack could walk, like Roman legions. Cavalry seems to have been a non-entity as far as I can determine, and there were no tanks.
And, once the trained elite infantry became casualties, infiltration tactics disappeared as well.
The issue wasn't even so much that the infantry ran out of juice, but that the infantry advanced beyond the ability of the artillery to support them, whereas the British simply continued fighting from secondary positions, with full artillery support.
The infantry tactics of the stormtroopers largely worked, which is why they became the basis for post-WWI infantry doctrine.
Stormtroopers were not the basis for post war doctrine except maybe for the Germans. The British and French both had their own infiltration based infantry tactics which were developed independently. In fact the French had the most modern infantry tactics at the end of WWI, for example they were the only ones to officially adopt universal infantry squads with a LMG as the base of fire, where as the British and Germans still had separate LMG and assault squads in their platoon, and the Germans didn't even really have a proper LMG (the monstrous MG08/15 being what they attempted to use).
So, a blitzkrieg is a word used to describe the style of manouver warfare. Strike fast. Strike deep. Cut them off behind the front. A term coined to describe/summarize all of the effects of such style of warfare but never or rarely used in german military terminology and literature.
Edit: Usually involving most of the military branches to perform in unison. Luftwaffe was crazy effective in "blitzkrieg" due to lack of central bomber command (sounds silly but it allows close coordination with ground forces). Later they suffered in operation See löwe because of that.
I think that it's more accurate to say that the Germans practiced combined arms warfare which is when all branches of a nation's military works closely together. It's where the infantry, armor, artillery, and air support all work in close coordination with each other as opposed to each acting separately and independently of each other.
thing is, they were not actually the first one to do that, the russian and the allies actually already implemented that in WW1, and it was in one of the best implementation of it where one of the shortest but decisive battle in WW1 was waged.
The germans too. Combined arms warfare was displayed for example in their last major offensive Operation Michael with great success btw, using artillery cover, infiltration tactics and similar stuff. The tactics used in the 2ww were basically shaped by the 1ww, in which both sides already began to develop new forms of tactics and doctrines. The only difference is that some have gained more from their lessons than others.
I would disacree.
From what I know Guderians main WW1 sorce was Ivan Kolev of Bulgaria. Additionally it shows elements of the german " Elastische Verteidigung" and the concept of stormtroopers.
Who on the Allied side did something simila?
The post WW1 russian "Tiefe Opperation" shows a clear reseblence, so perhups they had something simila in ww1. But it was not the main doctrin!
This statemate is rather interesting and shows us a little side aspect of the blitzkrieg debate that everyone claims to be the first one or at least to have somehow contributed. The French, the British or the Soviet say they have developed and used similar tactis too before the phenomenon of blitzkrieg actually ocurred called deep operation or whatever else in your case however its the bulgarian army. Everyone simply wants to have participated in the glorious invention of the mighty blitzkrieg, meanwhile it is largely ignored that blitzkrieg is neither a tactic nor a strategy but the product of 200 years of prussian military evolution resulting in this stunning early victories of the Wehrmacht, which couldnt be reproduced by any other army in the 2ww. Blitzkrieg does include so many other side aspects than the mere tactical ones that are necessary for its application as for example the idea of Auftragstaktik and the decentralisation of the decision making process or the prussian staff system.
You forgot to talk about the most glorious way of the Blitzkrieg.
*Meteorblitzkrieg!* ;)
"Bullshit Bingo" had me in stitches.
Thank you for making this. This resonates with what I concluded. Tactically, you see all the elements of ‘blitzkrieg’ in the German offensives in France in 1918. The difference in 1939 was communication and mobility amplified those tactics into something much more effective. The Allies, as winners, concluded that their tactics were the winning tactics, and did not take to heart what the German tactical innovations of 1918 meant.
Exactly
And how dangerous the Allied positions would have been shall the USA didn’t join the war at all
At least Blitzkrieg was a full linguistical success achieving notoriety on a scale never seen before in terms of words originating from foreign military actions, maybe only over shadowed by a certain other german word which I can't remember, please don't give me any FlaK for that though.
Oh shit.
Fliegerabwehrkanone?
Duh, silly.
Indeed some terms really stay in there and I noted to my history teacher once that when Anglo-Saxon works start using German words they tend to use the vicious ones and just throw it in there.
@Marc Like "Kindergarten" or "Zeitgeist"? :P
I find it crazy how little people know about Blitzkrieg. Many people thought I was lying when I told them they were given Meth to make sure they marched without stop.
This topic, combined with the strong german accent of the speaker, adds a whole new dimension to this vid. Nonetheless: fabulously done :) Weitermachen!
I think there was an additional emphasis on high tempo, that getting inside the "ODA loop" of an enemy had priority over guarding flanks or reducing pockets of resistance.
I think 'Blitzkrieg' cannot be fully explained without getting into the topic of 'mission tactics'. The bottom up element, above rank training and consequent flexibility was the essential foundation for quick decision making opportunity grabbing and coping with the fog of war.
Lol at 1:56 I thought the video was over because the stuff you put on screen
Your videos are really well put together, do you make your graphics?
Nice one! Yeah, wasn't much of a strategy. It for the most part simply happened.
I just knew Bewegungskrieg was going to come up when I saw on Patreon that you were making this video.
I think of "Blitzkrieg" as rapid maneuver warfare based on mechanization and combined arms.
Blitzkrieg in italic is the one where you push in one direction and as soon as your offensive halts, you turn your tanks and push the other way.
You can tell it wasn't revolutionary because of the sheer amount of successes it has had throughout European history.
Napoleon, for example, was strongly inspired by Frederick the Great (amongst others such as Alexander) and his form of warfare (which was different to most generals at the time) was one of quickly marching into enemy territory, decisively defeating them in a battle, and quickly ending the war (using the local land instead of supply trains to speed up the process). It's ultimately why he got into the mess in Russia, he follows them all the way to Borodino in search of a pitched battle.
Ok but,how did Napoleon defeat his enemies?You talk about battles and not about the warfare bruh.The only thing I see different is that you said they use the lands instead of supply trains,which is dumb since the first trains were being tested in Britain.The Napoleonic wars were between 1803-1815,remember that,do you think flexible supply trains and infrastructure would be available during those times?
Are you trolling?
I was talking about the style of warfare, if I were to talk about the battles i'd mention Napoleon's continual use of the Oblique order.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_order
And by supply train I obviously don't mean a literal train, I mean a logistical supply line spreading from the army to friendly territory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_(military)
@@SkipperPlaysTW Haha, he thought you meant literally trains, as railroad & all that It's funny as hell !
@@panzerkampfbigboy6319 How to make yourself look like a fool in 3 easy steps.
Sorry, but the title of the video is wrong.
It should be "Blïtzkrïëg" - Whät Möst Pëöplë Gët Wröng - Mÿth vs "Rëälïtÿ"
UM, that's a LAUT of dots. hehehehehe
@@ironraccoon3536 that's a punny pun
oh wait I didn't realize the Comment is 3 years old, I thought it was recent
One reason it seems so revolutionary is the Treaty of Versailles. Everyone else was struggling to integrate new technology into existing military structures. The German military all but ceased to exist, so when they began rearming they were able to incorporate those technologies from the ground up.
Your understanding of exactly how language functions is refreshing!
Thank you! I can reference this when I see the term used incorrectly.
At the risk of seeming ignorant and having things thrown at me I'll just ask: has anyone compared Blitzkrieg to the Russian concept of Deep Battle developed around the same time? Just from what you've shown us here, the major difference would seem to be Germany's use of superior command/control/communications doctrines (and possibly better radio equipment?), but there are other differences worth exploring.
As I understand it, Deep Battle was an combined arms philosophy in which waves of infantry were supported by light tanks, which were in turn supported by medium and then heavy tanks, artillery, and air support. It stressed multiple breakthroughs across the lines of battle which were then exploited by supporting reserves. Blitzkrieg, in contrast, emphasized the Schwerpunkt concept of one major breakthrough, but that's not something I can pretend I know much about...
I believe there were some conflicting schools of thought that had to "rub together" before the Soviets actually had a unified idea of Deep Operations (aka Deep Battle), but that's normal evolutionary pressure affecting the evolution of Soviet military thought and doctrine.
Anyhow, I just thought a comparison of the two philosophies would be interesting, and didn't recall seeing it in your videos.
Thanks for this video, as it opened some new lines of inquiry for me regarding Blitzkrieg.
Deep battle is often mistaken for wave tactics but it's actually carefully planned combined arms warfare
They're seemingly quite similar, though "deep battle" was a purpose-made doctrine whereas "Blitzkrieg", as the video points out, was just an evolution of already-existing Prussian-German tactics and strategy. That said, the Soviet "deep battle" doctrine almost never worked as well as they thought it would, largely because it involved the deep penetration of enemy lines by massed armor (which the Soviets had) followed up by motorized/mechanized infantry (which the Soviets did not have, at least until nearly the end of the war). Without infantry support, armor can be isolated and exposed to counterattack (which the German army excelled at), which blunted the effectiveness of such attacks at almost every turn.
I think tge reason why Deep Battle doesn't become a mature doctrine for so long was because of The Great Purge that basically wiped out most of The Red Army theorists like Tukhachevsky.
Same thing with "Banzai charges". Just a term Americans used to describe the infamous Japanese bayonet charges where they often yelled "Tenno Heika Banzai" meaning essentially "Long live [the Emperor]"
Great video, thanks for the careful research and layout!
Bullshit Bingo has to be the wörd of the year. Thats just magnificent.
That was very cool, so glad to get your definition of "Blitzkrieg", I did not know it was Prussian Maneuver Warfare in in a WW2 context. It's interesting that Erich von Manstein never used the word and he was the master of Prussian Maneuver Warfare, and many would say the greatest general of WW2.
Did this video just "Blitzbait" me or why am I that early?
Well. There was little mention of the Blitzkrieg in Germany because it was the normal state of affairs for them. For example, playing chess - taking pieces and moving them. External observers, on the other hand, come up with all sorts of beautiful terms like "Italian Defense", Florentine Opening, etc.
It would be interesting to make a video comparing the German tactics with the Soviet deep operation doctrine used in battles like Khalkhin Gol or the battle of Stalingrad (phase of encirclement)
Now this is history done properly. Excellent research.
It's interesting to see how both France and Germany reconsidered their doctrine, both doing so in part because they believed another conflict with the other was inevitable; But somehow they went in practically opposite directions...
Excellent work as always.
Last time I came this early people still got things about blitzkrieg wrong
Blitzkrieg! Capture flags 3x faster
Enlightening, as always. Thanks
Great overview brought quickly to a brilliant summation. A veritable blitzkrieg among military history videos.
I had a student teacher for two months and when he was teaching us on World War II, he said blitzkrieg, meaning lighting war, was the Germans bombing towns, cities, and villages. While the Luftwaffe was a key component of the German successes from 1939-1941/'42, the tactic of "blitzkrieg" also consisted of armored thrusts and the infantry mopping up enemy strong points.
The Bombing of Living Areas was part of a Terror Strategy but it had nothing todo with so called "Blitzkrieg" tactics. Bombing civilans doesn't help your military advance, so it would be stupid to diverge airfoce power to the bombing of cities while they could help your army advance by striking enemy defensive positions.
There were no strong enemy defenses. Blitzkrieg is used in modern doctrine as cutting off the head of the snake with deceive victories. Terror"rebellion" is a wrong word for it and they used their warmachines as propaganda. The parade was to drive through the towns as victorious having people celebrate their savior. This means that you take the victory before winning the war which has been around since Sun Tzu. It's not a new concept of faking a victory to make the people think of you as the winner. Next day another army would parade in the town as the winner and won their blitzkrieg.
In fact nobody knows exactly what it is that it's hard to counter exactly what it's not. But we know it has to do with media and with people and how them see the war as a parading army driving through the town celebrating the victory of the war.
Airplanes were a key but luftwaffe had at early stages air superiority and the uk stopped sending their interceptors without a bomber because the germans wouldn't send theirs if there wasn't a bomber.
It was mostly a parade. Julius Caesar had the dream that he would like the ancestors be celebrated as godly heroes and party for a whole week. This man was no different as he was celebrated as savior at first and then sugar rushed on the feeling. Just like Caesar he wrote his own biography and made up victories.
The best word for blitzkrieg is "feint war" because you haven't won any battles but you still claim that you won the war.
@@katastropholi they most likely confused blitzkrieg with the Blitz, the German bombing campaign.
@@ramennnoodle and here we have the same, Blitz was AFAIK never used by the Luftwaffe, it was a term coined by the British to describe it.
@@tzarcoal1018 It get's better: The Blitz was named in reference to the Blitzkrieg. This is almost Stand Alone Complex level of adding onto the legacy of something which never existed.
I thought Blitzkreig had a "The" before it, and refers exclusively to the Germans rapid invasion of France, as it was a "lighting war" compared to the Germans earlier attempt to take France in 1914-18. I based my conclusion on the fact that one stage of the Battle of Britain is frequently called "The Blitz".
Love the icons you use, and the subtlety of your language.
Another informative video by my favorite history channel.
Highly informative, thanks for the time and effort to put this one together!
I did find the links that popped up during the video quite distracting though, they seemed quite out of context for me-I kept thinking either 'how does this relate to what he's talking about?', which threw off my train of thought, or that the video was ending before you'd even really got started :)
wie immer tolles video und sehr Imaginativ
Wenn er die Videos nur auch auf Deutsch machen würde
Antwort: th-cam.com/video/x3p4dUFB_vU/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for breaking down the details!
That "Sürprise" Soldat-in-the-box icon was enough for a Thumb's Up!
For me Blitzkrieg is basically military tactic of the Germany in the beginning of the war, e.g. light tanks plus air superiority with rapid advancements and encirclements(most of the enemy forces are destroyed after being encircled).
How come you haven't done an assessment of the North Korea issue? That would be timely and inform people as opposed to the nonsense being spouted by some. For instance, 70% of South Koreans live in just three cities, and Seoul, South Korea is within artillery range of North Korea.
thought about that, but I have no proper sources on Korea. Also I am adapting stuff all the time, when I add current events it will basically break everything. Those videos take 10-20 hours to make.
You don't have to write about current events, but about the situation as it historically stands. For instance, technically both sides are still at war. Only a truce was signed. There was no final peace settlement. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement . I doubt many people remember that. But, if you have no sources, that is also understandable.
If you are interested in Korea, here's my very short analysis on it. Mostly on the attitudes of the South Koreans. They are, in the rudest and shortest description, the world's toughest pussy.
You just need to look at the latest exchange between Trump and Kim. While the exchange was at its height, the fire and fury phase from Trump, then Kim pointed his missiles at Guam (not Seoul, or American base in Korea), and even the President of the Philippines, Duterte said that North Korea is the security threat of Asia, the South Koreans were deafeningly silent. When the crisis was finally over, with Kim backing down, the President of South Korea then said: "there will be no war on the Korean peninsula without my approval".
Where was he when Trump said: "military option is ready?". The South Koreans are very much obsessed with the the imaginative Japanese threat instead of the real North Korea threat. They bought and developed their own jet fighters, as well as anti-air systems and ships to fight off an imaginary Japanese threat. A while ago, a South Korean island was shelled by the North's artillery and one of its vessel was torpedoed by a NK submarine. The very expensive South Korean Airforce and Navy did not retaliate with an airstrike on the offending gun battery (makes you wonder if they can silence North Korea's guns shooting at Seoul), or torpedoing the many North Korean vessels. The Japanese Self Defense force has a severe image problem: they use anime (Japanese cartoon) and AKB48 (a J-POP girl idol group) for its recruitment drive. I just can't take it seriously as a threat to South Korean. Then the repeated mentioning and crying for justice over "comfort women" (including atrocious provocations like putting a statue of comfort women in front of the embassy of Japan).
I am from Vietnam, and there, we still have stories of atrocities committed by South Korea troops (partner forces on the American side). We demanded apologies a few times, and it resulted in protests of South Korean veterans. The issue is almost forgotten in our country, mainly because our main export right now is Samsung products.
In short, the South Koreans are not serious about North Korea. They, in a way, outsourced their national defense to America. Edward Luttwak have compared North Korea to basically a mafia shaking down South Korea for protection money. South Korea has been very diligently paying off the North to go away. (Search for the article: "The Enabler" on Foreign Policy by Edward Luttwak).
Axel Pingol this was true for many years, but over the last decade the JSDFs have undergone an amazing turn around both in equipment as well as prestige, leading much higher levels of motivation and larger cohorts of annual enlistment.
@John Moore check out Blinkov's Battleground
My compliments to the chef. Short and sweet and so simple.
love your werk man!
The Chinese already use the so-called Blitzkrieg tactic some more than 3000 thousand years ago, with Chariots and Heavy Melee Infantries. Then, they did it again some 1000 thousands years later with Heavy Shock Cavalries and Pikemens during the Sino-Hun War. Alexander the Great did also use the so-called Blitzkrieg tactic to conquer the known world with Heavy Shock Cavalries with Pikemens as well. The Prussians again used the so-called Blitzkrieg tactic with towed artillery, Dragoons and Line Infantries in the 1860s.
S0, the "German Blitzkrieg" tactic is basically tried and true military philosophy with new technologies and modern methods.
Blitzkrieg is more about movement, cooperation, and concentration on an operational level. The use of a particular type of force on a tactical level isn't much related to Blitzkrieg. For example, in terms of transport mechanisation the German army was a laggard, but it used what maneover it had well operationally.
In the end issues with logistics, including lack of mechanisation, meant issues with the strategic level for the German army. The war in North Africa was one of frequently better German operational level tactics, but with logistical factors finally winning for the Allies.
Grand Moff Tarkin You Chinese always claim everything which is good.
Make me justice
Thank you for the awesome video :D
Eventually, "blitzkrieg" can be defined as the initial period of hostilities with the following components: surprise, aircraft, artillery and armor, even paratroopers, attacking in cooperation so the fast penetration of enemy defenses is achieved. When armored or mechanized infantry follow up to secure gained territory it is no longer blitzkrieg but a conventional war, especially when the enemy has regrouped and his resistance is organised.
That´s also when problems can start with supply: fuel, ammo, food, maintenance and health.
Amazing video. Once again I'm shocked by how much misinformation and even purposeful disinformation is out there, but at least I'm not surprised anymore. Please keep up the great work!
Blitzkrieg Bop!
Thank you for the well explained viewpoint on the origins of a word.
It would certainly make sense that "lightning warfare" would be an old doctrine that was only able to manifest in WWII.
Blitzrieg was a new spin on old tactics. It used new tech, including tanks and aircraft, to accomplish goals that had been goals for centuries or millennia
ah
We also saw the limits of Blitzkrieg tactics on the eastern steppes, when the tanks got so far ahead and stretched supply lines to the limits, leaving infantry to catch up
Thank you for making this
The principles of quick engagements, aggressive defenses, and maneuverability are covered in The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, nearly 300 years before ww2. Seems like a theme.
Possibly the most prevalent historical inaccuracy since Horned Viking Helmets.
So most "importantly, the Radio", are you telling us that Blitzkrieg worked because the Germans had the Funk(wagens)!
:p
I'll get my coat!
I found that the term although specific to WW2 it was born out of Germany's economic weakness. To avoid any form of attrition the quick victory allows for encirclement and quick land grab. Even if this was an old form of warfare, it still stemmed from a position of economic weakness.
That was a great explanation. Thank you.
so basically its just a meme :D
I know we exchanged words with differing points of view last video, but I like to think you may have taken my words to heart atleast a little bit. THIS is the MHV I have come to know and love. Good on you brother. Thank you for the insightful content!
Sorry to break your bubble: this video was uploaded 1 week ago, your comments were made this Monday, if I remember correctly.
You should not forget that I change a lot of stuff all the time, just look at my first video, then my 20th, then my 40th etc. some changes stick, some not, some are post-poned, some are refined, etc. a lot of stuff is cut short or delayed due to time-constraints. Other stuff due to bad views, problems with demonetization, etc.
just look at the Binkov video, it was recorded in May. Or the Navy Corpsman Interview, it was done in 2016...
Not to be against your channel, but how is any of that against my point? This video was uploaded well after our conversation? I hold nothing against you and your schedule thus far. Perhaps it was created for distribution before our conversation, but that has no weight against our personal conversation. My man, i'm genuinely only trying to help you because I enjoy your content by being upfront on the verge of abrasive if you view it as such.
> This video was uploaded well after our conversation?
no, long before it. So your remarks couldn't have any impact on the video at all. I looked in my stats, it was recorded on the 12th of August, your comments were made on the 14th of August. (So I was off by one day in previous statement)
Yeah, I understand that you are genuinely trying to help, else I wouldn't answer at all.
lmfao wheyyyyyyyyyy
As I understand it the combination use of armor with airpower was actually tried towards the end of the First World War and I think I was under General Monash who I believe was an Australian officer in the British Army (or New Zealand). As for the remark about the radio making all the difference in the Germans' lightening attacks along with the concept going back to past German commander I remember from a text book about Marshal Motlke (I misspelled his name) who commanded his troops from his office by using the telegraph. Moreover, the Prussians took a lot of tricks they learned by observing the Americans during the American Civil War including the telegraph and the train which made their rapid attacks against the French possible.
Nice video. I'm surprised that there have been no comments or references to USAF Col. John Boyd and his advocacy of Maneuver Warfare, and how "Blitzkrieg" and other historical applications of Maneuver warfare inspired his work, which eventually inspired the Modern U.S. Marines Maneuver Warfare doctrine.
Okay, from now on let's not use the word "Blitzkrieg" but instead "Prussian-Maneuver-Mechanized-Radio-Warfare" (Preussischer Bewegungskrieg mit Panzerwaffe und Radiokoordination (PBKPzRaK). See the difference ?
The reason a buzzword works is that, like any new word, is associated with a new reality. Ask Thag Simmons : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thagomizer
IMO, the problem is not so much using the word, but knowing where it comes from.
yes, he said even modern professional historians think the term was being used by the nazi germans.
Traditionally Prussian Styled Mechanized Radio-Based Maneuver
Have you done a video on prussian military tactics or is that not something covered by your channel? if not then are there any videos you would recommend i watch?
Isn't it just very convenient for the French and British to explain their appalling defeat in 1940 on a "new" doctrine that took them completely unawares? Instead of the fact, that they were complacent in the 30's.
Please seriously stop these messages at the middle of the video. I know it's TH-cam who tells us to do it but it's just bullshit.
And it's even worse for your channel cause these messages are simply distracting and make us loose track on what you say and show
Completely agree. It's just like that 'REMEMBER TO LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE' mantra. You quickly learn to tune it out, or you start to outright despise it.
plenty of TH-camrs do these, yet they say it out loud and waste your time. I think this is actually the better solution, because it looks pretty good and it doesn't interrupt the flow of my speech.
i agree with kenjii, i got distracted from it also, but maybe its just in the first videos when we dont know these messages. Sorry for my bad english x)
Military History Visualized You should keep doing it as I don't mind. It seems people can't be bothered to rewind the video 5 seconds to remind themselves what you were saying.
Could you please make them stand out, but in a non-annoying way?It should neither distract the viewer, nor make him think that the image has to do with your content.
Big takeaway here is that blitzkrieg is not a strategy. It is a form of tactics, as you described, that the Germans later tried to use as a strategy in Russia. That's where it came up short.
As far as I know, "Blitzkrieg" is also a fancy term to describe Guderian's and Rommel's interpretation of *Kampf der Verbundenen Waffen* (combined arms) in combination with *Führen von vorne* (frontline command), which led to rapid advancements of german panzer divisions in the eraly stages of war... this became also only possible because of widespread availability of radios in the german heer.
One of the part of WW2 warfare seldom talked is radio intelligence and how vital role it played.
This is amazing thank you so much.
YEAH!!! THE ROCK IN THE OUTRO IS BACK!!!
*throws around head furiously*
Nicely done
Since the beginning of recorded history just about every attacking army has had the same goal - out-maneuver and surround your enemy, and when possible bring overwhelming strength. A big part of that strategy is trying to get behind your enemy and cut his supply lines. (One of the Prussian officers [Clausewitz?] was a big proponent of the defensive offense, which meant getting offensively behind your enemy and occupying a point that was vital to him so that he had to come and attack you to get it back, and meanwhile you've dug in and fortified, enjoying the benefits of being defensive.)
The German and Prussian armies had long followed the same strategy of penetrating and surrounding, giving it a name - Kesselschlacht (Cauldron Battle). Blitzkrieg was merely the same old thing, but the addition of tanks, trucks and aircraft meant that a such a battle could happen in days instead of weeks or months, so it seemed lightning fast to armies that had spent almost 5 years in trenches in WWI. It's a millenniums-old strategy using modern technology. Today we call it Combined Arms warfare.
If "Blitzkrieg" means anything, it refers to the successful integration of tactical air with mobile ground attack. The German attacks in 1939 were the first time that an attacker was able to attack and even disorganize the rear echelons (artillery, supply, and friendly air) of a defender while simultaneously attacking the front lines. Indeed, esp in the case of Barbarossa, the first blows occured far behind the border, esp airfields, creating confusion and sheer information overload on the commanders that ultimately led to historic encirclements that panzers sometimes achieved before the defending commanders were even aware they were about to happen, because the defender was unable to get aerial observation reports.
This importance of denying a defender the ability to conduct air recon is also why German "Blitzkriegs" stopped happening wherever Germany lost air superiority.
This. It doesn't matter if the Germans used the term, it's a useful description.
@@daviddechamplain5718 Thank you!
An example of this blitzkrieg stratergy before 1939 was the often forgotten efforts of sir John Monash of the AIF at the battle of Le Hamel with successful use of combined tank aircraft and radio use to secure an objective. The book "Monash's Masterpiece" by Peter fitzsimons covered this very well
Excellent breakdown.
Excellent article!