Blitzkrieg : the best tactic ?

[Finski]

@shri
It would be great if you could include the not-England parts of the UK into these comments regarding the British Army and not call them English alone. A common misunderstanding I know. It just gets rather tiring as a Scot to have dead relatives' sacrifices (some of whom lost their lives in WW2), to essentially be ignored as if they weren't there. Nothing personal, just annoying 'sall.

 

[Opanashc]

@shri
It would be great if you could include the not-England parts of the UK into these comments regarding the British Army and not call them English alone. A common misunderstanding I know. It just gets rather tiring as a Scot to have dead relatives' sacrifices (some of whom lost their lives in WW2), to essentially be ignored as if they weren't there. Nothing personal, just annoying 'sall.

Now you know, how all the non-Russians living in Russia feel.
Albeit, us Russians, consider the word "Russian" to be an adjective, applicable to all who support Russia, regardless of ethnic origin.

 

[Secret Master]

It would be interesting to know what was the doctrine of the french army in 1940 ?

Grand Plan, I would wager. Same as UK.

Given the French reliance on and quality of artillery, could you make a case that they were heading towards superior firepower, but just didn't get very far along the tree before being defeated?

 

[Opanashc]

Given the French reliance on and quality of artillery, could you make a case that they were heading towards superior firepower, but just didn't get very far along the tree before being defeated?

Possible. However, I was going off this:

Grand Battleplan: This could be thought of as the traditional doctrine path, and is the default choice for Britain, France, Italy, and Japan.

Development Diary 4

 

[Secret Master]

Possible. However, I was going off this:

Development Diary 4

Fair enough. It's been so long, I forgot about that.

 

[hkrommel]

Warfare works in this way, Person 1 comes up with some new tactics (maybe Grand Battery, maybe Blitzkrieg, maybe Shock and Awe), if Person 2 (the defender) really believes in his own troops, his advantage of defense, the advantage of terrain and sticks to the plan made, rehearsed etc and doesn't lose his nerve, the "New Tactic" dissolves and the attacker loses.

That seems like a gross oversimplification. No amount of confidence in the world, even on the best plan, would have saved Poland in 1939.

 

[Opanashc]

That seems like a gross oversimplification. No amount of confidence in the world, even on the best plan, would have saved Poland in 1939.

How about critical thinking? Their decision to decline Soviet help doomed them. Did they not know of the theoretical speed of an advance possible French attack into Germany?

 

[hkrommel]

How about critical thinking? Their decision to decline Soviet help doomed them. Did they not know of the theoretical speed of an advance possible French attack into Germany?

Then they would be a Soviet puppet. Needless to say, this was not an acceptable option to them.

Either way my comment was more directed at people oversimplifying warfare. It happens far too often, and reductionism is quite problematic when it comes to historiography.

 

[Opanashc]

Then they would be a Soviet puppet. Needless to say, this was not an acceptable option to them.
Either way my comment was more directed at people oversimplifying warfare. It happens far too often, and reductionism is quite problematic when it comes to historiography.

Millions of polish residents would survive. And not necessarily they would become a puppet - albeit the odds were for that development. In the end, they became a puppet AND suffered the wrath of war and occupation.

 

[hkrommel]

Millions of polish residents would survive. And not necessarily they would become a puppet - albeit the odds were for that development. In the end, they became a puppet AND suffered the wrath of war and occupation.

Some people would rather lose freely than willingly give up that freedom I suppose.

 

[Opanashc]

Some people would rather lose freely than willingly give up that freedom I suppose.

Who gave them the right to sacrifice others in the name of that freedom? Because Poland definitely wasn't a democracy in late 1930s.

 

[hkrommel]

Who gave them the right to sacrifice others in the name of that freedom? Because Poland definitely wasn't a democracy in late 1930s.

You should really read some social contract theory.

BTW if for some reason you want to discuss this further then PM me, this is OT enough.

 

[D Inqu]

Then they would be a Soviet puppet.

I don't see why that would be the case. A country which preserves its military and politcal structure certainly has a better chance of retaining independence than one which loses all.

 

[hkrommel]

I don't see why that would be the case. A country which preserves its military and politcal structure certainly has a better chance of retaining independence than one which loses all.

I'm sure the Red Army would totally leave the country they've occupied with no demands regarding their sovereignty, especially considering the supremely benevolent nature of Stalin, who completely believed in the total, non-coerced self-determination of the USSR's neighbors, like Finland. /s

 

[Aries666]

The best tactic is to achieve as many of your goals as possible without starting a war while at the same time building a mechanism to further your goals by other means when that tactic can no longer achieve your goals.

How very Sun Tzu

 

[Opanashc]

I'm sure the Red Army would totally leave the country they've occupied with no demands regarding their sovereignty, especially considering the supremely benevolent nature of Stalin, who completely believed in the total, non-coerced self-determination of the USSR's neighbors, like Finland.

Hmm. Finland's aggression towards Soviet Russia, twice. Helsinki's talks with anybody about an offensive alliance against Moscow. Talks of "Greater Finland" in the Finnish government. How would Washington react to Canada's talks with China about curbing US power?

 

[hkrommel]

How would Washington react to Canada's talks with China about curbing US power?

Probably laugh, and send a couple carrier groups to dispel any delusions of grandeur. Then again since we haven't invaded our neighbors since the 1840s (and even then that was totally different than the Winter War) I doubt this situation would arise.

You have a very interesting view of history, my friend. A good number of historians rightly identify the USSR's foreign policy as predatory (look at the M-R pact, the Baltic countries weren't threatening anybody). If you honestly think Finland was a threat to the USSR you've got a bit of research to do.

 

[D Inqu]

I'm sure the Red Army would totally leave the country they've occupied with no demands regarding their sovereignty, especially considering the supremely benevolent nature of Stalin, who completely believed in the total, non-coerced self-determination of the USSR's neighbors, like Finland. /s

Well, yes. I know, you are trying to be sarcastic, but fact checking is always good. The Soviets went into Belgrade during WW2 and later "totally left" the country. Yugoslavia never joined the Warsaw Pact and remained independent throughout the cold war.

The Soviets also "totally left" Austria, which wasn't made communist.

With a Polish goverment which retains its regular army and government, the Soviets would also leave. Assuming the Poles hold on their capital, there is little the Soviets would do. The communist movement would become more popular, and the Polish government may lean more towards Communist, but it would be nothing like being under full control like IRL

 

[hkrommel]

The Soviets also "totally left" Austria, which wasn't made communist.

Most of the country was occupied by the Western Allies.

The Soviets went into Belgrade during WW2 and later "totally left" the country. Yugoslavia never joined the Warsaw Pact and remained independent throughout the cold war.

Yugoslavia is a rather special case in that regard. Established partisans and distance from the USSR itself were a large part of that decision.

With a Polish goverment which retains its regular army and government, the Soviets would also leave. Assuming the Poles hold on their capital, there is little the Soviets would do. The communist movement would become more popular, and the Polish government may lean more towards Communist

Given Soviet *ahem* support of Polish partisans, I would think they would let the Poles take the brunt of the fighting, while ensuring that Soviet-friendly individuals reach positions of power, etc. I highly doubt Poland retains its independence without some significant threats from the Western Allies.

 

[Opanashc]

Then again since we haven't invaded our neighbors since the 1840s (and even then that was totally different than the Winter War) I doubt this situation would arise.

Spain in 1898 would disagree.

You have a very interesting view of history, my friend. A good number of historians rightly identify the USSR's foreign policy as predatory (look at the M-R pact, the Baltic countries weren't threatening anybody). If you honestly think Finland was a threat to the USSR you've got a bit of research to do.

Same predatory behavior as that of France in 1871-1914, Poland in 1918-20 (6 wars in 2 years!) and 1938, UK in 1700-1900, US in Hawaii etc.
Finland by itself wasn't a threat - but Finland could be used as a spring-board. After all, US sponsored Bay of Pigs, in order to prevent a situation like happened in October 1962 from arising. Do you condemn Kennedy for Bay of Pigs? If not, then you are a hypocrite, for denying one country same thing you approve in another.