Jump to content

There is no such thing as "Blitzkrieg"


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by ExplodingMonkey:

blitz·krieg

n.

A swift, sudden military offensive, usually by combined air and mobile land forces.

[German : Blitz, lightning (from Middle High German blitze, from bliczen, to flash, from Old High German blekkazzen) + Krieg, war (from Middle High German kriec, from Old High German krēg, stubbornness).]

This is a silly and pointless thread. Here, if pointless discussions float your boat, try this one:

Did you know colors don't really exist? They are just a condition of what our eyes perceive. Discuss. :rolleyes:

You're a moron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Name calling is often used when a person no longer can make a case for themselves. They have become frustrated that they cannot get their point across, so they resort to name calling in an attempt to make themselves "come out on top" of the discussion.

By offering an ignorant assessment of my personal character you are indeed validating my point. This is a silly and pointless thread. You may as well argue if there are fish in the sea or not. Just because something doesn't fit into your narrow vision of the world does not mean it is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that your assessment of the thread as 'silly and pointless' is moronic. The same goes for your analogy with fish in the sea and that you are now trying to paint Michael as the one who started the insults. Is that better?

The thread served a purpose, even though Michael's initial premise was wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg, but it shifted in its meaning even during the war. Being wrong on the premise however does not make the thread silly and pointless - these fora are there for information exchange and learning as much as for discussions about mods, or campaigns. If it bothers you so much, don't open the thread.

Quite apart from the fact that I learned something about the Lewis gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Apologies for the seperate thread, but as the old one has been taken over by SuperSpammer and his meaningless googled statistics, and now apparently a Nazi-apologist who is claiming the Germans were the "good guys", I'll post this for anyone interested. This is verbatim out of Cooper, but bear in mind that John Ellis, in the seminal work "Brute Force", echoes a lot of what he says, and certainly backs up JasonC point for point on economics, etc. Both books are worthy of a thorough read.

Here then, from Matthew Cooper, The German Army 1933-1945: Its Political and Military Failure

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Blitzkrieg is a term inevitably linked with the German Army and the Second World War. From a convenient way of explaining the unknown, it evolved into a strict definition of a new form of warfare believed to be the basis for the devastating early victories of Hitler's Germany. The essence of Blitzkrieg was seen to lie not so much in the use of airborne units, which was, in any case, limited and of a purely tactical nature, nor in the activities of the dive-bomber, which were designed essentially to support the ground forces, but in the handling of the new armoured formations. As Liddel Hart wrote in a letter to Guderian: 'The secret of Blitzkrieg lay partly in the tactical combination of tanks and aircraft, partly in the unexpectedness of the storke in direction and time, but above all in the "follow through - the way that a breakthrough (the tactical penetration of the front) was exploited by a deep strategic penetration carried out by an armoured force racing ahead of the main army, and operating independently.' This is a concept which, remaining intact and unquestioned for the past thirty-five years (NOTE - the book was published in the 1970s), has been raised to the status of a self-evident truth. But Blitzkrieg is a myth. It is a word devoid of any meaning, having substance not in fact but in fiction, serving only to mislead and deceive. For Hitler and the German military establishment, the High Commands of the Army and the Wehrmacht, did not espouse a new, revolutionary idea of war; the German Armed Forces were not organised, equipped or directed according to new, revolutionary principles; and the German form of war in the years 1939 to 1942 was the product not of one new, revolutionary strategy, but of two strategies - one well-defined and traditional, the other ill-expressed and novel - whose mutual conflict went far to hamper the practice of the mode of warfare popularly imagined to be Blitzkrieg.

...

A further illusion, in part resulting from the idea of Blitzkrieg, also remains prevalent: it is that the German Army of 1939 was a well-trained force of overwhelming numbers possessing the best of modern weapons, fully prepared for a modern, mobile European war....such illusions before and during the war are easy to understand; they arose from the impression of overwhelming power and thorough preparedness shown by the Reich's Armed Forces through their outwardly impressive rearmament and decisive early victories, and were fosted by skilful propaganda, mass parades, and the general militarisation of society under National Socialism. Even after the war, when the reality of the Army's state in 1939 was revealed for all to see, these beliefs remained....

Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. The outbreak of general war in 1939 took the German military leaders by surprise; the Army that marched triumphantly into Poland was one constituted not for war but for peace, and had still to be reorganised into a well-equipped, well-trained instrument of aggression....Hitler's war abruptly interrupted this progression, and ensured that the Army was never to overcome the major defects with which it began the conflict. Consequently, the reasons for the German Army's initial victories lay not so much within itself, but in the weakness of its enemies....

(Bold face emphasis added)

So, who in the other Blitzkrieg thread is still buying Goebbels' propaganda, eh?

Besides von Churov, I mean. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ExplodingMonkey:

Name calling is often used when a person no longer can make a case for themselves. They have become frustrated that they cannot get their point across, so they resort to name calling in an attempt to make themselves "come out on top" of the discussion.

By offering an ignorant assessment of my personal character you are indeed validating my point. This is a silly and pointless thread. You may as well argue if there are fish in the sea or not. Just because something doesn't fit into your narrow vision of the world does not mean it is invalid.

Good sentence structure! Still a moron.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a moron.
LOL. Yeah, I've encountered this attitude from MD in several threads. If you don't agree with him, you're stupid and have opened yourself up to insults. Thankfully there are still some intelligent, objective debators in the forums such that we can ignore guys like this.

The thread served a purpose, even though

Michael's initial premise was wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg, but it shifted in its meaning even during the war. Being wrong on the premise however does not make the thread silly and pointless - these fora are there for information exchange and learning as much as for discussions about mods, or campaigns. If it bothers you so much, don't open the thread

This is hilarious. Absolute certainty that another person's OPINION is wrong. What makes you think that anyone's opinion is subject to your singular judgement?

As for the last line, dude, you've been chasing me around the forums trying to label me a Nazi because you didn't like MY opinion. If it bothers you so much, why did you open the thread? Oh yeah, I forgot...to defend the rest of the community from my nazi-rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by athlete:

This is hilarious. Absolute certainty that another person's OPINION is wrong. What makes you think that anyone's opinion is subject to your singular judgement?

You are obviously not very bright and struggle with reading comprehension. I was talking about Mike's statement that there was no such thing as Blitzkrieg. That is wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg.

Originally posted by athlete:

As for the last line, dude, you've been chasing me around the forums trying to label me a Nazi because you didn't like MY opinion. If it bothers you so much, why did you open the thread? Oh yeah, I forgot...to defend the rest of the community from my nazi-rubbish.

Maybe it is just the aforementioned dimness and lack of reading comprehension on your part. Alternatively I think you are in need of psychiatric help if you believe I have been labelling you anything, and chasing you round the forums. It is you who is doing the stalking. Your time would be better employed backing up your statements in other threads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by athlete:

This is hilarious. Absolute certainty that another person's OPINION is wrong.

Since I am feeling philosophical. What is hilarious about that?

Originally posted by athlete:

What makes you think that anyone's opinion is subject to your singular judgement?

I judge because I can. So can you and anyone else. Nothing singular about it. By posting your opinion on an internet discussion forum you make it available for judgement by others. If that bothers you, don't post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of what you meant, and it's funny because an opinion can't be wrong; in my opinion.

I'm done with you. You are not worth responding to anymore. It's painfully clear that you don't want to debate, you want to insult and prop yourself up by trying to annoy me. If it makes you feel good, fire away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by athlete:

I'm aware of what you meant, and it's funny because an opinion can't be wrong; in my opinion.

Common fallacy. In my opinion, the earth is flat. In my opinion, Salmons are Marsupials who live on trees and eat pencils. In my opinion, John D. Salt is a female svelte 20-something Britney Spears look-alike. In my opinion, Stalin was a humanist. In my opinion, Al Capone was a worthy citizen and valuable member of law-abiding society.

I could go on all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay! The old chestnut, "An opinion can't be wrong"

So if my opinion was that a thin sheet of glass was quite unbreakable by anything short of a nuclear blast, would I be right? Or at least not wrong. Opinion is, IMHO, the induhvidual's assesment of the facts available to them. Thus, being based on facts which can be wrong, an opinion can also be wrong.

Edit: Andreas said it better.

Furthermore, had I been still drinking tea when I read the bit about John Salt, I'd be hunting him down for the destruction of my computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by athlete:

This is hilarious. Absolute certainty that another person's OPINION is wrong. What makes you think that anyone's opinion is subject to your singular judgement?

You are obviously not very bright and struggle with reading comprehension. I was talking about Mike's statement that there was no such thing as Blitzkrieg. That is wrong. There was such a thing as Blitzkrieg.

Originally posted by athlete:

As for the last line, dude, you've been chasing me around the forums trying to label me a Nazi because you didn't like MY opinion. If it bothers you so much, why did you open the thread? Oh yeah, I forgot...to defend the rest of the community from my nazi-rubbish.

Maybe it is just the aforementioned dimness and lack of reading comprehension on your part. Alternatively I think you are in need of psychiatric help if you believe I have been labelling you anything, and chasing you round the forums. It is you who is doing the stalking. Your time would be better employed backing up your statements in other threads. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yay! The old chestnut, "An opinion can't be wrong"

So if my opinion was that a thin sheet of glass was quite unbreakable by anything short of a nuclear blast, would I be right?

Well, for my part there is underlying assumption of the capacity to reason when I say an opinion can't be wrong. I suppose if we want to tread on the side of lunacy...

There were Christians that refused to fight Gladiators because they believed that God commanded them not to commit murder. Subject to this OPINION, (or interpretation of the facts), the Brits and the French ought to have trusted in God to punish Germany for any percieved crimes against humanity on judgement day, and allowed themselves to be destroyed and ascend into paradise. Somewhere between this extremist view and the other (i.e. we ought to have attacked Germany at the first opportunity), lies my opinion that we should not have declared war on Germany when we did for the reasons we did. The Swiss agreed with me. The US agreed with me..It's not pro-Nazis unless you would count those with strong Christian beliefs, the Swiss and the US as being pro-Nazi...but keep calling me a Nazi if it makes you happy. Rabbi Ziegler and I will have a laugh about it on Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been watching this debate rage on. Kudos to Athlete for avoiding the trap of getting in a mudslinging match despite much provocation.

Second, both sides have made some interesting points, (if your willing to wade through the personal attacks), and I would say that it's too close to call so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by athlete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yay! The old chestnut, "An opinion can't be wrong"

So if my opinion was that a thin sheet of glass was quite unbreakable by anything short of a nuclear blast, would I be right?

Well, for my part there is underlying assumption of the capacity to reason when I say an opinion can't be wrong. I suppose if we want to tread on the side of lunacy...

There were Christians that refused to fight Gladiators because they believed that God commanded them not to commit murder. Subject to this OPINION, (or interpretation of the facts), the Brits and the French ought to have trusted in God to punish Germany for any percieved crimes against humanity on judgement day, and allowed themselves to be destroyed and ascend into paradise. Somewhere between this extremist view and the other (i.e. we ought to have attacked Germany at the first opportunity), lies my opinion that we should not have declared war on Germany when we did for the reasons we did. The Swiss agreed with me. The US agreed with me..It's not pro-Nazis unless you would count those with strong Christian beliefs, the Swiss and the US as being pro-Nazi...but keep calling me a Nazi if it makes you happy. Rabbi Ziegler and I will have a laugh about it on Saturday. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Profhist:

I've been watching this debate rage on. Kudos to Athlete for avoiding the trap of getting in a mudslinging match despite much provocation.

Second, both sides have made some interesting points, (if your willing to wade through the personal attacks), and I would say that it's too close to call so far.

Ok, now this is getting bad and i guess more hilarious. But admins, please check the ip of this fella(ProfHis, ahem, our newest member). I'd be willing to bet it's the same as athlete. Which would constitute a banning correct? Not that i really care.

P.S. Still waiting on the beef stew. ;)

[ June 09, 2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: MeatEtr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you asked almost anyone who posts to this forum what blitzkrieg is they could tell you. Heinz Guderian, Hans von Luck and many others appeared to know it’s meaning as well.

Blitzkrieg: (verb) 1. Fight a quick and surprising war.

The dictionary knows what it is. I would suggest Cooper and Michael could use another pint or three, blitzkrieg exists and people worldwide know what it’s meaning is. I sure liked that pale ale I had in Vancouver a few weeks ago, they said it was local., damned if I can remember its brand name though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Abbott:

If you asked almost anyone who posts to this forum what blitzkrieg is they could tell you. Heinz Guderian, Hans von Luck and many others appeared to know it’s meaning as well.

Blitzkrieg: (verb) 1. Fight a quick and surprising war.

The dictionary knows what it is. I would suggest Cooper and Michael could use another pint or three, blitzkrieg exists and people worldwide know what it’s meaning is. I sure liked that pale ale I had in Vancouver a few weeks ago, they said it was local., damned if I can remember its brand name though.

WW II was a quick war? Wow. What's your definition of quick, then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...