Did Blitzkrieg Overcome the Deadlock of Total War - Essay Example

Did Blitzkrieg overcome the deadlock of ‘Total War’? Introduction The deadlock and impasse thrust upon by the First World War on Germany were many and varied. However, the nation witnessed an unbelievable resurrection from the perils of the First World War under the military dictatorship of Adolph Hitler. The military expeditions and invasions undertaken by the Nazi Germany resembled that of ‘Total War’ in many respects. For Ludendorff, “total war meant simply the total mobilization of all human and material resources for unlimited warfare under the total control of a military dictatorship”1. Ludendorff goes on to explain that the whole nation under the guidance of the military dictator aim at military conquest; similarly, “unlimited war aims, the idea of unconditional surrender, and the complete subjugation of the enemy play an important role in total war”2. Hitler’s Nazi regime displayed all these characteristics and, in a way, Hitler was influential enough to convince his followers that he was striving towards establishing Germany’s supremacy in Europe and this marked a series of complete victories for Germany whereas the Allies were subjected to crushing defeats in the initial stages of the Blitzkrieg. Similarly, civilians played crucial roles in total war as they also became military targets; the Blitzkrieg against the French was characterized by extreme cruelty and atrocity on the civilian population. Even though the Blitzkrieg began with Germany’s attack on Poland in 1939, the preparations for the war had been started long ago. Even in 1936, Hitler has this idea of the total war in his mind that he asked the army to be “fit for use in four years” and the economy “ready for war in four years” and he successfully implemented his plans3. Even though the Nazi regime’s war is regarded as a racial one motivated by its racist policies, Germany’s meteoric rearmament after 1933 was directed at waging a total war making use of all its national resources and this paper seeks to explore whether the Blitzkrieg could overcome the deadlock of ‘Total War’. Blitzkrieg: the ‘Lightning war Blitzkrieg refers to the warfare practised by the Nazi German armies during the beginning of the Second World War and Blitzkrieg or the “lightning war” at its best reflects the German tactic of fighting a quick and surprising war or attack by land, sea and air against the enemy, creating panic amongst the civilian population and giving the enemies no time and chance to retaliate. The German tactic was first developed and practised by the German army officer Hans Guderian during Adolph Hitler’s regime and was thoroughly based on speed, coordination, movement and surprise. The basic strategy of the new approach was to destroy all rail lines, communication centres and major rail links by plane attack firstly and then to attack the enemies mercilessly with the tanks supported by the infantry before the enemy could recover their senses4 . In fact, the concept of Blitzkrieg was developed as an effective solution to the trench warfare system of First World War. The Blitzkrieg tactics of Germany proved to be superior to the war time tactics of Poland in September 1939, Denmark, Norway, and the Low Countries in April-May 1940, and finally France in June 1940. The Blitzkrieg was first manifested in the form of the Storm Troops, a group of elite infantry units known for their momentum and speed. Later, when they were converted into Blitzkrieg, they “evolved into modern mobile warfare” with “heavily armored tanks supported by infantry, motorized infantry, artillery and air power, would rapidly drive through enemy lines to capture strategic enemy positions or to encircle the enemy”5 . Hitler specially maintained a group of storm troopers who were specially trained to meet the requirements of his regime’s new war tactic of Blitzkrieg. The primary aim of the storm troopers was to break away the trench system of the allies. The troop had a greater “proportion of machineguns per unit compared to regular infantry”; very often “the trenches were suppressed first by artillery then by machine gun fire as shocktroops armed with grenades assaulted the trench systems”6 . Similarly, “Stormtroopers were plentifully equipped with mortars and flamethrowers or purpose-built two man crew "Granatenwerfer" (eng = grenade thrower) that also could fire signal rockets - all useful in close-range trench fighting”7. As Cook suggests, the Blitzkrieg was ‘an innovative and fast-moving type of warfare’ that “emphasized the use of tanks, aircraft, flexibility, and mobility to rapidly accomplish battlefield objectives”8. One of the major strategies of the Blitzkrieg was to terrorize the enemy through the use of behind-the-lines activities, attack from air, and by spreading rumours among the civilian population to terrorise them. Besides, the German Stuka dive bombers and the various Guderians panzer divisions also played crucial roles in Germany’s victories. Truppenführung is the basic text based on which the German art of war is built. As Condell and Zabecki observe “Truppenführung effectively incorporated weapons introduced in World War 1, such as tanks, trucks, armoured cars, and air craft, into the German tradition of maneuver warfare and tactical flexibility”9 . However, Germany experimented with the Truppenführung doctrines and adapted many of the underlying principles; for instance, Germany realized in the 1930s that the concept of combining cavalry and motorized troops was ineffective. Similarly, the Panzer division which was not mentioned in the Truppenführung was a later innovation of the German troupes. However, it is to be noted that the United States made the best use of the Truppenführung principles when it published its Army doctrine in 1941 and adapted many of its principles in accordance with the German experience of Second World War. Blitzkrieg of Poland, September 1939 The German forces launched its Blitzkrieg tactic across the German-Poland border on September 1, 2009. The strategy was to attack Poland from the eastern side from more than 10 points simultaneously while the Soviet troops moved westward Poland. Very often, Poland had to fight reverse as the Germans attacked from behind the lines. Germany had entered into a non-aggression pact with Russia, the only power in the region that could have provided practical assistance to Poland. France and England, even though they had offered to assist Poland, could not get sufficient time to bring their troops for Poland’s rescue. Volumes have been written on the new war tactics that Germany employed on Poland in 1939. The operation named as Case White (Fall Weiss) is being hailed as “a devastating new type of mechanized warfare” where “highly mobile German formations, spear-headed by massed columns of tanks and working in close cooperation with the German air force (Luftwaffe), attacked on a very narrow front, making deep penetrations of the Polish defenses within hours”10. The speed and swiftness of the attack was thoroughly blitzkrieg in nature: German tanks scattered the enemy completely, the behind the front line attack trapped the bewildered Polish, the dive bombers cleared strategic points and finally the organized artillery and the mechanized infantry wiped away any remaining resistance from the Polish. Similarly, the surrounded Polish forces were also cut off from supply and communications and they had no other alternatives but to surrender to the Nazi force. Many of the Western powers underestimated Germany’s new war tactics and attributed Poland’s failure to its incompetence or backwardness in military power. However, the greatest offensive in the West made by Hitler known as the Case Yello (Fall Gelb) was an eye opener for the Western powers to realise the effectiveness of Germany’s blitzkrieg war tactics and strategies. As Citino (1999) puts it rightly, “with a rapidity that shocked both the military experts and the world at large, Germany’s tank and mechanized formations shredded the French, British, Belgian, and Dutch armies”11. The war could drive away the British from all over the Europe and it undoubtedly proved the military genius of German generals Erich Von Manstein and Heinz Guderian. Blitzkrieg of Scandinavia, March-April 1940 The conquest of Poland prompted the British and the French to declare war on Germany in September 1939. However, Germany continued its Blitzkrieg expedition by conquering Denmark and Norway within no time through combined operations by the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe. Even though the British and Norwegian forces put up strong opposition the German Blitzkrieg tactics were too good for them. Blitzkrieg of the Low Countries, May 1940 Later, Germany spread its Blitzkrieg fashion of warfare to the Low Countries such as Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg in May 1940. Following the new Blitzkrieg warfare method “German parachutists seized strategic points, dive bombers destroyed the small Dutch air force, and the infantry followed Panzers across the flat land, eliminating any resistance” and as a result the Dutch were completely defeated after five days of German attack12. Luxemborg surrendered without much protest; even though Belgium put up a strong defence, “the Blitzkrieg tactics of simultaneous air assault and direct attack on the ground by fast moving armored infantry made a mockery of prepared defenses and Allied plans”13. Blitzkrieg of France, June 1940 The most powerful and ferocious battle in the Blitzkrieg series occurred between Germany and France in June 1940. In fact, the French and the British had a secret intention “to strangle the German war economy by imposing a blockade while meanwhile building up their own military strength. The intention was to mount an offensive in 1941 or 1942 once the British and French armies were fully prepared”14. As the battle began, on 3 June 1940 Paris was bombed and Germany attacked France from four points under 100 Wehrmacht divisions. Luftwaffe dive bombers continuously attacked France from above and the infantry proceeded to Paris and other major cities of France. The formidable war came to an end on 22 June, 1940 with the complete defeat of France and Marshal Pétain handing the country over to Hitler15. The composition of the panzer divisions was noteworthy: the Germans used three army groups in their attack: Army Groups A, B, and C which surrounded and trapped the enemy completely. The southern army group had 19 divisions, the northern army group comprised of 30 divisions and the central army was more powerful with 45 divisions. While Army group C kept the French occupied along the Maginot Line, the other two groups won the marvellous battle for Germany. The fall of France was a shock to the rest of the world and there are many historians who believe that it was France’s fall that contributed to the deadly Second World War. Jackson (2004), a leading historian of 20th century France, feels that it was the errors of Frances military leaders, her inability to create stronger alliances, the political infighting, the lack of morale, even the decadence of the inter-war years that resulted in its fall16. Even though the German army was not superior to that of the French, its Blitzkrieg tactics proved to be far superior to the French. He debunks the "vast superiority" of the German army, revealing that the more experienced French troops did well in battle against the Germans. Very often, the French were unable to where the main thrust of the German army would come, a failure that led them to put their best soldiers up against a feint, while their worst troops faced the heart of the German war machine. The victory over France boosted the morale of the Nazi army and Hitler and his generals realized that “the aerial bombing of soldiers and civilians, breakthroughs by armoured formations, and deep envelopments by motorized units offered a formula for success in a lightning war”17. Operation Barbarossa: Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union The collaboration between Germany and Soviet Union from 1939-1941 until the operation Barbarossa had been instrumental in Germany’s invasion of the West. However, Hitler’s decision to turn on his former partner proved to be fatal as it led to the downfall of the Nazi empire under Hitler. As Pearson suggests, after his Western campaign of Blitzkrieg, by which Germany successfully defeated Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and France, Hitler believed in the invincibility of German arms; similarly, the ‘Winter War’ of 1939-40 against Finland showed the weaknesses of the Soviet military power18. The German military intelligence, therefore, concluded that “Stalin’s prime motivation for accord with Germany in late 1939 had been less territorial greed than military fear of facing a Wehrmacht onslaught alone with a temporarily sub-standard army”19. Thus, the German Intelligence reports culminated in the Operation Barbarossa in May 1941 and even though Germany could win some initial victories using the Blitzkrieg tactics, the war marked the end of the new Nazi order. The undefeated Wehrmacht thus tasted defeats at Stalingrad in January 1943 and at Kursk in July 1943 at the hands of the Red Army. Historians point out a number of reasons why Germany’s Blitzkrieg proved to be a failure with the Soviet Union. Habeck, in this regard, observes that Germany failed to complete ‘encirclements before Red Army forces retreated’ and failed “to solve long-standing problems with logistics and armor-infantry cooperation”20. In the same way, it was really difficult for the Germans to coordinate the action of the new machines with the slower foot soldiers. Strachan observes that Germany did not have sufficient economic preparation for such a long war, and even though Germany increased her army from 120 to 180 divisions; there was not sufficient production or supply of equipments and almost 40 percent of the German divisions were using French captured vehicles21. There was thus a gap between the Panzers and their support. The extreme cold climate adversely affected Germany’s progress and many of their tanks were worn out. As Chickering, Förster & Chickering (2005), in this respect, purport that “all the strategic, operational, tactical, and production decisions that were made before the invasion rested on the assumption that Germany could win a Blitzkrieg over the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941” and subsequently Germany had made no preparations for a winter campaign”22. The adverse effects of the war with Soviet Union haunted Germany for long and ultimately it paved the way for the destruction of the Nazi regime. Germany lost almost a quarter of her army in the blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. Hitler must have believed that Blitzkrieg would overcome the deadlock of ‘Total War’. Hitler realised that Germany’s lack of raw materials such as rubber, oil and iron would pose great threat to its domestic economy as well as for its warfare activities. Strachan (1988) argues that Hitler very often stressed that “the demands of economic warfare must be given priority” and his immediate priority was the need for raw materials23. As result one could find Hitler going after the iron ore of Lorraine in France, the Swedish iron ore in Norway, and the sources of oil, bauxite and copper in the Balkans. Even in Russia his concern for the resources of the areas under threat-the industry and the ores of the Donets basin or the iron and manganese of the Dnieper bend were remarkable. Blitzkrieg: an Evaluation To conclude, it can be stated that Germany did expand its physical boundaries considerably during the initial stages of the Blitzkrieg. The rearmament of Germany between 1933 and 1939 was at breakneck speed and from being one of the weakest countries in Europe the Blitzkrieg could see Germany as the strongest power in Europe. In Bond’s opinion, “whether Hitler intended to continue the pattern of short, decisive blitzkrieg campaigns indefinitely, or rather was preparing Germany for a protracted ‘total war’ in the East at a later date is still disputed”24. However, the Nazi Blitzkrieg expedition was more of a military one aimed at geographical expansion, rather than domestic development within the nation. Germany had to sacrifice its industrial development as almost 60 percent of the total population of the nation were in the war front. The initial victories that the Blitzkrieg brought about were the products of “an unrivalled combination of mechanized and air forces; well-trained troops who had learned from recent experience; bold, offensive plans and ruthless execution” coupled with the political disunity that permeated among her enemies25. There are many who believe that Hitler followed Napoleon’s strategy of demoralizing the opponents with overwhelming ‘speed, concentration, and surprise’26. However, Gray (2007, p. 132) points out that even though the military strength of the Nazi Germany was par beyond others, her army was traditionally weak in the fields of intelligence and logistics27. The German army paid more importance to superior training, class-leading doctrine, high morale, and tactical and operational skills whereas intelligence on the enemy was underestimated. It is a fact that the German military intelligence underestimated the actual military power of the Soviet Union. While the Germans thought that the Soviet Union had approximately 240 divisions, the actual strength was around 303 divisions. Similarly Gray observes that “the German intelligence had absolutely no detailed information on the location or production capability of the most vital elements of Soviet defence industry”28. To conclude, it can be stated that Germany or the Blitzkrieg could never overcome the deadlock of ‘Total War’ as the nation could not accomplish its goals of acquiring supremacy over the whole of Europe. Thus, it can be concluded that the Blitzkrieg in Germany was never so designed to overcome the deadlock of ‘Total War’ and that Germany did have its own pivotal role in determining each one’s role. Works Cited Blitzkrieg 2010, Olive-Drab.com LLC, viewed 2 February 2010, < http://www.olive-drab.com/od_history_ww2_ops_battles_1940blitzkrieg.php> Blitzkrieg: World War Two 2010, History Learning Site, viewed 2 February 2010, Bond, Brian 1998, The pursuit of victory: from Napoleon to Saddam Hussein, Illustrated Edition: Oxford University Press. Chickering, R & Förster, S 2000, Great War, total war: combat and mobilization on the Western Front, 1914-1918, Illustrated Edition: Cambridge University Press. Chickering, R & Förster, S 2003, The shadows of total war: Europe, East Asia, and the United States, 1919-1939, Reprint Edition: Cambridge University Press. Chickering, R., Förster, S & Chickering, R 2005, A world at total war: global conflict and the politics of destruction, 1937-1945, Illustrated Edition: Cambridge University Press. Citino, Robert Michael 1999, The path to blitzkrieg: doctrine and training in the German Army, 1920-1939, Lynne Rienner Publishers. Condell, B & Zabecki, D.T 2001, On the German art of war: Truppenführung, Lynne Rienner Publishers. Cook, Van 2010, Germanys Blitzkrieg of World War 2: German Mobile War Strategy of World War 2 Making Use Of Tanks & Aircraft, viewed 2 February 2010, < http://vanrcook.tripod.com/blitzkrieg1.htm> Gray, C.S 2007, War, peace and international relations: an introduction to strategic history, Illustrated Edition: Routledge. Habeck, M.R 2003, Storm of steel: the development of armor doctrine in Germany and the Soviet Union, 1919-1939, Illustrated Edition: Cornell University Press. Howard, M 2009, War in European History, 2nd edn: Oxford University Press. Jackson, Julian 2004, The fall of France: the Nazi invasion of 1940, Illustrated Edition: Oxford University Press. Pearson, Raymond 1998, The rise and fall of the Soviet Empire: Studies in contemporary history, Illustrated Edition: Palgrave Macmillan. Strachan, Hew 1988, European Armies and the Conduct of War, Illustrated Edition: Routledge. The Origin of Blitzkrieg - WW1, Basics of Warfare, viewed 2 February 2010, < http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Sturmtruppen-Stormtroopers.pdf> Read More