Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (122149)	12/26/2003 5:39:42 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Yes, Blitzkrieg was very effective. I have read that Hitler was almost bankrupt by the time he began the war, and needed to act to have more to loot in order to sustain his war effort. His initial success endowed him with a high degree of charisma, a sense that he was a man of destiny with military genius. Really, he was improvising, and, like a gambler on a roll, became manic. As the tide turned, he could not believe he would not get "hot" again, and therefore made decisions that doomed him.......

To: Ish who wrote (122149)	12/27/2003 5:15:59 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Ish; Re: "Don't forget the strike first. Easier to hold ground than take it. Blitzkrieg." The tactic of "blitzkrieg" is somewhat overrated. The problem is that it is a more generally successful tactic in war games than in real life. In real life, a blitzkrieg will allow you to occupy a territory, but that does not mean that the occupation will be peaceful, or that holding the ground will be easier than taking it. Already in Iraq, we've lost more troops in the occupation than we did in the blitzkrieg, an obvious and present counterexample to your assertion. The historical fact is that short unbloody wars won by maneuver (i.e. blitzkrieg and its generality) do not result in the defeated population really feeling like they want peace at any cost. To get a large nation to cry uncle requires that you kill more of them than it is possible for a blitzkrieg to do. If it's a matter of liberating a country from a third party, a blitzkrieg will do it. If it's a matter of invading and occupying another country, a blitzkrieg will lead to a protracted guerilla war. There are numerous historical examples of this fine distinction. The German blitz against Poland resulted in a guerilla war that was won only at a cost of great bloodshed. The American blitz against Saddam in Kuwait resulted in a quick war with, of course, no guerilla conflict as Saddam's forces were the original occupier. The German blitz against France resulted in a guerilla war that was suppressed only with great bloodshed. The Israeli blitzkrieg wins against Arab armies have resulted in ongoing guerilla conflict there. And of course the American blitz against Iraq in 2003 has resulted in a guerilla war that can also be suppressed only at the cost of great bloodshed. Just because you can knock the other guy down doesn't mean that the fight is over. -- Carl