Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:NATO war in Libya

2011-10-27T04:53:03Z

TacticsNerd: /* Good article */

It is said that hundreds of Libyan lives was the cost of the harshly suppressed uprising in February in Libya. But the shooting, could it be done by a mercenary company?

Consider this:

<blockquote>
Britian, April 12: The UK government has floated the idea of employing private security firms in Libya to help bolster revolutionary forces fighting the regime of Muammar Qaddafi. Defense experts and military officials raised the idea after high-ranking NATO officials including Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmussen admitted that “there is no military solution to the conflict in Libya,” and that the crisis should be settled through politics. [http://article.wn.com/view/2011/04/12/A_new_Blackwater_in_Libya/]
</blockquote>

Some people think:

<blockquote>
This is no civil war. It is an invasion. The "rebels" are mercenaries. They are probably mostly Iraqis recruited and trained in Iraq. Others may be part of al Quaeda just as Qaddafi says. The "rebels" are well organized and well armed.
</blockquote>

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:34, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, it appears the Libyan uprising is not entirely indigenous. Something should also be said about how ''after'' Gaddafi complied entiely with Western demands to renounce terrorism, give up WMD, paid reparations to victims, re-established trade with the West, was granted diplomatic recognition and accepted back into the community of nations, these same governments themselves now have violated those agreements they made with Gaddafi. That is a horrible precedent set when attempting to deal with a dictator. Even when he repents and bows to your demands, it is not enough. These governments have proven themselves to be fraudulent in thier word in the use of diplomacy. Who would ever acquiece or accpet their demands or words as meaningful again? And the case of Gaddafi is now a case study of fraudulent demands and bogus promises by Western governments over severtal decades. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

== Friendship treaty with Italy ==

"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a nonaggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”. Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011 (the uprising began on February 16, 2011).

<blockquote>
Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]
</blockquote>

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 07:46, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
:Has Italy recognized the Transnational Committee? what a convenient way to wipe out a national debt. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:08, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

== From the third Europe-Africa summit 2010 ==

Tripoli Declaration

3rd Africa EU Summit

29/30 November 2010

We, Heads of State and Governments of Africa and the European Union, representing
more than 1.5 billion citizens have gathered in Tripoli on 29 – 30 November 2010
determined to seize together new opportunities for broader and mutually beneficial
initiatives.

"Press info pack"

About PEACE AND SECURITY

The partnership pursues dialogue, networking and coherence
among African and European stakeholders... Systematic political '''dialog''' between AU and EU on every crisis situation in Africa
[http://ec.europa.eu/development/services/events/3rdsummit/documents/publications/en/5-DEV_Africa_Peace_and_Security_FS_A4_screen.pdf]

and about DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The respect of fundamental rights translates directly into security for the
people. Democratic electoral processes give legitimacy to governments and contribute to stability, peace and security. The African Union (AU) is currently formulating a new Governance Architecture for Africa, with the support of the EU. Together, the two partners are also working on a Human Rights Strategy, to be adopted in early 2011. The aim is to move towards implementing a number of existing international and African legal instruments. One example is the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance which promotes democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
As they develop joint positions, the EU and African States will be able to mutually strengthen each other and make their voice heard in international fora on issues such as non-discrimination, the right to life, the fight against torture, freedom of
association, liberty and security, to name just a few.

What has been achieved so far?

*The launch of an EU-Africa “Platform for dialog” on
governance.
*Better coordination between EU and AU election observation
missions in the countries in which they are deployed
*Two Civil Society Seminars on Human Rights were organized
in 2009 and 2010
*Joint event on women and conflict organized in the margins
of the ministerial week of the UN General Assembly in 2009
*EU Commission-sponsored colloquium on culture and
creativity as vectors for development in April 2009,
with 38 African ministers participating
[http://ec.europa.eu/development/services/events/3rdsummit/documents/publications/en/10-DEV_Africa_Governance_FS_A4_screen.pdf]

NO MENTION AT ALL OF ANY VIOLATION IN LIBYA OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
........

The Declaration ended with:

We express our gratitude to the Leader of the Revolution and people of the Great
Socialist Peoples’ Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the care, hospitality and attention extended to the participants of this Summit.
[http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/sites/default/files/doc_tripoli_declaration_en.pdf]

15 HEADS OF STATE with 80 countries represented.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:14, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Grandsons ==

In a bombing by NATO in Tripoli were killed three grandsons of Muammar Gaddafi, Seif (2 years), Carthage (2 years) and Mastoura (4 months), as well as friends and neighbors. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:28, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:truly a shame. I wish we didn't take war so lightly--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 09:42, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::The war now clearly is illegal; Obama missed the 60 day deadline under the WPR (War Powers Resolution). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

==Good article==
I think we have a very good, comphrehensive article going here. Now we need to elevate it's visibility by getting daily links to it from the Main Page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

I want to ask a minor question. For this article to be good, wouldn't it need mention of why NATO got involved in the first place? I.E., the whole civilians getting cut in half by autocannon shells aspect of it all. [[User:TacticsNerd|TacticsNerd]]

== Berluskahn, a plot? ==

Is there any relation between Silvio Berlusconi and Strauss-Kahn besides the sex scandal? Are they facing justice as a pressure because of Gaddafi?

Consider these ideas:

Until the bombs started falling, Berlusconi and Gaddafi were much more than casual acquaintances and bilateral buddies. The two shared an intimate friendship that was evident every time they met. [http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-23/berlusconi-and-qaddafi-their-close-friendship/]

<blockquote>
Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi spoke with Gaddafi by telephone on Tuesday, the Italian leader's office said later without elaborating. The Italian news agency ANSA said Berlusconi had urged a peaceful solution to the crisis and told Gaddafi that Italy was not arming protesters as stated by the Libyan leader in his speech. In one of many demonstrations held Tuesday outside Libyan embassies across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, protesters burned an Italian flag in Valletta, Malta in anger at Rome's ties with Gaddafi's regime. [http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1112394/1/.html]
</blockquote>

and

<blockquote>
Opposition lawmakers have criticised Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for failing to condemn violence in Libya and saying he did not want to "disturb" Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi during a revolt in the North African state. [http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/20/idINIndia-55029820110220]
</blockquote>

And about Sarkozy-Strauss Khan:

The Strauss-Kahn Affair: Implications for the 2012 Presidential Elections

Approval for Sarkozy hits record lows: One year ahead of legislative and presidential elections, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s approval rating stands at a mere 20%. Dominique Strauss Kahn, currently head of the International Monetary Fund, is topping the list with 43%, almost twice Sarkozy's score. [http://world247.net/france-approval-for-sarkozy-hits-record-lows/] [http://www.france24.com/en/20110411-approval-sarkozy-sinks-new-lows]
<blockquote>
With his popularity at a record low and facing an election next year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was in desperate need of a boost to his political stature. It didn’t take Sarkozy long to jump unto this bandwagon. The French leader once dubbed “Super Sarko” by the local press for his eagerness to take the reins in global crises, summoned leaders from four continents to an emergency war council at the Elysee presidential palace in Paris to agree on military action against strongman Muammar Gaddafi in Libya... Barely more than three years ago, Sarkozy gave Gaddafi the red carpet treatment in Paris, welcoming him with open arms and allowing the Libyan leader to pitch a Bedouin tent near the Elysee. Now the French president was announcing that he was sending warplanes in to bomb him. [http://alittleleftofright.com/?p=328]
</blockquote>

and

Strauss-Kahn’s premature exit has narrowed the field.

So with Strauss-Kahn spectacularly removed, what shape will the presidential race take? The immediate response on the part of many commentators has been to highlight the boost that Nicolas Sarkozy will surely receive; Dominique Strauss-Kahn was regarded by many as the strongest potential candidate. [http://frenchpolitics.blogs.france24.com/article/2011/05/18/strauss-kahn-affair-implications-2011-presidential-elections-0]

Strauss-Kahn participated in the fourth annual conference on Progress in Regional Integration and Promotion of Joint Ventures in the Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia) which took place in Tripoli on 17 November, 2008. At that time Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn praised Libya's efforts to introduce economic reforms saying his discussions with Libyan officials convinced him that Libya is making progress in its reform agenda, with the goal of realizing even higher growth and improving the standard of living among its people. [http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=2571]

<blockquote>
"I was also privileged to meet the Leader of Libya, Colonel Gaddafi, the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Finance, Mr. El-Huweij, and the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Bengdara.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"Our discussions confirmed that we share many views on Libya's economic achievements and key challenges. Ambitious reforms over the past years have yielded strong and increasingly broad-based growth and macroeconomic stability. The key challenge is to sustain the ongoing reforms, including reducing the size of the government.
</blockquote>

The media has to find a way to make Gaddafi seem like an impossible ogre to justify killing him and his relatives. It's pure extra-judicial murder and theft of a sovereign nation's assets, and Strauss Kahn knows that to be true. He has to be discredited. [http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2011/05/strauss-kahn-had-praised-libyan.html]

Both men have protested their innocence but their sex lives have been under intense public scrutiny for years. One has been charged with attempted rape, the other is on trial for having allegedly had sex with an underage prostitute. The accusations may be different but the scandals surrounding Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Silvio Berlusconi reveal underlying similarities.[http://english.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=340443&SecID=65&IssueID=0]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:59, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:Wow. Very interesting. IMHO, it seems the Italian people were not at the start, or now, as hungry or enthusiastic about the Libyan War as the French. For France, it was more a point of pride, still trying to convince themselves they're a world power. But the Italians are probably the largest consumers of Libyan oil, and I don't see how upsetting the status quo works to their advantage. If anything, instability, which a period of nation-building would bring, doesn't bode well for Italian dependence on Libyan oil shipped the short distance across the Mediterranean. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::That's a good point, RobSmith, though as a Frenchman I think that specifically, it was more a sort of colonial nostalgia. France still has a paternal attitude towards such countries as Lebanon, Algeria, or Senegal. Especially with the current conservative (by French standards) government, the general attitude is that France is like a benevolent older brother. Chirac, for example, had said that French imperialism had "a positive effect" on colonies. Never mind that this positive effect came at the expensive of many lives, and that the original intent was not benevolence, but greed and ambition. Just my two cents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:06, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Let's hope it's not another [[Dien Bien Phu]] for the US. At the end of WWII Stalin was outraged at the idea of putting France on an equal footing with the Soviet Union; France did more for the German war effort between 1940-44 than it did to defend itself in 1940. But the US insisted on putting France on the Reparations Committee and the UN Security Council, and give it an occupation zone to administer in Germany. Thus was born the myth France was a "victor" in World War II. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Why is it that every time I mention being from France, someone always has to give me a non-sequitur about French miliary defeats? I was just providing my cultural perspective and expanding on your original point about France doing this out of pride.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:11, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Israel ==

Benghazi was the capital of [[Libya]] until Gaddafi came to power in 1969. These are two separate centers of power and the eastern coastal region of Libya sees itself as being of a higher class. Even in Israel there’s a clear enmity between [[Jews]] who lived in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Could [[Israel]] be behind the whole Arab Spring? Who wins while the Arab countries are divided, murdered or bombed?

<blockquote>
By perceiving Israel as a sort of "black capital" of a "Zionist empire," we carry water for the globalists in their bid to divide and conquer through preying on our petty prejudices. We also lump together and undermine those in Israel that are fighting against the globalists' exploitation of their nation and their people, who are just as lied to, misled, brainwashed, and manipulated as the people of America, the UK or Europe.

By understanding the Israeli factor and that those behind it are neither Israeli or Jewish, or even Zionist, we can understand it is but a gambit within a gambit towards building world empire, thus allowing us to move on to targeting the real culprits. [http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/arab-spring-israeli-factor.html]
</blockquote>
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:12, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

[[Bernard Henri Levy]], a friend of [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] since 1983 but with an extremely complicated relationship, is the man who, some consider, waged a war in Libya. Lévy, 62 (born in Algeria in 1948, to a wealthy Sephardi Jewish family), a Zionist French philosopher is the man behind the French and American War on Libya... After persuading Sarkozy (also with a Jewish origin), Mr. Lévy, gives Mr. Sarkozy sole credit for persuading London, Washington and others to support intervention in Libya. [http://anarchitext.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/bhl-war-in-libya/ B.H. Levy: the man who waged a War in Libya.] --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

== Kosovo ==

To understand the actions of [[NATO]] in Libya is important to review the NATO Intervention in [[Kosovo]].

See: [http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/kosovo.htm The Clinton Administration Sets Course for NATO Intervention in Kosovo.] United States Senate, 1998-08-12.

and [http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1666 Triggering ethnic conflict as a pretext for intervention.]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:11, 14 June 2011 (EDT)
:Haven't had a chance to review these yet, but I will get to them. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:36, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::Yes, very good research from globalresearch.ca with many good sources. Footnote 80 references "[http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/1999/01/clinton-wag-dog-no-kosovo-genocide.html text from internal German ministry documents]" which primary source documents are available at the above link. [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2002/05/whos-kla.html Who is the KLA?], also from German documents, is available as well. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

== Whose interests? ==

If [[NATO]] nations are not interested in a ceasefire or in fair elections as they have rejected, if they are ready to expend millions of dollars and gave high profile rebels (elected by no one) billions of Libya's assets, if they are destroying Tripoli as they did in Belgrade, if they don't care to kill civilians to arguably protect armed civilians from Benghazi... it is because they have an special own interest in Libya's fate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 22:57, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Is this for real? ==

Great article, this seems to be written from an anti-imperialist's perspective. Are you aware that Gaddafi is a socialist (or at least claims to be)? By posting this I am in violation of 90/10 rule but will post content soon. --[[User:XXPowerMexicoXx|XXPowerMexicoXx]] 12:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

I will copy this artcile to my wiki, I think it is well-written and shows the illegitimacy of NATO imperialism, despite being written from a (conservative) perspective which I oppose. I will give link to this article's orignial authors in article history --[[User:XXPowerMexicoXx|XXPowerMexicoXx]] 22:19, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps more of a [[paleoconservative]]/[[libertarian]] slant. Pleas go ahead and use the material. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:: To be a conservative implicates to be a good Christian, and good Christians do not kill innocent people and destroy a country if there is another way to solve problems... first diplomacy has to foster any other options. The whole Arab spring has been stimulated for months in advance and social media has done a nice work to get to this point. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:09, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, and Gadhaffi rehabilitated himself as the West requested, complied with every demand to be accepted back into the Community of Nations, only to be vilified and betrayed by political opportunists. What kind of precedent is that? This is just one more instance of Western duplicity. And ''we'' know the facts, despite the spin governments & media put on it. History will know the facts. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: President Obama told that urgent military actions had to be taken to avoid a blood river. A simple call from the White House to Gaddafi, for sure, could had be enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:54, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

==Russia and China==
Russia and China both abstained from UNSCR 1973; the section reverted sheds light on the role of Russia and China. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:It just seemed a bit out of place, given the context of the article being about Libya. I'll add it back in and reword so it gels more with the section. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps it could be added back in under the Role of China, alternatively, that subsection could retitled Role of Russia and China, or under another sub in the that same section. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:33, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Double redirects ==

[[Libyan uprising 2011]] and [[Operation Odyssey Dawn]] need to be redirected to this article (they currently redirect to [[Libyan War 2011]], which in turn is a redirect). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:02, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

== Civil War ==

Wikipedia calls the conflict a civil war but this is anything but. Yes, the Libyan people rose up against a dictator. You have Britain and the USA with NATO support. You have France involved, the United Nations involved. You have Muslim mercenaries from other countries involved. I don't think Civil War is the right term to describe this kinetic conflict. Was the Korean and Vietnam Wars known as civil wars? Anyway, we were in the top 10 on Google for Libyan War 2011. This after moving up from page 5 for Libya Uprising 2011.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:22, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ok, I thought it was about #17 on Google. Let's move it back, then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:39, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
::I've been reading through this and there's one thing bothering me: Although there's mention of NATO and the US's involvement in the war, there's no mention of the war itself. No mention of how it started, of the battle of Bengazi and other eastern cities? Of the rebel government being recognised, etc. Shouldn't things like this be added? At the moment, there's more about the US in here than about Libya. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 11:04, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
:::There are references to France recognizing the Transitional, but not the U.S. (and Britain, I think). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:35, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

== Benghazi ==

What rebels think

<blockquote>

Since Friday, rebel officials have been bluntly warning reporters that they could face legal action over what they write, and they have singled out certain journalists whose reports they called inaccurate and divisive, though they did not offer specifics.
“We don’t know if anybody here is a fifth column,” Mr. Bani, a rebel, said of the reporters at a news conference. “It is very difficult to determine who is with you and who is against you in a time of conflict, because you don’t necessarily have to hold a weapon. With a word or a rumor they can cause a lot of deaths.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/world/africa/01libya.html?pagewanted=2&hpw]
</blockquote>

Blitzkrieg

2009-06-08T01:25:52Z

TacticsNerd: /* Bibliography */

A '''blitzkrieg''' is an operational level military doctrine which calls for a quick surprise attack by massive ground and air forces. "Blitzkrieg" is from the German words for lighting ("''blitz''") and war ("''krieg''"). The term was not used by [[Germany|German]] military planners, and had its origins at the Propaganda Ministry of Josef Goebbels. It was used in press accounts to describe the lightning speed of the German military during [[World War II]]. Modern American "Shock and Awe" doctrine is based upon the lessons of blitzkrieg.

==Basic Requirements and Features==

Blitzkrieg or maneuver is based on the idea of "gaps and surfaces" or as what the Germans called it "Flaechen und Luekentaktik" which means the tactics of surfaces and gaps. The basic intent of blitzkrieg is to avoid those points which are "surfaces" or hard points in the enemy line and target "gaps" or weakly defended areas. This was further developed by Basil Liddell Hart's concept of expanding torrent system tactic. The idea with this was to act as water. In other words you poke and prod at the enemy's lines, and then when a weakpoint is found attack it and expand the breach in the line as flowing water would do to a weak dam thus causing a massive flow through it. In other words rather than focus on throwing strength against strength as what attrition oriented forms of combat would have you do, you focus on throwing your strength against the enemy's weakness.

This requires what is known as recon pull, or another way of saying it is have your reconnaissance assets find the gaps and then they exploit them, bringing more and more assets with them as they go. This is different from more conventional forms of attack where it is focused on the commander of the formations essentially pushing units forward, whether it be a gap or a surface in the enemy lines.

If suitable gaps cannot be found, they are created via the use of "Stosstruppentaktik" or shock troop tactics. This is when a combination of suppression (via artillery or other assets) assault (with infantry and armor) and exploitation (mainly with armor) is used. This is essentially punching a hole in the enemy lines at a desirable point. You suppress the enemy in order to keep his head down and prevent him from engaging and have the assault happen as soon as is possible after the suppressive fire is finished. Once this is done, the committing of what is generally a large reserve happens once the initial assault is successful.

Another way of forming gaps was via the use of support attacks which could force the enemy to redeploy his assets thus creating weak points in his lines that can be exploited.

Those points that are considered strong points or surfaces are generally bypassed and allowed to weaken due to it being cut off from it's support. In this way blitzkrieg also dislocates the enemy in space.

Because blitzkrieg is more fluid in terms of maneuver and as such the speed with which situations change, it requires commanders to be close to the action rather than being behind the lines as what the stereotype was of generals from WW1. Guderian and Patton were known for this lead from the front leadership style. The reason that leaders must be up front is so that they can be able to provide the needed leadership at the decisive time at the decisive point. This allows for faster decision making and makes it so that the enemy is dislocated in time as well as space. This would be described as getting inside of your opponent's decision cycle for you are able to make it so that the opponent is reacting to you, if this continues there is the risk that his actions will be rendered obsolescent and as such paralyzes his ability to react to you.

Another requirement is to allow subordinates the ability to act independently based on what the commander's intent is. This allows for decisions made on the fly and helps to speed up the decision cycle. This is called "auftragstaktik" or mission tactics. It requires a combination of trust within the command structure and common ideas and experiences in terms of tactics and training for this to be successful. A commander must trust that his subordinates not only understand his intent but also must trust that they will be accurate in reporting the situations that they are facing on the front.

One of the risks of engaging in this style of warfare is that what you perceive as a gap may actually be a surface. If this happens the commander may run into what is known as a "fire sack" or a large scale ambush.

==Before World War II==

Colonel John Fuller, the chief of staff of the British Tank Corps, is credited with developing this tactic after his extreme disappointment with the effect of tanks during World War I. His ideas, which were ignored by the British Army, called for long-range mass tank attacks. He envisioned this attack to be supported by air power as well as motorized infantry and artillery support. He wrote two books in the Twenties which detailed his ideas: ''Reformation of War'' and ''Foundation of the Science of War''. In 1926, the German Army began ordering tanks and vehicles which would allow them to implement Colonel Fuller's ideas. <ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/blitzkrieg--german-wehrmacht.html?page=2</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm</ref>

In 1937 [[Heinz Guderian]] wrote the book ''Achtung - Panzer!'' describing the combined arms tactics used initially by the Germans in WWII and later on by armies throughout the world. The Germans tested an application of these tactics in 1938 during the [[Spanish Civil War]] and as a result [[German High Command]] formulated plans to dismantle Polish defenses in 1939. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9068990/Spanish-Civil-War</ref>

==During World War II==

Blitzkrieg was a maneuver tactic where armored columns would break through the enemy lines, supported by artillery and attack aircraft. Once the columns were through the line, they would not stop but continue into the enemy rear, disrupting their supply lines and cutting off units. The armored columns were followed by infantry units that would exploit the gaps and surround the isolated enemy units. The tactic worked most effectively in Europe against the French and the Netherlands, and in the beginning of the conflict against the Soviet Union. It's success was due to a combination of surprise and favorable terrain.

There was three flaws to the Blitzkrieg tactic. First, it was heavily dependent on good weather and good terrain. If the terrain was hilly, combat was in an urban area, or if the weather turned the ground muddy (as in the Soviet Union), the armored units would slow down and become vulnerable to anti-tank units or worse to the enemy being able to react to attacks more effectively.

Second, air support was vital. Without it, the tanks were vulnerable to counter-attacks from enemy aircraft. This is true with all operations that focus heavily on the use of armored fighting vehicles, whether it be maneuver oriented or more attrition oriented. As the war progressed and the Germans lost control of the air, their panzer units suffered heavy losses from Allied air-to-ground aircraft such as the Soviet IL-2 and American [[P-47|P-47 Thunderbolt]]. German success in the Battle of the Bulge depended in part on the existence of cloud cover that would keep Allied air forces grounded.

[[Image:Map of blitzkreig.jpg]]

Third, the blitzkrieg could be broken up by channeling the attack (holding the flanks) and attacking the point where the infantry and armored units met. This would separate the two and expose the armor to counter-attacks. The French and British used this tactic at the [[Battle of Arras]] in 1940, but lacked the armored units required to exploit their limited success.

[[Image:Moving into poland.jpg]]

The Soviets used all the above and had the additional fortune of vast swaths of land to design a defense-in-depth. As the panzer units moved farther and farther from their supplies, gaps would appear in their columns. These could then be attacked to break up the armor. Also, the Soviets used minefields to further disrupt the German armor.

[[Image:German invasion.-.jpg]]

By 1944, blitzkrieg as a German tactic was finished. The last actual appearance of blitzkrieg in the war was when [[George Patton | General George S. Patton's]] Third Army broke out of the Normandy Pocket in Operation Cobra. The Allied columns covered 600 miles in just under two weeks.

== Blitzkrieg after the war ==

The first significant use of blitzkrieg tactics in the post-war era was in the 1967 [[Six Day War]] when Israel, after destroying almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground in a little more than an hour, sent a three pronged tank attack south to seize the [[Sinai peninsula]] and north to occupy the [[Golan heights]].<ref>http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1967/Six-Day-War/12303074818188-2/</ref>

The ground phase of the first Gulf War, lasting only four days, followed a blitzkrieg-style attack with US, British, and French tanks that poured deep into southern Iraq in what General [[Norman Schwarzkopf]] termed a "Hail Mary" pass before hooking right and cutting off the escaping Iraqi forces, which were then demolished in detail by tanks and aircraft.

The resumption of hostilities in Iraq that led to the [[Iraq War]] relied upon "Shock and Awe" a derivative of blitzkrieg doctrine, but also a tactic used since the [[American Civil War]], when massed artillery bombardment was first used to weaken and demoralize enemy forces before an advance.

== References ==
<references/>
==Bibliography==
Frieser, K.H. 'The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West'

Lind,William S. 'Maneuver Warfare Handbook' (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985)

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Military]]

Blitzkrieg

2009-06-08T01:23:00Z

TacticsNerd:

A '''blitzkrieg''' is an operational level military doctrine which calls for a quick surprise attack by massive ground and air forces. "Blitzkrieg" is from the German words for lighting ("''blitz''") and war ("''krieg''"). The term was not used by [[Germany|German]] military planners, and had its origins at the Propaganda Ministry of Josef Goebbels. It was used in press accounts to describe the lightning speed of the German military during [[World War II]]. Modern American "Shock and Awe" doctrine is based upon the lessons of blitzkrieg.

==Basic Requirements and Features==

Blitzkrieg or maneuver is based on the idea of "gaps and surfaces" or as what the Germans called it "Flaechen und Luekentaktik" which means the tactics of surfaces and gaps. The basic intent of blitzkrieg is to avoid those points which are "surfaces" or hard points in the enemy line and target "gaps" or weakly defended areas. This was further developed by Basil Liddell Hart's concept of expanding torrent system tactic. The idea with this was to act as water. In other words you poke and prod at the enemy's lines, and then when a weakpoint is found attack it and expand the breach in the line as flowing water would do to a weak dam thus causing a massive flow through it. In other words rather than focus on throwing strength against strength as what attrition oriented forms of combat would have you do, you focus on throwing your strength against the enemy's weakness.

This requires what is known as recon pull, or another way of saying it is have your reconnaissance assets find the gaps and then they exploit them, bringing more and more assets with them as they go. This is different from more conventional forms of attack where it is focused on the commander of the formations essentially pushing units forward, whether it be a gap or a surface in the enemy lines.

If suitable gaps cannot be found, they are created via the use of "Stosstruppentaktik" or shock troop tactics. This is when a combination of suppression (via artillery or other assets) assault (with infantry and armor) and exploitation (mainly with armor) is used. This is essentially punching a hole in the enemy lines at a desirable point. You suppress the enemy in order to keep his head down and prevent him from engaging and have the assault happen as soon as is possible after the suppressive fire is finished. Once this is done, the committing of what is generally a large reserve happens once the initial assault is successful.

Another way of forming gaps was via the use of support attacks which could force the enemy to redeploy his assets thus creating weak points in his lines that can be exploited.

Those points that are considered strong points or surfaces are generally bypassed and allowed to weaken due to it being cut off from it's support. In this way blitzkrieg also dislocates the enemy in space.

Because blitzkrieg is more fluid in terms of maneuver and as such the speed with which situations change, it requires commanders to be close to the action rather than being behind the lines as what the stereotype was of generals from WW1. Guderian and Patton were known for this lead from the front leadership style. The reason that leaders must be up front is so that they can be able to provide the needed leadership at the decisive time at the decisive point. This allows for faster decision making and makes it so that the enemy is dislocated in time as well as space. This would be described as getting inside of your opponent's decision cycle for you are able to make it so that the opponent is reacting to you, if this continues there is the risk that his actions will be rendered obsolescent and as such paralyzes his ability to react to you.

Another requirement is to allow subordinates the ability to act independently based on what the commander's intent is. This allows for decisions made on the fly and helps to speed up the decision cycle. This is called "auftragstaktik" or mission tactics. It requires a combination of trust within the command structure and common ideas and experiences in terms of tactics and training for this to be successful. A commander must trust that his subordinates not only understand his intent but also must trust that they will be accurate in reporting the situations that they are facing on the front.

One of the risks of engaging in this style of warfare is that what you perceive as a gap may actually be a surface. If this happens the commander may run into what is known as a "fire sack" or a large scale ambush.

==Before World War II==

Colonel John Fuller, the chief of staff of the British Tank Corps, is credited with developing this tactic after his extreme disappointment with the effect of tanks during World War I. His ideas, which were ignored by the British Army, called for long-range mass tank attacks. He envisioned this attack to be supported by air power as well as motorized infantry and artillery support. He wrote two books in the Twenties which detailed his ideas: ''Reformation of War'' and ''Foundation of the Science of War''. In 1926, the German Army began ordering tanks and vehicles which would allow them to implement Colonel Fuller's ideas. <ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/blitzkrieg--german-wehrmacht.html?page=2</ref><ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWblitzkreig.htm</ref>

In 1937 [[Heinz Guderian]] wrote the book ''Achtung - Panzer!'' describing the combined arms tactics used initially by the Germans in WWII and later on by armies throughout the world. The Germans tested an application of these tactics in 1938 during the [[Spanish Civil War]] and as a result [[German High Command]] formulated plans to dismantle Polish defenses in 1939. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9068990/Spanish-Civil-War</ref>

==During World War II==

Blitzkrieg was a maneuver tactic where armored columns would break through the enemy lines, supported by artillery and attack aircraft. Once the columns were through the line, they would not stop but continue into the enemy rear, disrupting their supply lines and cutting off units. The armored columns were followed by infantry units that would exploit the gaps and surround the isolated enemy units. The tactic worked most effectively in Europe against the French and the Netherlands, and in the beginning of the conflict against the Soviet Union. It's success was due to a combination of surprise and favorable terrain.

There was three flaws to the Blitzkrieg tactic. First, it was heavily dependent on good weather and good terrain. If the terrain was hilly, combat was in an urban area, or if the weather turned the ground muddy (as in the Soviet Union), the armored units would slow down and become vulnerable to anti-tank units or worse to the enemy being able to react to attacks more effectively.

Second, air support was vital. Without it, the tanks were vulnerable to counter-attacks from enemy aircraft. This is true with all operations that focus heavily on the use of armored fighting vehicles, whether it be maneuver oriented or more attrition oriented. As the war progressed and the Germans lost control of the air, their panzer units suffered heavy losses from Allied air-to-ground aircraft such as the Soviet IL-2 and American [[P-47|P-47 Thunderbolt]]. German success in the Battle of the Bulge depended in part on the existence of cloud cover that would keep Allied air forces grounded.

[[Image:Map of blitzkreig.jpg]]

Third, the blitzkrieg could be broken up by channeling the attack (holding the flanks) and attacking the point where the infantry and armored units met. This would separate the two and expose the armor to counter-attacks. The French and British used this tactic at the [[Battle of Arras]] in 1940, but lacked the armored units required to exploit their limited success.

[[Image:Moving into poland.jpg]]

The Soviets used all the above and had the additional fortune of vast swaths of land to design a defense-in-depth. As the panzer units moved farther and farther from their supplies, gaps would appear in their columns. These could then be attacked to break up the armor. Also, the Soviets used minefields to further disrupt the German armor.

[[Image:German invasion.-.jpg]]

By 1944, blitzkrieg as a German tactic was finished. The last actual appearance of blitzkrieg in the war was when [[George Patton | General George S. Patton's]] Third Army broke out of the Normandy Pocket in Operation Cobra. The Allied columns covered 600 miles in just under two weeks.

== Blitzkrieg after the war ==

The first significant use of blitzkrieg tactics in the post-war era was in the 1967 [[Six Day War]] when Israel, after destroying almost the entire Egyptian air force on the ground in a little more than an hour, sent a three pronged tank attack south to seize the [[Sinai peninsula]] and north to occupy the [[Golan heights]].<ref>http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1967/Six-Day-War/12303074818188-2/</ref>

The ground phase of the first Gulf War, lasting only four days, followed a blitzkrieg-style attack with US, British, and French tanks that poured deep into southern Iraq in what General [[Norman Schwarzkopf]] termed a "Hail Mary" pass before hooking right and cutting off the escaping Iraqi forces, which were then demolished in detail by tanks and aircraft.

The resumption of hostilities in Iraq that led to the [[Iraq War]] relied upon "Shock and Awe" a derivative of blitzkrieg doctrine, but also a tactic used since the [[American Civil War]], when massed artillery bombardment was first used to weaken and demoralize enemy forces before an advance.

== References ==
<references/>
==Bibliography==
Frieser, K.H. 'The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West'
Lind,William S. 'Maneuver Warfare Handbook' (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985)

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Military]]

Blitzkrieg

2009-06-08T01:19:45Z

TacticsNerd: Added a few things and changed others