The way the Nazis handled military tactics in WWII, could they work today in Iraq, Iran, etc..?

Question

Back then, the Nazis moved in with all their might, seized and conquered, anyone that got in the way, put up a fight were taken down. The strategies Hitler used (he was a military genuis) got results. We could use some of those strategies (no poison gas, no concentration camps). Remember, talk is cheap! Action speaks louder than words!

Answer 1

If you mean "blitzkrieg" or the way of using armoured units supported by air forces, then it is the base on which tactical art of today is being built.

And yes, it generally works. At least, if you have adequate terrain (see China vs Vietnam war, 1979 IIRC).

The problem is not to conquer a territory, but to hold it. Hold it despite the sabotage by local population, and freedom fighters / guerillas / insurgents / terrorists. And this is not something you can deal with, at least not without handcuffing each denizen of the territory to one of your troopers. And you'd never, ever have that much troops available.
Nazi had a lot of trouble with the territories conquered. Not only did the resistance harmed their forces, but - which is most annoying - required them to keep large forces for the sole purpose of policing the occupied territory and protecting their assets from sabotage.

Say, you have ten fuel dumps. I can destroy one, if I'm lucky. The problem is, if I do, you'll lose 10% of your fule reserves. So you must keep watch over all 10. You must post your men on duty. They have to work in shifts. And they have to be fed, serviced and so on. So, I - being just a single guerilla make several of your men just stand here and watch the dumps, instead of fighting on the frontline.
And in fact, actually destroying something would be just an added bonus. Because distracting and binding to a duty several of your men harms your abilities seriously enough!

Fighting terror with terror isn't an option. Nazi have tried that. It just makes the resistance harder and more desperate.
In fact, you need political means to convince the locals that they'd do better cooperating with you than fighting you. But to do that, you have to make them listen to you, not only hate you.

And no, I do not agree that Hitler was a militay genius. He had some very talented generals, that's true. But he didn't invented the blizkrieg. And he made a lot of damage enforcing his politically- based orders over those suggested by his commanders.
Example? Stalingrad, the doom of the 6th Army.

Answer 2

Military genius? He was highly disorganized and exceptionally unrealistic. He opened a two-front war for no reason whatsoever (he had already cemented a treaty with Russia). He crushed lesser powers militarily but was completely unable to hold the conquered territory. And didn't he once , instead of sending reinforcements to a commander, instead promote him to Field Marshal because no Field Marshal had ever lost a battle?

And that's not even counting the fact that he wasted a huge pool of German intelligence, expertise and money by rounding up and exterminating the Jewish citizens of Germany.

The guy was a loon and certainly no military genius.

Answer 3

Duh... they lost the war. That doesn't make them too sharp. Hitler was NOT a miltary genius, he was an idiot and an egomaniac whose military decisions eventually lost the war for Germany. The ONLY tactic that worked initially was the blitkreig, or "lightning war" and I think the US has pretty much developed that to a point far beyond where Hitler's generals ever were even on their best days. The US took over Iraq in far less time than it took the Nazis to overrun Poland.

Answer 4

The Nazis had plenty of problems with insurgents, too.
The French Resistance, and in the Ukraine. (And Norway, sinking a ship carrying heavy water to Germany, and Holland, and probably every occupied country)
They also eventually lost the war, so many less ruthless people got pissed off at them.

Answer 5

Yes, blitzkrieg. We also need to make a curfew. Those who are out past curfew get shot. We need to make a holding facility for civilians and place them there so they do not get hurt. We take the whole country and if anyone is encounterd they get killed. Total war that is how you win, if you don't want to die then leave. America plays to many games. War is outright destruction and you can't be supreme if you are being nice in something that is not nice

Answer 6

The Germans defeated unprepared countries like Polland and France. Plus he was defeated in the end.

The United States already defeated the Iraqi army. They are fighting insurgents now, only way to defeat them is to kill them one at a time.

Answer 7

if u are talking about blitzkrieg then the answer is yes that is how war is conducted today. with all the digital technology all wars a conducted ona far more complex and fast plane then ever before. as to iran we don't have to take over (that woudl be adisaster) we jsut have to knowck out the nukes

Answer 8

We could be tough in Iraq, we just choose not to be. It would work much better.

In the past, When Brittain had muslim colonies, and they tried to gain independance, they started buring all muslims in pig skins, and the violence stopped.

Bush could never get away with that. The left wing doesn't let the military do its thing

Answer 9

Yes they could and they probably wouldnt mess around and yes they did seize and conquer almost everyone apart from Britain.

Answer 10

Hitler wasn't a military genius ....he had an obsession about pure race ...ARIAN one...and i don't call the HOLOCAUST a STRATEGY..."we can use some of those strategies..."u said ...in 21 century ...sad ...