I heard that the "Blitz" method was only a myth of sucess why were the Germans so successful at the start WW2?

Answer 1

Blitzkrieg was not a myth. German tactics relied heavily on the use of radio communications which allowed coordination between air and ground forces and allowed the panzer (armored) divisions to move more quickly, ahead of their supply lines and out of visual contact with each other. A great account is in the book "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian. It may be hard to get - it was published in ~1952.

Answer 2

Somehow. Yes, the blitzkrieg was a very innovative way of waging war; massive air strikes over the supply lines and communications, massive armor attacks to break the front and round up enemy divisions, air superiority, espionage and gathering of intelligence, etc.

But that alone does NOT explain the success of Germany at the start of WW2. If you take a look on how they defeated France, you'll see that, for instance, the French Army alone had more tanks than the Wehrmacht. And RAF + French Air Airforce = Luftwaffe. The allies could also forget about half the front with Germany, because the Maginot Line, stretching from Switzerland to Luxembourg was a formidable barrier against any German attack, so they could just deploy their armies along the rest of the front, from Luxembourg to the North Sea, while the Germans had to stand by athe whole front line. The thing is that, instead of doing this, the allies were simply stupid. The French and the British left the Ardennes totally unprotected. Just look at a map.

The Germans atacked Holland a Belgium only with a fraction of their army, the French and the British, totally retarded, advanced to challenge the Germans, and then, guess WHERE took place the main German attack; exactly, in the Ardennes. They just outflanked the Maginot Line, outflanked the Allied Armies and got them sieged at Dunkirk. Luckily, most of the those men were finally evacuated by sea to Britain, but by then France was totally doomed. No army, no front lines. Easy peasy. So in the end, it all comes down to strategy. With no serious challenge ahead, the german panzerdivisions advanced through the heart of France, entered Paris and then atacked the still operative Maginot line from behind.

Answer 3

The Germans were lucky to have Generals who think out of the box, study their failures in WW1 & learn from them while also having the luck to have Hitler support their views. Also, the Germans had intended to use the Schlieffen Plan in the opening moves against France but resorted to a more novel plan of breaking through the Ardenned as their original plan fell into Allied hands when the plane carrying the plans crash landed.

Conversely, the British & French stuck to their old thinking, not heeding the voices of those who pushed for combined arms warfare & thinking that the German attack would again end up in trench warfare. The Maginot line did not extend beyond France's border with Germany whereas the Ardennes was not defended as it was perceived to be unpassable to armour movement.

Answer 4

The German blitz "method", as employed by Guderian during the attacks on Poland and France was a reality, the 'myth of success' is a curious description of their early victories in the war. The French and Russians had superiority in tanks, not only in quality, but quantity. Their tactics were rooted in the static warfare of WW I howver, where tanks supported the infantry.

The Germans, on the other hand, were employing the tactics espoused by Liddle Hart and Heinz Guderian. The massed armour of the German Panzers....their motto, strike fast and with the most tanks at the point of attack, bypass the pockets of opposition, with coordinated air support. The Allied tanks attacked in penny packets, easy pickins for the German anti-tank gunners, their burning hulks littered the battlefields.

Answer 5

A myth? Poland defeated in 30 days, France in 6 weeks, and Britain driven off the continent-that was no myth. The appeasement or failure to stop Hitler's aggression, had much to do with German success. If France and England would have attacked Germany when Germany invaded Poland I think the war would have ended shortly in an Allied victory.

Answer 6

Eh, the Blitz was successful but relied heavily on ramming home as much armor and soldiers as possible at a weak point in an enemy's line. It really worked well in securing Europe and had Hitler went ahead with Operation Sealion (the invasion of England), WW2 would have turned out differently. The bad part was that the Germans lost more officers in comparison to their enemies and allies.

Answer 7

Another factor of early success not mentioned was the relatively small distances to be covered by the Germans. The Blitzkrieg relied on speed. This meant that supplies had to keep up otherwise the offensive would grind to a halt. This was achievable when the area was small, as was the case when invading the Low Countries. However, there would be problems using the same tactics when Germany invaded the large expanses of the Soviet Union.

Answer 8

The Blitzkrieg or Lightening War wasn't really a myth. The German troops were better trained and more modernly equiped than their opponents. The French were still using WWI tactics for defense with fixed positions. So... the Germans just went around them. The conquest of Poland was so fast because you can't fight tanks with horse cavalry. The British did an admirable job of holding them off but they just didn't have the resources to make any headway against them. Once we started supplying them they faired better but didn't have the manpower that was needed to turn the tide.
If some European governments had truelty been on the ball, instead of trying to molify Hitler, they would have built up their armies and defenses in preparation.
We could have entered the war a bit earlier too but we didn't have a large or well enough equiped military either. It takes a long time to gear up for a war on that scale when your military is gutted to low peace time levels thanks to politicians that want to spend the money needed to maintain an up to date military on pet projects of their own so they can get more votes & stay in power.

Answer 9

The blitzkrieg was very successful until the opposition worked out a way to deal with it.
The essential method was to push forward swiftly with armored columns closely supported by dive bombers to eliminate pockets of resistance.
This disrupted the defenders organisation and caused panic among the enemy. The infantry could then come in and finish off the job.
Until the allies had superior air power and anti-tank weapons this method was very successful.

Answer 10

To some degree yes. Germany only had one completely mechanized unit at the beginning of the war. Most of the panzers that rolled across France had their fuel brought up by horse and carriage. The German infantry was sent to the front by rail. However the actual tactics that the Germans used were a new thing-tanks advancing unsupported by infantry, etc.