Canadians showed Germany the Blitzkrieg

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by vorticon
whats the definition of blitzkrieg?

According to Habu its a sustained week long artillery barrgae foloowed by a massed frontal attck on the enemys strongest point.

Its obviously excatly like what the  germans did in 1940  as they bravely attcaked the heart of the maginot line after a devestaing bombardment of the French positions.

[Furball]

Originally posted by vorticon
whats the definition of blitzkrieg?

its german translates loosely to "if in doubt, copy canada"

[straffo]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The French ones too..

Right.

[Pongo]

hebu.
I have given your thesis more time and energy then it deserves.
It is defeated. You have posted nothing to support your assertion. Nothing to show you even understand why Blitzkrieg is a recognized as a military inovation.

So if Canada demonstrated the foundations of Blitzkrieg at the end of WW1(its not at Vimy now apperently, althought you seemed to be saying that Vimy was blitzkrieg like until I convinced even you otherwise) Then please save us the babble and post the exact reasons why. Show us the parity.

But I maintain that all that happend in 1918 is that the German gamble that was enabled by the armitice with Russia and provoked by the US entry into the war enabled mobile warfare to be waged. That Canada was the reason for that I had never heard stated. The reason that Vimy was the only place not taken if true is probably because the germans knew better then to attack the strongest spot in the line. amazing isnt it?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Furball
its german translates loosely to "if in doubt, copy canada"

Heheh.

[Habu]

Pongo go back and read what I have typed.

Really do so.

I never said the Blitzkrieg was based on Vimy ridge.

I used Vimy ridge as an example of how a British historian (in the official British history of the war) would rate Vimy as a relatively minor battle and victory. This is an example of the bias of British historians because Vimy was much more than that. Just read the German generals thought on that battle to see that.

My original post said that starting at Vimy (which was the start in that is showed that you can take any position with proper preparation) but more importantly is the next statement "and continueing right until the last day of the war". Here is where I am hinting you will find the correlation between Blitzkrieg and the tactics the Canadians were using to defeat the Germans.

Of course I could have just come out and spoon fed my reasons in the original post but I was hopeing people would see what the Canadians did in the last 100 or so days of the war and compare that to the tactics used by the Germans in the Blitzkrieg.

All thought it based on what was learned from what came before. From Vimy came ideas for the spring offensive of 1918 and from the defeat of the Germans in that offensive came the ideas of the Blitzkrieg

I keep asking you to state what about the Blitzkrieg makes it a military innovation but you refuse to answer yet you claim you are an expert on this topic.

I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.

It is interesting the the link posted by Curval basically makes the same point I did even though I have never seen the link before. My school of thought on this is not unique and that author also makes the connection.

But if his thesis and mine are not worth your time and you feel no need to enlighten me on where I am wrong so be it.

[Pongo]

"I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.
"
Thats the triple crown. You dont understand Blitzkrieg, Vimy or debate.

[Nashwan]

The hundred days as it later became know was started by the battle of Amiens. The Canadians used innovate tactics and even openly refused to follow the orders of the British to spearhead that attack, the ones that followed including the most important which was the crossing of the Canal du Nord, and defeat the Germans.

The Hundred Days was a good example of combined arms operations, but what makes you think it was a Canadian innovation?

It was after all the British who developed tanks, which were rather important to combined arms operations.

The Hundred Days describes the British and Commonwealth combined arms offensive against the Germans, not just Canadian operations.  The battle of Amiens consisted of 8 British divisions, 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 2 US infantry regiments, and the French 1st Army, all under the cmmand of the British 4th Army. A British General, Rawlinson, was in command.

The Australian and Canadian Corps each contained 1 of the British divisions.

The British also supplied over 400 tanks, and the combined allied air forces over 1,000 aircraft.

[Habu]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
According to Habu its a sustained week long artillery barrgae foloowed by a massed frontal attck on the enemys strongest point.

Its obviously excatly like what the  germans did in 1940  as they bravely attcaked the heart of the maginot line after a devestaing bombardment of the French positions.

Actually Grun you are wrong for the reasons stated in my previous post.

WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.

But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.

Can you tell me why this is so?

[Habu]

Originally posted by Pongo
"I know what I think is unique about the Blitzkrieg and how it relates to what the Canadians were doing in the last 100 days but I want you come out and say it. That is how a debate works.
"
Thats the triple crown. You dont understand Blitzkrieg, Vimy or debate.

My opinion of you just drops lower and lower with each reply. You allude to this wealth of knowledge but I am still waiting to see it.

[Nashwan]

Right. I have said nothing except to point out that Germans used the exact same theories in their early 1918 offensive that you were saying were used by the canadians in the last 6 months of the war - and that somehow those ideas inspired blitzkrieg.

They weren't the same theories.

Germany didn't have the tanks or the aircraft to carry out operations in the same way as the allied 100 days offensive. Grmany developed and used small unit tactics of infiltration in their offensive in early 1918, which was pretty costly in the lives of their soldiers.

WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.

To begin with. It's wrong to think the whole war was fought in the same way, though.

But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.

Can you tell me why this is so?

It's a mistaken assumption.

The large scale adoption of tanks by the British followed the 1916 offensives, which show rather well that the British were seeking to innovate in tactics.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Habu
Actually Grun you are wrong for the reasons stated in my previous post.

WW1 was all about week long artillery barrages and massed attacks after and each time the result was the same. The attackers got slaughtered.

But the Canadians started to do something different and were not slaughtered and started to win ground.

Can you tell me why this is so?

So now yoiu say Vimy didnt have a week long artillery barrage to start?

Or is Vimy no longer central tro your theory? I forget which version of the tale you are spinning now...

You are enttled to your own opinions, but not your own set of facts...

[Habu]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The Hundred Days was a good example of combined arms operations, but what makes you think it was a Canadian innovation?

It was after all the British who developed tanks, which were rather important to combined arms operations.

The Hundred Days describes the British and Commonwealth combined arms offensive against the Germans, not just Canadian operations.  The battle of Amiens consisted of 8 British divisions, 4 Canadian divisions, 5 Australian divisions, 2 US infantry regiments, and the French 1st Army, all under the cmmand of the British 4th Army. A British General, Rawlinson, was in command.

The Australian and Canadian Corps each contained 1 of the British divisions.

The British also supplied over 400 tanks, and the combined allied air forces over 1,000 aircraft.

THat is a very good point and you are correct as all operations were combined at this point. It was how the attacks were exectuted and what was happening after each attack that was the basis of my argument.

The offical history would say the Canadians were under the command of the British 4th army but that was hardly the case. The Canadian General Curry was decideing how to make each attack and how to use his forces. The British set the objectives only. Haig did make the plans for the Canadians at Canal du Nord and Curry disobeyed them. The British were not in charge, if they were that very important battle (probably the most important battle of the campaign) would have been lost and thousands of Canadians would have died. Instead the Canadians crossed the canal and started a lightening advance on the other side.

[Torque]

Throwing off the the shackles of inept parlour Generals, was the best tactic the Canadians evar used.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Habu
My opinion of you just drops lower and lower with each reply. You allude to this wealth of knowledge but I am still waiting to see it.

My opinion of you started low and has stayed there or maybe dropped a bit.
You like the word allude. yet that is all you do. Allude to facts you do not present. Now we find that this is what you call debate.

Most of us do not. Most of us would say debate is you presenting your opinion and then supporting it.  Not you presenting your opinion and then alluding to some facts you want people to guess at to prove you right.

You now seem to be focusing on the crossing of some canal as the birth place of Blitzkrieg.
Give us the details.