Canadians showed Germany the Blitzkrieg

[Habu]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now you openly lie.

Gurn post an example and your post would have so much more crediblity.

[Habu]

Originally posted by Pongo
Habu.
fighing better then the Brits and French in WW1 doesnt establish any place in valahalla for the Canadian effort.
The germans wrestled for years for a way to regain a war of manuver. The Canadians didnt demonstrate that.  I assume you are talking about actions like the Pursuit to Mons.
Hardly an example of Blitzkrieg.  The Germans were simpley bled dry and had nothing left. Revolt forumlating at home. The people starving.
The canadians in that action didnt implement any doctrine remotely related to blitzkrieg. They simply kept chasing. They didnt move to encircle. I believe the quickly out paced thier arty. They certainly had no integrated fighterbomber capablitiy. They germans collapsed and the Allies kept up the preasure.

The germans STARTED ww1 with that kind of operation in 1914.

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 race to the channel which marked the start of WW1 degenerated in the static trench warfare that followed for the next 4 years. Clearly trench warfare where a smaller army was capable of holding ground against an overwhelmingly larger one was the solution to the tactics the Germans used at the start of the war.

It was the Canadians that developed a way to overcome this solution and demonstrated it with stunning success in the Hundred Days and in the intial capture of Vimy Ridge. It was at Vimy Ridge that the counter attack to the great German offensive of 1918 was begun after the rest of the allied lines had basically collasped.

Vimy Ridge was the one place that did not get taken by the Germans in this counter attack.

Now back to my initial point. What was the key to the Canadians success in the Hundred Days and why was it so effective and different from what the British French and Americans were doing up to that point? And how was that related to the Blitzkrieg of WW2? What was the major innovation the Blitzkrieg was based on? If it was just another massed attack then what was so different about it?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Thrawn
That one is easy, the British Generals were a bunch of mass murdering morons.

Not only the British generals...

[GRUNHERZ]

You said all that was demostrated in this thread was insults.

Thats not true, not even remotely.  You may choose to ignore the inconvenient facts presented by GS, Pongo and me but that does not mean they were not prsented.

But look, I have enough experience arguing with kooks on this board to know thatv there is nothing any of us can tell you or show yoiu that will change your mind at this stage.

I knew it was over when you began the "think for yourself" routine.

[Pongo]

Habu
Here is your post
"
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.

The Germans copied the Canadians.

"
You feel a set piece attack on the strongest held point on the whole front with a 7 day arty preperation that could be heard all the way to london, with no penetration or exploitation of the success at all is like Blitzkrieg? They built a model of vimy ridge..did the Germans build a model of poland to exercise on.

All of these things are the oposite of blitzkrieg. If the Germans had snuck in and stormed the largest fort in the maginot line they would have been copying the canadians.
Your assertion is so groundless and silly it is hard to even find a common denominator of fact to debate you about it. How do I convince someone who thinks that things like supprise a concentration of force in the attack where canadian inovations in war?

[Habu]

Originally posted by GScholz
Habu, I did not call you names ... but you conveniently ignored my post.

Sorry GS I did not catch your post. I will reply later when I get home.

[Habu]

Originally posted by Pongo
Habu
Here is your post
"
The Blitzkrieg was a way of massing your resources in a well timed point attack that exploited the enemy's weakness, while not getting bogged down in a trench warefare style stalemate.

The Germans copied the Canadians.

"
You feel a set piece attack on the strongest held point on the whole front with a 7 day arty preperation that could be heard all the way to london, with no penetration or exploitation of the success at all is like Blitzkrieg? They built a model of vimy ridge..did the Germans build a model of poland to exercise on.

All of these things are the oposite of blitzkrieg. If the Germans had snuck in and stormed the largest fort in the maginot line they would have been copying the canadians.
Your assertion is so groundless and silly it is hard to even find a common denominator of fact to debate you about it. How do I convince someone who thinks that things like supprise a concentration of force in the attack where canadian inovations in war?

Well quickly because I have to leave my office in a bit.

You are mixing up two totally different periods of the war. You seem so quick you name call that you are not even reflecting on the events.

Vimy Ridge demonstrated to the Germans that a coordinated concentrated attack using all technologies available when executed with precision timing was capable of taking the most heavily defended and dug in position with ease.

The Germans took that defeat analysed it and used the extra troops freed up by the truce with Russia to launch the offensive of 1918 which was intially very successful.

Canada countered the German offensive in the Hundred Days period by preventing the Germans from consolidating their gains and retaking all the ground lost and more. They did so by using the tactics that were later to develop into the Blitzkrieg type attack

[Habu]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You said all that was demostrated in this thread was insults.

Thats not true, not even remotely.  You may choose to ignore the inconvenient facts presented by GS, Pongo and me but that does not mean they were not prsented.

But look, I have enough experience arguing with kooks on this board to know thatv there is nothing any of us can tell you or show yoiu that will change your mind at this stage.

I knew it was over when you began the "think for yourself" routine.

You have not refuted nor discussed one thing relating to the military issues of this post. Every post you make is the same.

I am discussing with Pongo my arguements and asking him to define Blitzkrieg so I can show him the relavance to my original post. Still waiting for his reply. that is not ignoring his facts.

I replied to GS and will post more when I get home.

You have said nothing even remotely intelligent here and I don't expect you will so good bye and don't let the door hit you in the bellybutton on the way out.

[GRUNHERZ]

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.

Of course you have since  altered your story to now say that the germans learned this from the canadians from vimy ridge.  So when?

Dont try to weazel out of it now, because there are yoiur words Habu...

"My point about the Blitzkrieg concerns the battles won by the Canadians during the last 6 months of the war up to the final day."

So stop changing your story Habu....

And your original post is not blitzkrieg, read what pongo has been saying.

He disagrees with you.  

What I see in this last post of yours is you waiting to pin Pongo onto some limited aspect of blitzkrieg and then hammer him with some wildly eggagerated link that you extrapolate from these late ww1 battles.  

Not unlike what you have been doing the whole time.

[Furball]

Originally posted by Habu
Read the second and third pages there Furball. You will get to the part about Hawai. Always good to read and reflect before fireing off an insulting post.

you get insulted pretty easy mr habu.  everything anyone seems to debate or say with you - you interpret as insulting or personal attack.

I have nothing against you, just differing opinion on this.

He also went to Europe and the Far East to study the advances being made in aviation. After returning from the latter trip in 1924, he wrote a shocking 323-page report--probably the most prophetic document of his career--that stressed that, when making estimates of Japanese air power, "care must be taken that it is not underestimated."

He predicted that air attacks would be made by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines and described how they would be conducted.
 

It seems from what i have read, that contrary to what you have posted, it was Mitchell prophesising what the Japanese would do rather than the Japanese basing their attack on his report.


Its like saying the soviets based the iron curtain on Churchills 1946 prophecy.

[Furball]

Originally posted by straffo
Not only the British generals...

and what do you mean by that?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Furball
and what do you mean by that?

The French ones too..

[vorticon]

whats the definition of blitzkrieg?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Furball
Canada flew aeroplanes so really they showed Japan how to attack pearl harbour.

Those Candian BASITGES!!!!  

[Furball]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The French ones too..

ahh!