Blitzkrieg Strategy

Whether you were in a trench, getting trench foot, or on the battlefield trying to defend against fast moving tanks and artillery, fighting in either World War was not a pleasant experience. In the World Wars, enemies used many different tactics to break each other, with the goal of winning in mind. World War I consisted of a long, drawn out trench war, with many battles ending in stalemate, up until the Germans ran out of morale to continue fighting the war, and surrendered. In World War II, strategies were largely the same, trying to break the economy and morale of the enemy and their people. However, there was a leap in technology which allowed for a new tactic, the Blitzkrieg strategy. There were many differences between World War I and …show more content…
In World War I, enemies dug into the ground hundreds of feet from each other, and poking a head above the trench would mean almost certain death. Contrary to this, in World War II, the Germans revolutionized warfare with a new strategy they called “Blitzkrieg” which was a term for lightning war. “Blitzkrieg tactics required the concentration of offensive weapons (such as tanks, planes, and artillery) along a narrow front” (ushmm). This new strategy quickly made trench warfare useless and allowed Germany to swiftly conquer multiple fronts. Using airpower and artillery, the Germans thrusted quickly in between the gaps in the opponent’s line. They cut off support, allowing them to surround the enemy entirely, forcing the enemy to surrender. Trench warfare, on the other hand, had people digging into the ground and fighting intensive wars that almost always resulted in a stalemate. Trench warfare is, by definition, “[a] relatively permanent system of trenches dug into the ground” (Brittanica). Enemies fortified themselves and were stuck in these trenches, gaining no ground, and no one winning anything decisively, if at all. People, “sacrifice[d] their mobility in order to gain protection” (Brittanica). Trenches were not good places to be stuck in, as they often caused numerous diseases, which could result in the loss of limbs, and certainly lives. Soldiers were hardly able to move around in these …show more content…
Civilians provided the much needed labor and materials needed for fighting the war. Because of this, Germans bombed civilians to ruin their enemy’s morale and hopefully cripple their resources. Citizens, “were expected to buy government issued bonds to fund the war” (ibatpv). It was a war crime to deliberately target hospitals, religious buildings, and civilians. But that did not stop anyone from doing it, as it could not be proven that it was a deliberate target of bombings. However, “food, transportation, factories and even vehicles [were] legitimate targets of Total War” (ibatpv). This meant that civilians were also affected greatly, supposedly ruining their morale. In some cases it did, but the tactic was brutal. Factories, transportation, and cities all were targets of the more advanced bomber planes, which ripped cities apart, and caused massive destruction. Contrary to this brutal massacre of cities and people, World War I used less harsh methods. World War I still could be considered a Total War, but there was less of a stress on the civilians. Due to the lack of better technology, citizens were safe from attacks inland. Factories and transport lines were very difficult to attack without the planes that were developed specifically for fighting. However, in both wars, the goal of the war was to cripple the enemy’s economy. If the enemy’s economy was in the