ORIGINAL: loki100
So I would fully agree, whatever Blitzkrieg was it was not that new.
Sure it wasn't new. It's how war was conducted since the beginning of civilisation. King A gathers his forces, marches towards King B's forces, big battle ensues ant it's game over (simplified scenario). In fact a combination of skirmishes + engagements + the proper big battle (or two or three).
Clausewitz would summarise all this in the 1800s. But a new industrial society would radically change the war business in 1914 (some even say the American Civil War). No one expected what was coming: the astonishing resistance of these societies meant they could field and lose many armies and yet more huge armies were formed in the rear. The old "skirmishes + engagements + the proper big battle" was suddenly obsolete. But NEVER forget they did not know this in august 1914... Revolutionary changes that is.
Said this, the dilemma in 1940 was clear. Could they replicate the now obsolete "King A vs King B" or would they face the mighty power and resistance seen in WWI?
In France 1940 Hitler managed to fight a pre-1914 war: a gamble that worked (it didn't vs a much tougher enemy: the Soviet society and Red Army). He simply could not afford the other scenario as the East would soon show. But this kind of war was certainly a really old business.
EDIT: the only way Hitler could have won is now obvious. Somehow (in a total war environment, industrial production and the population politically organised) manage to start a war like the wars of the old kings, bishops, dukes and consuls. And of course, hope your enemy does the same (ie they drop dead after a few blows). A pipe dream [:D]
If only...
