Talk:Blitzkrieg

message: I think the translation of "Blitzkrieg" as "lightning war" is misleading/inferior. The term "Blitzkrieg" refers to a surprisingly fast attack compared to a long-lasting conflict with high material attrition. Hence, "flash war" might be a better translation (In German, both flash and lightning are translated to "Blitz").
:And, you would be incorrect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to the party. I do think that "flash war" is a more accurate translation, but it seems that all English articles from the 1930s, when the term emerged, used "lighting" as the translation for "Blitz", so that is the right translation now, even if it perhaps was inaccurate 
at one point. Cortador (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation of "Blitzkrieg" 

message: As I can see this being a contentious edit if I just went and did it. I would like get some other's feedback on whether this article should be kept in the :Category:Nazi terminology. While this term was widely used to describe the German tactics during the Nazi regime I would argue it was not in fact a Nazi term and would be a better fit for either :Category:Military terminology or :Category:Military slang and jargon as it wasn't officially a recognized tactic by a military and mostly used in propaganda and media. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Terminology Cat 

message: In the current day and age, Blizkrieg tactics and strategies are used in guerilla wars. On a macro-level, Blizkrieg strategies compensate for the weaknesses of ancient-old Pillbox and Trench structures. On a micro-level, Blizkrieg tactics are used in pvp battles, aiming to overload one enemy person with events and accumulated information, releasing it all on one specific person at the same time. However, these strategies are easily recognizable for those with years of corporate training. 
On a micro level, the most effective counter strategy is to add all incoming transmissions to a waiting line and to create a actionable bullet list that visualizes the to-be-done steps in a linear order, quickly exposing the enemy since they cannot form a logical, coherent story. The Hindenburg-disaster can be used as a counter-attack tactic after the enemy feels exposed. 
On a macro level, Blizkrieg strategies can be used to secretly get special ops forces behind enemy lines to form a counter-attack pattern. This is most effective when it is coordinated with attacks at the front of the enemy lines. Note that this is a systemic approach and would not be very effective ass a simple micro-strategy, unless the specific enemy person does not have corporate experience. 83.174.136.83 (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern-day Blizkrieg 

message: The article states "On the Eastern Front, the war did not bog down into trench warfare since the German and the Russian Armies fought a war of maneuver over thousands of miles, which gave the German leadership unique experience that was unavailable to the trench-bound Western Allies." It attributes this to Corum 1992. However, this is incorrect. The Eastern Front took longer to lock up in trench warfare, but it did. After the Central Powers' summer 1915 conquest of Russian Poland, both sides entrenched across the entire length of the Eastern Front. Russian offensives against the German trench line in 1916 all failed, with the Russians giving up on this sector. The Russians in 1916 and 1917 had partial successes against the Austro-Hungarian trench line, but in all cases they had to break through the trench line. Johnmastell (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World War I Eastern Front did bog down in trench warfare