Moderator: Community Team
------------- Someday History would get Poland 1939 A.D. Right.....Dukasaur wrote:Ukraine is on the verge of making history. In the history of nations surviving a blitzkrieg-style combined-arms onslaught by a larger power, few have survived a month. The record so far is the 44 days that France survived after the German invasion of 1940. In six more days Ukraine will pass that record.
France and Allies vs Nazi Germany, May 10 to June 22, 1940 (44 days)
Iraq vs U.S. and allies, March 20 to May 1st, 2003 (43 days)
Ukraine vs Russia, February 24 to April 2, 2022 (so far) (39 days and counting)
Poland vs Germany and Russia, Sept 1 to Oct 6, 1939 (36 days)
India vs Pakistan, Sept 1 to Sept 22, 1965 (22 days)
Yugoslavia vs Nazi Germany, April 6 to April 17, 1941 (12 days)
Iraq vs U.S. and allied Coalition, Feb 17 to 28, 1991 (12 days)
Egypt vs IDF, June 5 to June 10, 1967 6 days
I haven't forgotten. I listed "Germany and Russia" as the antagonists. Nor is 36 days wrong -- first attack was Sept 1st, last major element of the Polish army stood down on Oct 6th.ConfederateSS wrote:To be fair to Poland DUK....36 days is wrong for German Blitzkrieg....Have you forgotten ...16 days later ...The Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East....Now Poland was fighting 2 super powers ...Held out for 6 weeks...That is Awesome...
--------I see...Two Russias...One on top of each other...ouch...oops...Dukasaur wrote:I haven't forgotten. I listed "Germany and Russia" as the antagonists. Nor is 36 days wrong -- first attack was Sept 1st, last major element of the Polish army stood down on Oct 6th.ConfederateSS wrote:To be fair to Poland DUK....36 days is wrong for German Blitzkrieg....Have you forgotten ...16 days later ...The Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East....Now Poland was fighting 2 super powers ...Held out for 6 weeks...That is Awesome...
I used fairly strict criteria in selecting the list. None of the ones you've mentioned would qualify. For starters, none were invasions in the classic sense.bigtoughralf wrote:The list is missing a few anyway:
So the record holders are actually the Koreans, or if you're only counting powers that resisted the blitzkreig unaided then it's the Vietnamese (although if we're only counting unaided resistances then you would have to erase several entries from the original list as France, Ukraine and Egypt all received significant support from third parties).
- US invasion of Grenada, 1983 (4 days)
- US attack on the Viet Cong in Cambodia, 1970 (61 days, no victory to the attacker)
- USSR invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968 (2 days)
- US attack on North Korea*, 1950 (421 days, no victory to the attacker)
*China supplied troops to the North Korean side but the US offensive still outnumbered the North Koreans/Chinese and was using air support and armour against a foe made up predominately of infantry
I think clearly reading between the lines it implies a conquest, even if I didn't use that term. It definitely does not include mere tinkering with other countries' internal politics, which all four of your examples were.bigtoughralf wrote:Your only stated criterion was 'a blitzkrieg-style combined-arms onslaught by a larger power'.
The only one of my four you could probably remove is the USSR one, as very little actual fighting ended up taking place.
After four days of fighting, the Russian military is bogged down in Ukraine. In part this is due to the valiant resistance of Ukraine’s army and civilian defense forces. But it’s also due to the fact that the Russian army just isn’t very good.
News reports, tweets, videos, and emails from the battlefields show Russia’s armored vehicles abandoned for lack of fuel, its soldiers foraging for food, its transport planes shot out of the sky, its various military elements—tanks, infantry, aircraft—unable to coordinate their aims.
Michael Kofman, a military analyst at CNA, an Arlington, Virginia–based think tank, who has been following the battle closely, tweeted late Sunday afternoon, “It’s taken me a while to figure out what [the Russian military is] trying to do, because it looks so ridiculous and incompetent.” B.A. Friedman, a military historian and tactician, went further: “This isn’t a good army executing a bad plan. It isn’t a good army executing outdated or out-of-context tactics. It’s a bad army!”
None of this should be overstated. Four days of fighting might seem an eternity when viewed through the prism of round-the-clock cable news, but, in retrospect, a month from now, it will seem like the blink of an eye. Even the best armies take a while to get going. That said, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been particularly sluggish and flawed.
In one sense, this was predictable. Over the past decade, the Russian armed forces have greatly improved, especially in the numbers of troops and quality of weapons. However, some of their age-old weaknesses haven’t been fixed at all.
The Russian army has always been bad at setting up and sustaining supply lines. Gen. Omar Bradley once said about different types of military officers, “Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.”* In that sense, Russians are amateurs. This is well known. It is why Ukrainian soldiers explicitly attacked the Russian supply lines. It’s why so many tanks and other vehicles have been spotted stuck on the side of a road.
This weakness might not matter so much if an army makes rapid progress at the start of its offensive. Its troops could plunder the places they conquer for fuel, food, and other supplies. But the Russian army isn’t cut out for lightning strikes. Troops are trained in rote set pieces, with no time devoted to improvising if things don’t go as planned. One reason for this is that junior officers are not allowed to take initiative. This is deliberate; it’s part of the top-down command system dating back to Soviet times, if not earlier. In politics and in warfare, the small elite on top doesn’t want subordinates to get too creative—if they did, they might take over.
And so, as the Russian invaders met resistance, they didn’t quite know what to do. Military operations designed to take place sequentially—Step 1, then 2, then 3, etc.—fell apart, catastrophically. If Step 2 hit a big obstacle, the by-the-book soldiers moved on to Step 3 anyway. Therefore, large troop-transport planes tried to land, even though the airport hadn’t been completely secured and Ukrainian air defense systems hadn’t been destroyed. As a result, two Il-76 transport planes, each carrying 100 airborne troops, were shot down.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
160+ countries have signed/ratified it and plenty of them also openly criticize China for violating the agreement that they did voluntarily sign on to... I guess China's word is not bond, and is no better than America.bigtoughralf wrote:Kinda like the US criticizing China for violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US has continually refused to sign up to it.
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:as far as dukasaur goes, i had no idea you were so goofy. i mean, you hate your parents so much you'd wish they'd been shot? just move out bro.
-------------I already said that.... Germany was a smaller force attacking a Larger force...The Soviet Union in 1941 A.D....Duk's thread is a Smaller Force holding on against a larger force...Qwert wrote:Surviving blitzkrieg?Surviving blitzkrieg? First of all what are blitzkrieg, its these military attack who are surprised for defending side??? Second _ how the hell you survive blitzkrieg if outcome are unconditional surrender??? All what you listed are failed survive of blitzkrieg and only what are surviving blitzkrieg you dont want to put its Nazi Germany attack on USSR in 1941.
Nazi Germany Blitzkrieg on 1941 on USSR have goal to very fast take MOscow and USSR manage to beat these blitzkrieg and survive, put that on list if you dare.
And by the way you put France and Allies like some minor country and German superior forces, and actually they are equal in force. You definition dont make any sense
The difference being China recognizes the law, claims to adhere to it and demands that others do too, whereas the US refuses to recognise the ICJ, refuses to adhere to its rules and yet still demands others adhere to it.mookiemcgee wrote:160+ countries have signed/ratified it and plenty of them also openly criticize China for violating the agreement that they did voluntarily sign on to... I guess China's word is not bond, and is no better than America.bigtoughralf wrote:Kinda like the US criticizing China for violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US has continually refused to sign up to it.
bigtoughralf wrote:The difference being China recognizes the law, claims to adhere to it and demands that others do too, whereas the US refuses to recognise the ICJ, refuses to adhere to its rules and yet still demands others adhere to it.mookiemcgee wrote:160+ countries have signed/ratified it and plenty of them also openly criticize China for violating the agreement that they did voluntarily sign on to... I guess China's word is not bond, and is no better than America.bigtoughralf wrote:Kinda like the US criticizing China for violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US has continually refused to sign up to it.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
blitz·krieg
/ˈblitsˌkrēɡ/
noun
an intense military campaign intended to bring about a swift victory.

There's a strict character limit for the length of titles in this forum and so a complete description could not be included, but one of the unstated assumptions in blitzkrieg is that the war should not be economically costly. The idea is that a power with a technological and tactical advantage should fire a lightning strike which will incapacitate the enemy with its opening blow and avoid a long, expensive war. Basically, this was what Bismarck and Moltke did to Austria during the Seven Weeks War, and every German offensive since 1866 was designed with the goal of repeating 1866.Qwert wrote:First of all what are blitzkrieg, its these military attack who are surprised for defending side??? Second _ how the hell you survive blitzkrieg if outcome are unconditional surrender??? All what you listed are failed survive of blitzkrieg and only what are surviving blitzkrieg you dont want to put its Nazi Germany attack on USSR in 1941.
Nazi Germany Blitzkrieg on 1941 on USSR have goal to very fast take MOscow and USSR manage to beat these blitzkrieg and survive, put that on list if you dare.