Pros And Cons Of Blitzkrieg

1 being a member of the party allowed rapid or favored advancement for officers and privileges for soldier’s families back home. The soldiers could not have committed the ats that they did on the eastern front if they had not swallowed the pill of nazi racism. They swore an oath to serve the furher. At the very least, soldiers rounded up the civilians that would be sent to the forced labor camps and in many cases were individually responsible for atrocities. Note that they had choices, but too often their commanding officer or officers in the field were placed there by the party.

Hitler’s army was not an efficient one. Though the Blitkrieg was astoundingly successful in Poland, The Low Countries, and France their true faults become apparent in the rocky terrain of the Balkans and the muddy swamps on the Eastern Front. The strategy of Blitzkrieg
The myth of German superiority and invulnerability had to be maintained or else the Nazi party would lose popular support. Hitler’s overall goal was to sack Eastern Europe and displace its inhabitants so he felt that on smaller scales this strategy would be shared by his men. In doing so, Hitler and his army offended a large population of people that would have happily fought back against the Soviet yoke but instead became yet another partisan force that threatened the Wehrmacht’s rear and complicated supply lines. Another glaring factor in the German war mentality in the East was their inefficiency of airplane and vehicle repair. While forward bases and vehicles were taken in the advance, the damaged German material was sent back to factories in Germany and Poland further complicating the supply line issues. Meanwhile the captured Soviet tanks and planes were disregarded or destroyed outright, choosing to bomb whole airfields that had already been abandoned in the first weeks of