I understand headlines need to be short but I’m not comfortable with this WW2 terminology.
edit: all Ukraine subs get you downvoted into negative numbers at the slightest hint of what could be construed to be criticism against Ukraine’s forces, journalists or people. I do not mean it that way. I just don’t like that term because of the nazi associations I get from it, regardless of Ukraine’s very justified war against Russia.
edit2: judging from your comments, for an English speaker Blitz seems to refer to any type of “lightning war”, maybe even a counterattack against the Nazis, rather than something the Nazis coined if not invented. For a German speaker it’s the other way round:
Mit dem für die Weltöffentlichkeit unerwartet kurzen Polenfeldzug im Jahre 1939 wurde der Begriff „Blitzkrieg“ zum Synonym für eine (vermeintlich oder tatsächlich) neue Form der Kriegführung. Der Begriff wurde erstmals 1935 in einem Artikel der Militärzeitschrift Deutsche Wehr verwendet.
Simplytranslate:
With the unexpectedly short Poland campaign in 1939 for the world public, the term “lightning war” became a synonym for a (supposedly or actually) new form of warfare. The term was first used in 1935 in an article by the Military Journal Deutsche Wehr.
the blitz was a set of war crimes committed together to make combatting the nazis harder. it went in waves
bombing civilian targets
inflicting terror on fleeing civilians with raucus noises (jericho sirens)
shooting civilians with machine gun fire
this was all meant to clog up the roads to make a response to the luftwaffe and wehrmacht slower. the next phase was:
rapid encirclement tactics to capture enemy combatants and civilians, alike
send the captured souls to work camps to engage in slave labor to further fuel the war machine and extend supply lines deeper into enemy territory
one particular nazi blitz was so intense, it is merely known as “the blitz”. this particular action was part of the battle of brittain and lasted the entire war with the nazis developing new forms of weapons such as cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to assault women, children, and pets.
saying Ukraine is engaging in blitz tactics, as this headline does, is feeding russia’s ridiculous de-nazification narrative. it also ignores the operational reality of who in this war has been employing blitz tactics and counter blitz tactics. russia is engaged in a war of imperial genocide that reflects the nazis’ war aims very closely both in terms of ideological justification and tactics, where as Ukraine is engaged in a war of anti-colonial survival that doesn’t look exactly like the battle of brittain due to Ukraine’s lack of overseas colonies, but frankly has more in common with Ireland’s Troubles, Cambodia and Laos struggles for independence, or Chinese resistance to the invading forces of imperial Japan.
The word ‘blitz’ nowadays is used to describe an offensive tactics when you capture as much ground as possible when the enemy is unprepared. I would use the word ‘blitzkrieg’ to refer to the historic tactics used by WW2 Germany.
But anyway, it’s not very fitting for drones, because they are not capturing any territory.
But anyway, it’s not very fitting for drones, because they are not capturing any territory.
Agreed, the entire aim of a Blitz or Blitzkrieg is territorial capture and encirclement of large portions of the enemy that can be isolated and forced to surrender rather than having to smash the enemy to bits piece by piece in a way that grinds down and degrades friendly forces.
This is complicated by the fact that people will often use the word “Blitz” in English in much more general contexts to imply a process done in a coordinated, surprise, overwhelming action, so this use of the word “Blitz” is kind of between a more precise and more general usage in an awkward spot for journalists.
It gets even more headache inducing when you keep reading about the history of the word lol (from the wikipedia article)
Despite being common in German and English-language journalism during World War II, the word Blitzkrieg was never used as an official military term by the Wehrmacht, except for propaganda, and it was never officially adopted as a concept or doctrine.[8][b] According to David Reynolds, “Hitler himself called the term Blitzkrieg ‘a completely idiotic word’ (ein ganz blödsinniges Wort)”.[10] Some senior German officers, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder, and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, even disputed the idea that it was a military concept. Kielmansegg asserted that what many regarded as blitzkrieg was nothing more than “ad hoc solutions that simply popped out of the prevailing situation”. Kurt Student described it as ideas that “naturally emerged from the existing circumstances” as a response to operational challenges.[11]
During the years preceding World War II, Opel was Germany’s largest truck producer. The Blitz name, coined in a prize competition, was first applied to the new Opel truck presented in November 1930.[1] As part of the Nazi economy and the German re-armament efforts, the authorities ordered the construction of the Opelwerk Brandenburg facilities in 1935, and through 1944 more than 130,000 Blitz trucks and chassis were produced.
The word “Blitz” is intimately connected with the idea of using a truck to conduct rapid maneuver warfare in such a way that nullified brutally inefficient WW1 tactics and their ignorance of what the truck (and also honestly, horse) could do to the calculus of war. I agree though, “Blitz” still potentially carries Nazi and fascist undertones/context.
I am fine with using a different word than “Blitz”, but what should we use? “Armored maneuver warfare” doesn’t cover it because the Blitz is about the truck before even the armored vehicle even though armored vehicle rushes are what people mainly think of.
“Mechanized Warfare” is a good one? It points to tools not tactics though which misses a critical aspect.
I understand headlines need to be short but I’m not comfortable with this WW2 terminology.
edit: all Ukraine subs get you downvoted into negative numbers at the slightest hint of what could be construed to be criticism against Ukraine’s forces, journalists or people. I do not mean it that way. I just don’t like that term because of the nazi associations I get from it, regardless of Ukraine’s very justified war against Russia.
edit2: judging from your comments, for an English speaker Blitz seems to refer to any type of “lightning war”, maybe even a counterattack against the Nazis, rather than something the Nazis coined if not invented. For a German speaker it’s the other way round:
Simplytranslate:
The word “blitz” is in common usage across the English language.
People forget that English is just German, Spanish, and French masquerading in a trench coat pretending to be one language.
We even use some German words instead of alternative English words
It has nothing to do with criticism against Ukraine but the term “Blitz” being pretty established
Why not?
the blitz was a set of war crimes committed together to make combatting the nazis harder. it went in waves
this was all meant to clog up the roads to make a response to the luftwaffe and wehrmacht slower. the next phase was:
one particular nazi blitz was so intense, it is merely known as “the blitz”. this particular action was part of the battle of brittain and lasted the entire war with the nazis developing new forms of weapons such as cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to assault women, children, and pets.
saying Ukraine is engaging in blitz tactics, as this headline does, is feeding russia’s ridiculous de-nazification narrative. it also ignores the operational reality of who in this war has been employing blitz tactics and counter blitz tactics. russia is engaged in a war of imperial genocide that reflects the nazis’ war aims very closely both in terms of ideological justification and tactics, where as Ukraine is engaged in a war of anti-colonial survival that doesn’t look exactly like the battle of brittain due to Ukraine’s lack of overseas colonies, but frankly has more in common with Ireland’s Troubles, Cambodia and Laos struggles for independence, or Chinese resistance to the invading forces of imperial Japan.
The word ‘blitz’ nowadays is used to describe an offensive tactics when you capture as much ground as possible when the enemy is unprepared. I would use the word ‘blitzkrieg’ to refer to the historic tactics used by WW2 Germany.
But anyway, it’s not very fitting for drones, because they are not capturing any territory.
Agreed, the entire aim of a Blitz or Blitzkrieg is territorial capture and encirclement of large portions of the enemy that can be isolated and forced to surrender rather than having to smash the enemy to bits piece by piece in a way that grinds down and degrades friendly forces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
This is complicated by the fact that people will often use the word “Blitz” in English in much more general contexts to imply a process done in a coordinated, surprise, overwhelming action, so this use of the word “Blitz” is kind of between a more precise and more general usage in an awkward spot for journalists.
It gets even more headache inducing when you keep reading about the history of the word lol (from the wikipedia article)
deleted by creator
People using suggestive words won’t change that, though.
Are they jokes? Or is it flirting with real fears? And either way, why would it be bad to use familiar terms?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Blitz
an Opel Blitz
The word “Blitz” is intimately connected with the idea of using a truck to conduct rapid maneuver warfare in such a way that nullified brutally inefficient WW1 tactics and their ignorance of what the truck (and also honestly, horse) could do to the calculus of war. I agree though, “Blitz” still potentially carries Nazi and fascist undertones/context.
I am fine with using a different word than “Blitz”, but what should we use? “Armored maneuver warfare” doesn’t cover it because the Blitz is about the truck before even the armored vehicle even though armored vehicle rushes are what people mainly think of.
“Mechanized Warfare” is a good one? It points to tools not tactics though which misses a critical aspect.