DOCSLIB.ORG

Airpower and Maneuver Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airpower and Maneuver Warfare Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data van Creveld, Martin L. Air power and maneuver warfare / by Martin van Creveld , contributing authors, Kenneth S. Brower and Steven L. Canby, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1 . Maneuver warfare. 2. Airpower. 3. Maneuver warfare-Case studies. I. Brower, Kenneth S. II. Canby, Steve L. Ill. Title. U250.V26 1994 355.4'2-dc20 94-16884 CIP ISBN 1-58566-050-7 First Printing July 1994 Second Printing August 1997 Third Printing July 2000 Fourth Printing September 2001 Disclaimer This publication was produced in the Department of Defense school environment in the interest of academic freedom and the advancement of national defense-related concepts. The views expresseded in this publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the United States government. This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities and is cleared for public release. Ll. Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii FOREWORD . v ABOUT THE AUTHOR . Vii CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS . ix PREFACE . xi INTRODUCTION . xiii Notes . xvi 1 THE NATURE OF THE BEAST . 1 Notes . 20 2 MANEUVER WARFARE IN ACTION-EARLY GERMAN CAMPAIGNS . 21 Notes . 56 3 MANEUVER WARFARE IN ACTION-THE GERMAN 1941 CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIA . 61 Notes . 98 PHOTO SECTION . 102 4 MANEUVER WARFARE IN ACTION-THE SOVIET VERSION . 109 Notes . 148 5 ISRAEL: MANEUVER WARFARE, AIR POWER, AND LOGISTICS . 153 Notes . 189 6 MANEUVER WARFARE AND AIR POWER IN THE 1990s . 193 Past Limitations on Air Power . 193 Air Power and New Developments . 196 Hardware . 197 Situational . 198 The Cordon Sanitaire of Reconstruction . 200 Differences in Styles of War for Air Power . 203 Notes . 211 111 Page APPENDIX . 213 THE INSTITUTE RESPONDS . 221 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 251 INDEX . 259 Illustrations Figure 1 The Campaign in Poland . 35 2 The Campaign in the West . 42 3 The Leningrad Campaign . 73 4 German Operations, 1941 . 77 5 The Campaign in the Ukraine . 79 6 The Campaign of Army Group Center, June-August 1941 . 86 7 Moscow: The Battles of Vyazma-Bryansk . 92 8 Battles of Encirclement of the Eastern Campaign, 1941 . 95 9 The 1967 Campaign in the Sinai . 164 10 The 1973 Campaign in the Sinai . 178 11 The Gulf Campaign, 1991 . 216 Table 1 Expenditure of Tank Armies per 100 Kilometers of Advance . 15 2 Divisional Estimated Requirement Rates Daily (Tons) . 16 3 Rates of Advance of Tank Armies in the Third Period of the Great Patriotic War (GPW) . 110 4 The Soviet Principles of Warfare at the Operational and Tactical Levels . 118 5 Average Densities of Manpower and Weapons in Breakthrough Sectors during the Great Patriotic War . 124 6 Average Aviation Densities on Axes of Attack in the Fronts . 141 iv Foreword An essential part of the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama, curriculum consists of the study of military history and specific campaigns . Distinguished military scholars often visit the college to discuss and explore issues with the faculty. Martin van Creveld was one of those distinguished scholars. He had previously been commissioned by the Air Staff to investigate the effects of the US Army's move toward a more maneuver-oriented kind of warfare and the effect that move will have on the US Air Force role on the battlefield. The Air Staff was concerned about a host of issues: logistic support for a highly mobile force; friendly force confusion on huge, rapidly changing battlefields; close air support with or without air base support; and a host of other issues . The bottom line for the Air Force concerned several issues of great impact. First, Must air combat change because land combat is changing? and, Is the decisiveness of air power increasing geometrically to the point where the twenty-first century will find it is as decisive as ground power was in the twentieth century? Our guest historian agrees that sophisticated, highly technical air and space developments may have made air power dominant on the conventional battlefield. The great exception, however, lies in the trend away from conventional to unconventional conflict . To Professor van Creveld, nation-states have lost the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. To prepare for a conventional scenario is to prepare for the last war, not the next one. The possibility of more "Lebanons" is much higher than the likelihood of future "Irags." The Airpower Research Institute (ARI) of the College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE), Maxwell AFB, Alabama, also became interested and V wished to comment on the entire study. Regardless of the fact that the kinds of warfare may be changing, the experience of the Israelis, the Luftwaffe, and the Soviet air force in supporting fast-moving forces is instructive to an air force that promises to support a steadily faster-moving army. And so the discussion went, with both sides learning much. We invite your interest and dialogue, and invite you to visit Maxwell AFB, Alabama. As the Air Corps Tactical School in the 1930s became central to developing air power theory and doctrine, so will that same role be adopted by the Air War College and the Airpower Research Institute in the 1990s. The Gulf War was a watershed for air power; there will never be another just like it, nor will there be an opportunity to fight it again. Martin van Creveld was born in the Netherlands but raised and educated in Israel. After taking his master's degree at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, he read for a doctorate in history at the London School of Economics. Since 1971, he has been on the faculty of the history department at the Hebrew University, where he is now a full professor. At present, he is the first occupant of the Oppenheimer Chair for Warfighting Strategy at the Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia. His most important publications are Hitler's Strategy 1940-1941: the Balkan Clue (1973) ; Military Lessons of the Yom Kippur War: Historical Perspectives (1975) ; Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1979); Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (1982); Command in War (1985) ; Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present (1989); The Training of Officers : From Military Professionalism to Irrelevance (1990) ; The Transformation of War (1991) ; and Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict (forthcoming). Vii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Contributing Authors The author wishes to extend his heartfelt thanks to the following contributing authors who willingly provided their time and expertise to this project. Kenneth S. Brower is a defense analyst and naval engineer . An internationally recognized author and lecturer on defense affairs specializing on the interaction of doctrine, tactics, and technology, he was widely seen and heard on US television and radio networks during Operation Desert Storm. Among numerous ship designs, Mr Brower was responsible for the Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser, as well as a number of other ship designs. He has specialized in conducting comparative studies of US and international ships and weapon systems . He is currently president of Spectrum Associates of Springfield, Virginia, a defense-consulting firm. Dr Steven L. Canby, an economist and defense analyst, is a well-known author and lecturer specializing in military doctrine, manpower, regional security, application of technology, task specialization, and European defense integration. He was among the handful of analysts responsible for inducing the change in the American style of war from firepower and attrition to maneuver . He is a graduate of West Point; the Infantry School's airborne, ranger, and commander courses ; Command and General Staff College; and Harvard University. He is currently president of C & L Associates of Pontiac, Maryland, a defense- ix consulting firm, and an adjunct professor in military history and the operational art of war for Georgetown University's graduate program in national security studies. Any errors or omissions remain my own, but the quality of this effort has been solidly improved by the contributing authors . x Preface In the form it has finally assumed, this volume falls into two very different parts . Part 1 was written by Dr Steve Canby, Ken Brower, and myself at the invitation of Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. It represents our joint attempt to clarify the relationship between air power and maneuver warfare since 1939, a subject that derives its importance from the fact that maneuver warfare has been the US Army's official doctrine since the early eighties and remains so to the present day. By contrast, part 2 was added ex post facto. It contains the collective wisdom of the military doctrine analysts of the Air University on the same subjects, as well as the way in which we have presented them. The reader is invited to wade through the entire volume and draw his/her own conclusion about the past, present, and future of air power on the one hand and maneuver warfare on the other, assuming indeed that they do have a future . In bringing this volume to print, I should like to thank several people who in various ways were instrumental for its genesis, production, and completion. The first is Dr Steve Canby who, in addition to writing some of the chapters, assumed much of the administrative burden connected with the contracting side . Another is Lt Col Andrew Ogan who acted as liaison between the authors on the one hand and the Pentagon and the Air University on the other. Finally, it is necessary to commend Mr Ted Kluz of the Air War College for persistence and determination. Not only was the original idea of doing this study his, but he has guided and supported it throughout the publication process .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Battle of Stalingrad: a Behavior Analytic Perspective
    REVISTA MEXICANA DE ANÁLISIS DE LA CONDUCTA 2007 NÚMERO 2 (DIC) MEXICAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 33, 239-246 NUMBER 2 (DEC) THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD: A BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE LA BATALLA DE STALINGRADO: UNA PERSPECTIVA BASADA EN EL ANÁLISIS DE LA CONDUCTA MARCO A. PULIDO1 LABORATORIO DE CONDICIONAMIENTO OPERANTE UNIVERSIDAD INTERCONTINENTAL ABSTRACT The purpose of the present paper is to suggest ways in which historians may use behavior analysis as a tool to design research agendas that may help them understand complex human behavior and atypical decision making pro- cesses. This paper presents a brief outline describing the general epistemo- logical and pragmatic virtues of approaching human behavior from a behavior analytic perspective. This outline is followed by a general description of the elements that should be taken into consideration when developing a research agenda based on behavior analytic principles. Lastly a research agenda re- garding a series of puzzling events leading to the encirclement of German Sixth Army during the so called “Battle of Stalingrad,” is used to exemplify the methodology proposed in this paper. Key words: Battle of Stalingrad, behavior analysis, research agenda RESUMEN El propósito de este ensayo es el de sugerir formas en que los historiado- res pueden utilizar los principios del análisis de la conducta para desarrollar 1. Este trabajo fue realizado gracias al apoyo de la Facultad de Psicología y al Instituto de Posgrado e Investigación de la Universidad Intercontinental. El autor agradece a Marco A. Pulido Benítez la corrección de estilo del trabajo y a los revisores anónimos sus valiosas aportaciones al mismo.
    [Show full text]
  • FUTURE WARFARE Anthology
    FUTURE WARFARE Anthology Revised Edition Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr. U.S. Army War College Carlisle barracks, pennsylvania ***** The views expressed within this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ***** ISBN 1-58487-026-5 ii CONTENTS Foreword General Donn A. Starry U.S. Army, Retired ............................. v Prologue Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr . .............. ix Revised Acknowledgements ........................ xi Introduction to the First Edition Dr. Williamson Murray ....................... xiii Preface to the First Edition Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr. ............. xix 1. Speed and Power: Primal Forces in the New American Style of War .......................... 1 2. Cycles of War ................................. 9 3. Preparing For War in the 21st Century with Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC, Retired ............................... 23 4. Adaptive Enemies: Dealing with the Strategic Threat after 2010 ............................. 41 5. A Sword with Two Edges: Maneuver in 21st Century Warfare .............. 65 6. From Korea to Kosovo : How America’s Army Has Learned to Fight Limited Wars in the Precision Age: ......................... 89 7. Clashes of Visions: Sizing and Shaping Our Forces in a Fiscally Constrained Environment .......... 111 8. America’s Army: Preparing For Tomorrow’s Security Challenges ......................... 125 9. The Dawn of a New Age of Warfare: And the Clarion Call for Enhanced Maneuver Capabilities ........................ 145 iii 10. The Annual Report for The Army After Next Project to the Chief of Staff of the Army ......... 153 11. The Army After Next: Intertwining Military Art, Science, and Technology Out to the Year 2025 with Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Synchronizing Airpower and Firepower in the Deep Battle
    After you have read the research report, please give us your frank opinion on the contents. All comments—large or small, complimentary or caustic—will be gratefully appreciated. Mail them to CADRE/AR, Building 1400, 401 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6428. Synchronizing Airpower and Laughbaum Firepower in the Deep Battle Thank you for your assistance COLLEGE OF AEROSPACE DOCTRINE, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION AIR UNIVERSITY Synchronizing Airpower and Firepower in the Deep Battle R. KENT LAUGHBAUM Lt Col, USAF CADRE Paper Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6610 January 1999 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. ii CADRE Papers CADRE Papers are occasional publications sponsored by the Airpower Research Institute of Air University’s College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE). Dedicated to promoting understanding of air and space power theory and application, these studies are published by the Air University Press and broadly distributed to the US Air Force, the Department of Defense and other governmental organizations, leading scholars, selected institutions of higher learning, public policy institutes, and the media. All military members and civilian employees assigned to Air University are invited to contribute unclassified manuscripts. Manuscripts should deal with air and/or space power history, theory, doctrine or strategy, or with joint or combined service matters bearing on the application of air and/or space power.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominant Land Forces for 21St Century Warfare
    No. 73 SEPTEMBER 2009 Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare Edmund J. Degen A National Security Affairs aperP published on occasion by THE INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY Arlington, Virginia Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare by Edmund J. Degen The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper, but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 73, September 2009 Dominant Land Forces for 21st Century Warfare by Edmund J. Degen Colonel Edmund J. Degen recently completed the senior service college at the Joint Forces Staff College and moved to the Republic of Korea, where he served as the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) J35, Chief of Future Operations. He is presently the Commander of the 3d Battlefield Coordination Detachment–Korea. He previously served as Special Assistant to General William S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Was the Turning Point of World War Ii?
    WHAT WAS THE TURNING POINT OF WORLD WAR II? Jeff Moore History 420: Senior Seminar December 13, 2012 1 World War II was the decisive war of the twentieth century. Millions of people lost their lives in the fighting. Hitler and the Nazis were eventually stopped in their attempt to dominate Europe, but at a great cost to everyone. Looking back at the war, it is hard to find the definitive moment when the war could no longer be won by the Axis, and it is even more difficult to find the exact moment when the tide of the war turned. This is because there are so many moments that could be argued as the turning point of World War II. Different historians pose different arguments as to what this moment could be. Most agree that the turning point of World War II, in military terms, was either Operation Barbarossa or the Battle of Stalingrad. UCLA professor Robert Dallek, Third Reich and World War II specialist Richard Overy, and British journalist and historian Max Hastings, all argue that Stalingrad was the point of the war in which everything changed.1 The principal arguments surrounding this specific battle are that it was the furthest east that Germany ever made it, and after the Russian victory Stalin’s forces were able to gain the confidence and momentum necessary to push the Germans back to the border. On the other hand, Operation Barbarossa is often cited as the turning point for World War II because the Germans did not have the resources necessary to survive a prolonged invasion of Russia fighting both the Red Army and the harsh Russian weather.
    [Show full text]
  • Week Beginning 1St June Title: Why Did Operation Barbarossa Fail?
    Lesson 1 – week beginning 1st June Title: Why did Operation Barbarossa fail? WHY DID OPERATION BARBAROSSA FAIL? ‘When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath,’ Hitler said of his bold plan to invade the Soviet Union. The scale of the campaign was certainly huge. Hitler assembled 3 million troops, 3500 tanks and 2700 aircraft for ‘Operation Barbarossa’ - the German code name for the attack on Russia. Why did Hitler break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Hitler invaded the Soviet Union on the 22nd June 1941, ordering his troops to ‘flatten Russia like a hailstorm’. The reasons for the invasion were a mixture of the military and the political. Hitler needed Russia's plentiful raw materials to support his army and population. There was oil in the Caucasus (southern Russia) and wheat in the Ukraine. He was also obsessed by racial ideas. The Russians, he believed, were an inferior ‘Slav’ race which would offer no real resistance (i.e. they wouldn’t be able to fight back) to ‘racially superior’ Germans. Russia's fertile plains could provide even more Lebensraum (living space) than Poland. Russia was also at the heart of world communism, and Hitler detested communists. The Russian Red Army had done very badly during its brief war with Finland in the winter of 1939 – 40. This convinced Hitler the Soviet Union and its Red Army could be beaten in four months. His confidence was also boosted by the fact that in the late 1930s, Stalin, the Soviet dictator, had shot 35,000 officers (43% of all his officers) in ‘purges’ of the Red (Russian) Army.
    [Show full text]
  • Order of Battle, Mid-September 1940 Army Group a Commander-In-Chief
    Operation “Seelöwe” (Sea Lion) Order of Battle, mid-September 1940 Army Group A Commander-in-Chief: Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt Chief of the General Staff: General der Infanterie Georg von Sodenstern Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Günther Blumentritt 16th Army Commander-in-Chief: Generaloberst Ernst Busch Chief of the General Staff: Generalleutnant Walter Model Operations Officer (Ia): Oberst Hans Boeckh-Behrens Luftwaffe Commander (Koluft) 16th Army: Oberst Dr. med. dent. Walter Gnamm Division Command z.b.V. 454: Charakter als Generalleutnant Rudolf Krantz (This staff served as the 16th Army’s Heimatstab or Home Staff Unit, which managed the assembly and loading of all troops, equipment and supplies; provided command and logistical support for all forces still on the Continent; and the reception and further transport of wounded and prisoners of war as well as damaged equipment. General der Infanterie Albrecht Schubert’s XXIII Army Corps served as the 16th Army’s Befehlsstelle Festland or Mainland Command, which reported to the staff of Generalleutnant Krantz. The corps maintained traffic control units and loading staffs at Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, Antwerp and Rotterdam.) FIRST WAVE XIII Army Corps: General der Panzertruppe Heinric h-Gottfried von Vietinghoff genannt Scheel (First-wave landings on English coast between Folkestone and New Romney) – Luftwaffe II./Flak-Regiment 14 attached to corps • 17th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Herbert Loch • 35th Infantry Division: Generalleutnant Hans Wolfgang Reinhard VII Army
    [Show full text]
  • The Israel Defense Forces, 1948-2017
    The Israel Defense Forces, 1948-2017 Kenneth S. Brower Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 150 THE BEGIN-SADAT CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 150 The Israel Defense Forces, 1948-2017 Kenneth S. Brower The Israel Defense Forces, 1948-2017 Kenneth S. Brower © The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002 Israel Tel. 972-3-5318959 Fax. 972-3-5359195 [email protected] www.besacenter.org ISSN 0793-1042 May 2018 Cover image: Soldier from the elite Rimon Battalion participates in an all-night exercise in the Jordan Valley, photo by Staff Sergeant Alexi Rosenfeld, IDF Spokesperson’s Unit The Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies is an independent, non-partisan think tank conducting policy-relevant research on Middle Eastern and global strategic affairs, particularly as they relate to the national security and foreign policy of Israel and regional peace and stability. It is named in memory of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, whose efforts in pursuing peace laid the cornerstone for conflict resolution in the Middle East. Mideast Security and Policy Studies serve as a forum for publication or re-publication of research conducted by BESA associates. Publication of a work by BESA signifies that it is deemed worthy of public consideration but does not imply endorsement of the author’s views or conclusions. Colloquia on Strategy and Diplomacy summarize the papers delivered at conferences and seminars held by the Center for the academic, military, official and general publics.
    [Show full text]
  • The German Fear of Russia Russia and Its Place Within German History
    The German Fear of Russia Russia and its place within German History By Rob Dumont An Honours Thesis submitted to the History Department of the University of Lethbridge in partial fulfillment of the requirements for History 4995 The University of Lethbridge April 2013 Table of Contents Introduction 1-7 Chapter 1 8-26 Chapter 2 27-37 Chapter 3 38-51 Chapter 4 39- 68 Conclusion 69-70 Bibliography 71-75 Introduction In Mein Kampf, Hitler reflects upon the perceived failure of German foreign policy regarding Russia before 1918. He argues that Germany ultimately had to prepare for a final all- out war of extermination against Russia if Germany was to survive as a nation. Hitler claimed that German survival depended on its ability to resist the massive faceless hordes against Germany that had been created and projected by Frederick the Great and his successors.1 He contends that Russia was Germany’s chief rival in Europe and that there had to be a final showdown between them if Germany was to become a great power.2 Hitler claimed that this showdown had to take place as Russia was becoming the center of Marxism due to the October Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union. He stated that Russia was seeking to destroy the German state by launching a general attack on it and German culture through the introduction of Leninist principles to the German population. Hitler declared that this infiltration of Leninist principles from Russia was a disease and form of decay. Due to these principles, the German people had abandoned the wisdom and actions of Frederick the Great, which was slowly destroying German art and culture.3 Finally, beyond this expression of fear, Hitler advocated that Russia represented the only area in Europe open to German expansion.4 This would later form the basis for Operation Barbarossa and the German invasion of Russia in 1941 in which Germany entered into its final conflict with Russia, conquering most of European 1 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943, originally published 1926), 197.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Source and Background Documents D
    Note: Original spelling is retained for this document and all that follow. Appendix 1: Primary source and background documents Document No. 1: Germany's Declaration of War with Russia, August 1, 1914 Presented by the German Ambassador to St. Petersburg The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea. In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany. The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with this demand, and having shown by this refusal that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows: His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from the Second Lebanon War
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. All Glory Is Fleeting Insights from the Second Lebanon War Russell W. Glenn Prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command Approved for public release; distribution unlimited NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Joint Forces Command Joint Urban Operations Office.
    [Show full text]