No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Since the beginning of the second world war there have been four surprise attacks which have made a world-wide impact on politicalmilitary thinking: 'Barbarossa', Pearl Harbour, the Six-Day War and the October War. Despite some differences, these four present noteworthy similarities and can be considered as a group. In general terms the intention of a surprise attack is to shock and paralyze the political-military system, in the hope that any recovery will at best be slow. If it is successful, the shock of the attack will make it difficult for those immediately involved to understand what is happening (that is to 'read' the battle), it will confuse priorities and disrupt communications. These three shock effects are complementary and reinforcing. The victims and defenders are hard-pressed to adjust to their new and rapidly changing situation, so that they can scarcely pull themselves together and make useful reports. Their commanders, for lack of information or worse still, on the basis of inaccurate information, tend to go on doing what they have been trained to do and to take measures they believe are still appropriate. One crucial problem for people under the influence of surprise is their diminishing capacity for communication. In severe cases, a state of intense shock is attained in which some people cannot respond at all, but at best communication will be disrupted.Of the four surprise attacks mentioned above, 'Barbarossa' -the largest in scope and intention -Pearl Harbour and the October War are alike in that they were all initially successful but failed ultimately to achieve their military aims, the victim eventually gaining the upper hand and defeating the aggressor on the battlefield. However, the initial success of the tactical surprise had far-reaching consequences in all three cases. 'Barbarossa' is still the most striking example of a brilliant but ultimately inadequate attack upon a pitifully

No abstract