Ha ha. The blitzkrieg was a revival of the Napoleonic cavalry charge, which was itself based on the millenia-old military doctrine of "divide and conquer." Basically, you break through the enemy's lines and the result is a win.
Even the ancient Greeks understood that once your line breaks, it's over. Once a phalanx line broke, the broken side immediately surrendered, because the conclusion was foregone from there. Therefore, use a strategy that will break the enemy's lines: mass at a weak point and break through. Shock and Awe is based on the same principle, but more in terms of disrupting command and control than actually breaking a front.
Saying that it's based on blitzkrieg alone is... suspicious.
you may be reading too much into it. A public school education today for someone with no interest in history or military history might still imprint the word 'blitzkrieg' in the brain of the student, who couldn't tell you what a hoplite was, and who thinks Hannibal is a character in a book and movie.
I disagree. First, infantry tactics before the age of cavalry were more based around turning the flanks of an enemy force, not on penetrating a line (though it was a good thing if it happened). The Greek phalanx seldom broke; instead it was often a race to see who would flank first, as the phalanx had a tendency to shift right (moving the enemy towards the arm that carried the shield), exposing their own left flank while flanking the opponent's left wing (see the Battle of Coronea in 394BC). Because of the limited mobility of most troops before the mechanized era, battles usually took place on a single ground, and exploited local tactical features (misplaced troops, fleeing troops, or understrength places in the line).
Cavalry formed an extension of this philosophy, with the added bonus of being able to sprint around the enemy force's flanks and turn them much quicker. Cavalry charges to break lines were hardly "blitzkrieg"... they smashed lines to create a local weak spot for infantry to exploit (thereby creating two flanks to turn in the middle of the lines), and in the hopes that this would cause general disorder in the enemy ranks (i.e. flight).
German blitzkrieg was a much different kettle of fish. Its objective was to probe for weaknesses, then mass combined arms forces to break through and extend well beyond the enemy lines. A Napoleonic general, having smashed through, would have turned to attack the flanks. Blitzkrieg pushed on well past the enemy lines, striking at their supply, rear areas, and encircling. It wasn't until the mobility of modern infanty and the mobile hard points provided by tanks that blitzkrieg was possible.
Ironically, perhaps the greatest success with blitzkrieg was by the American general George S. Patton, who famously described it as "Hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass." He extended well behind German lines to encircle whole divisions. Likewise, General Schwarzkopf's "Hail Mary" encirclement during the first Gulf War was a good example of blitzkrieg. Neither of those general's tactics would have been possible with ancient or Napoleonic troops. The German attribution is accurate (though the German's weren't the only military men to think of it... just the first to put it in practice...).