| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most Decisive Battle of the 20th century?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Most Decisive Battle of the 20th century?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 10:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Are you not essentially saying there was no sense of "Mexico" at all in terms of nationalism? Well, seeing that you mention the wiliest survivor of them all Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, you may have a point. Here's a brazen look at what has to be considered one of the major poppinjays in History:


With respect to Santa Ana, in this video you can see him carried to jail by the migra. Watch it.

 

Don't garbage up my thread with music of your people talking sh*t about my nation; which they all constantly stream into.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 10:39
Though the reason my vote goes the Battle of Berlin is not only its macro historical effects but I mean the ridiculousness of the battle field and how the Germans are treat by their own government. Its a mixture of emotion, and fact. In part my feeling bad for the Germans at this point and the final victory in europe and its effects of the next 60 plus years of history. I mean its effects are still being felt. I think its more important than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. As its one of those moments in history that truly are epic.

I didn't put decisive for decisive victory; Like they only lost a 100 guys and the enemy lost 20,000. Those are the most important. Though I feel the Berlin battle deserves its special significance in at least the top 5 events in the 20th century.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5190
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 10:42
that post has nothing to do with the thread, and the song is a song against Mexican racism.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 10:53
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:


Don't garbage up my thread with music of your people talking sh*t about my nation; which they all constantly stream into.


So, you don't like Frijolero? LOL I thought you were going to laugh about Santa Ana arrested by the migra.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 10:55
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

that post has nothing to do with the thread, and the song is a song against Mexican racism.


The song is obviously a complain against that minority of racist americans that discriminate Mexicans. I put in because a scene shows Santa Ana arrested by the migra LOL. By the way, the baterist of Molotov is American Wink


Edited by pinguin - 24 Jan 2011 at 10:59
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 11:57
Pinguin, you are treading on thin ice again......


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 12:19
I see. I am breaking another sacred rule once again?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 13:33
I agree with 1st Marne as being enormously decisive. The so-called 'Miracle of the Marne' prevented the Schlieffen Plan coming to fruition and capturing Paris.

The Battle of Singapore was another one as it resulted in the loss of 100,000 crucial Allied troops and strategic positioning. A victory at Singapore (certainly achievable) would have greatly reduced the cost and length of the war in the Pacific.

The Battle of Moscow, for obvious reasons.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 19:34
Midway was a very decisive battle. The destruction of the main part of of the Japaneses Carrier Fleet not to mention many of Japan's most experianced navy pilots, by a smaller (not to mention lucky) American Carrier Fleet had a huge effect on the war in a Pacific Ocean. When the sun set on the Battle of Midway, Japan had lost the war. 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Midway won the war in the Pacific. In time American industry would have overwhelmed the Japaneses. But if the Japanese Carrier Fleet had lasted into 1943-44 the end of the Pacific war could have been very different. Maybe Atomic bombs would have been dropped on targets further away from Japan in attempts to reduce the Garrisions of Pacific island? This last part is speculation.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2011 at 22:55
Midway is certainly one of the most significant battles of all time, but more I would say as marking an epoch ending the rule of the surface battleship - i.e. decisove in the hisory of naval warfare - rathe than as decisive in the WW2 (which isn't to say it wasn't highly important there).
 
Even so it had been foreshadowed by the earlier sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse by Japanese aircraft and the victory at Cape Matapan, itself decisive in its way because it guaranteed British control of the Mediterranean for the rest of the war.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 06:28
Midway was a battle that ended Japanese navel power in the pacific and made the US navy the most dominant navel power in the world. After Middway the Japaneses had lost their offensive power. Also the fact the three carriers engaged in a battle with six carriers and mananged to destory four carriers for the loss of one makes the engagement fairly decisive. It changed the face of the war in that part of the world. World War 2 happened in other places beside Europe. Midway was another of those events in 1942 that turned the war against the Axis.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 12:09
...at a crucial point in the Pacific too. Had the tide been turned and the Japanese Imperial Fleet been left unscathed who knows what the implications would have been. Midway, First battle for Moscow, Battle of Britain and the Normandy Invasion all were turning points in the war in my book. 
Back to Top
darknony View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote darknony Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jan 2011 at 18:02
I'm not sure about Normandy. The allies have already won the war by then, the invasion there was only because the west wanted to get as much from Europe as they can before the USSR takes all of Europe.
Other major battles were the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of El-Almain.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 08:28
Yes, Stalingrad, El-Alemain and Kursk were all very significant.

As for downplaying Normandy...sorry, just can't do it. That invasion tipped Europe into allied hands, of which, had been under Nazi occupation for years. Had there been no invasion, thus no pressure on the Western flank then the Germans would have placed a greater emphasis on the East and/ or bought time to reek havoc with futuristic weaponry (jets, a-bomb) and an emphasis on consolidation with the possible invasion of Britain and even America at a later date.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jan 2011 at 20:24

I have a hard time picking the most decivise battle, but the Russo-Japanese War comes to mind. For the first time in centuries a non-European navy defeated a European one, it plunged Russia into disillusionment and showed the difference between Japan and the other East Asian countries. In his "War of the Worlds", Niall Ferguson argues that the 20th century did not have two world wars but one continous state of related global conflict, which started with the Russo-Japanese War.

Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2011 at 02:15
I do not know much about the Russo-Jap war but it seems an extremely interesting theory that the 20th century remained in a perpetual conflict. It makes sense I wonder if the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq will effect the world the same way. I mean I admit I do not know sh*t about that war but I remember learning about it in high school.
Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2011 at 06:08
Tsushhima when the Japanese defeated the Russian Baltic Fleet established Japan as a world power, just as Midway awa an end to Japnese Navy power. It was also a battle were the smaller fleet (Japanese) devestated a larger enemy force.
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 04:31
Apart from the obvious battles such as Stalingrad, Kursk, El-Alamein..one should also consider the battle of Megiddo in 1918, between the British (supported by Arab rebels led by Sherif Hussein and aided by Lawrence) and the Ottoman Empire, that led to the destruction of the Ottoman armies in Palestine and Syria (led by Limon von Sanders and Mustafa Kemal), the collapse of Ottoman control in the region and the division of the Middle East between France and Britain. Arguably this battle laid the seeds of  future geopolitical conflict in this region, since it enabled the Balfour declaration to begin to be put into realisation, whilst at the same time promising the Arabs a faux-'liberation' that never was viz Sykes-Picot.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 08:21
Originally posted by Tashfin Tashfin wrote:

Apart from the obvious battles such as Stalingrad, Kursk, El-Alamein..one should also consider the battle of Megiddo in 1918, between the British (supported by Arab rebels led by Sherif Hussein and aided by Lawrence) and the Ottoman Empire, that led to the destruction of the Ottoman armies in Palestine and Syria (led by Limon von Sanders and Mustafa Kemal), the collapse of Ottoman control in the region and the division of the Middle East between France and Britain. Arguably this battle laid the seeds of  future geopolitical conflict in this region, since it enabled the Balfour declaration to begin to be put into realisation, whilst at the same time promising the Arabs a faux-'liberation' that never was viz Sykes-Picot.


Though the particular battle's importance is debatable, often over looked i do believe your point to be an excellent one.
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 09:04
The lack of fight from the Ottomans in Palestine and Syria during 1918 had very little to do with Mustafa Kemal. He commanded the 7th army after the Sultan sent him to clean up the mess left by Cevet Pasha. Plus Von Sanders was at Megido, not Kemal. Prior and during this time this there were massive Ottoman desertions. The cause was lost. Kemal made his stand at the Aleppo instead and won. 

Edited by Seko - 28 Jan 2011 at 09:05
Back to Top
Syntagma View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Location: U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Syntagma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 09:45
Stalingrad would be my first thought/choice. However since most lean or include it in there picks I'll also toss in an odd one out there with the TET offensive.

The NVA showed that a lost battle does not necessarily mean a lost war. After it was all done, no longer would Johnson say we were winning the war as he did before. It caused concern within the military brass to the point of requesting 200,000 more soldiers and also reduced combat effectiveness with large amount of equipment that was destroyed during the time frame. This in turn ramped up the disapproval with the public at home. When it was all done it left a superpower stinging for decades to follow. Foreign affairs, domestic politics, social and cultural history were greatly effected by it as the country would go into a collective amnesia in order to forget what happened.

It also helped progress another powerful tool in war. The media. The image of the policeman executing the NVA captain in cold blood made many at home wonder whether we were on the "good" side.

I always wonder what would of happened had we won? Would we still be in the McCarthyite Red-baiting mode with the feeling that America is invincible.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 11:00
I have always thought Stalingrad was the decisive battle of WW II, because it turned a war that Germany was winning in the beginning of the end.
However, I believe the inflection point happened a lot early at the Battle of Britain. Had Germany invaded Britain perhaps WW II had stopped with Germany dominating large parts of Europe. It was the frustration of Britain what made the bloody clown of Hitler to turn into the USSR.
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jan 2011 at 23:44
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

The lack of fight from the Ottomans in Palestine and Syria during 1918 had very little to do with Mustafa Kemal. He commanded the 7th army after the Sultan sent him to clean up the mess left by Cevet Pasha. Plus Von Sanders was at Megido, not Kemal. Prior and during this time this there were massive Ottoman desertions. The cause was lost. Kemal made his stand at the Aleppo instead and won. 
 
Kemal was in command of the 7th army at Nablus, under the overall operational command of Von Sanders. When Allenby broke through the Ottoman line, Kemal chose to retreat towards rather than hold Nablus, citing insufficient resources to face the British, most of the 7th army was then destroyed/routed by a combination of RAF and Chetwodes XX corps pursuing the retreating Ottoman columns (though they could not cut off the retreat), the fact that he held Aleppo is an epilogue to the main battle.
 
The Ottoman army was indeed demoralised by then and part of that was due to poor leadership and equipment as opposed to their actual fighting capabilities, but that does not necessarily detract from the  overall decisive nature of the battle in a geo-political context.
 
One could argue that the 3rd Battle of Gaza  - Beersheeba in 1917 leading to the capture of Jerusalem was  certainly more fiercely contested, and hence more 'decisive' (the Ottoman's had repelled the British in 1st and 2nd Gaza battles with heavy losses), but it was Megiddo that led to the complete destruction of the Ottoman forces and loss of Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 04:19

Most Decisive Battle of the 20th century?


  Barbarossa, that stupid decision sealed the Nazis fate.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 04:26
Midway was very important but not decisive. The USN would have taken care of those carriers, in particular our sub fleet.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 04:34
 It was the frustration of Britain what made the bloody clown of Hitler to turn into the USSR.

Hardly, the Soviet Union was his prime concern. He had already defeated the British army in France. The occupation of the UK would have been a severe blow to the allies, but an invasion on mainland Europe could come directly from the United States.  Our war in the Pacific come to mind, and also Operation Torch.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 05:34
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

 It was the frustration of Britain what made the bloody clown of Hitler to turn into the USSR.

Hardly, the Soviet Union was his prime concern. He had already defeated the British army in France. The occupation of the UK would have been a severe blow to the allies, but an invasion on mainland Europe could come directly from the United States.  Our war in the Pacific come to mind, and also Operation Torch.
Like too many people you exaggerate the importance of armies. Moreover Germany had hardly defeated the British army in France, but merely an expeditionary force. Britain was stll only partially mobilised.  Where do you think the army that defeated Rommel came from?
 
Any way it was the RN and the RAF that frustrated Hitler, and forced him not just to go east, but to go east while efficiently and effectively blockaded in the west and south by a power that was already producing more aircraft than Germany (let alone what it was buying from the US).
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 05:50
If we think a bit alternatively:The battles of the factory floor, the fields, the shipyards and the drawing board and patent offices.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 06:57
Some say unexpected defeat of Allies at Gallipolli left Russia unaided. Because that times Murmansk-Moscow way practicaly closed due heavy polar climate. Aid via Vladivostok to Moscow trans siberian railways was even more impractical. If Allies were victorious at that point, Turkey would be out of war and Russia would be aided thus communist revolution never could be happened. Big smile

Battle of Stalingrad was just another battle of attirition. Of course loss of an entire German army was a decisive blow. What would change if Stalingrad was a German victory? When you lose 750k men and you inflict another 750k causualties to enemy and enemy has 3x more manpower than you. Despite being an important tactical victory for Germans, it still would be a massive strategic defeat for Germans.

Another massively decisive battle is Battle of Midway is for sure. Where Japanese lost their 4 fleet carries in just matter of hours. Just in matter of hours whole balance of power in Pasific theatre decisively shifted towards US Navy.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 19 Feb 2012 at 06:58
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 05:04
Like too many people you exaggerate the importance of armies. Moreover Germany had hardly defeated the British army in France, but merely an expeditionary force. Britain was stll only partially mobilised.  Where do you think the army that defeated Rommel came from?

Germany defeated the British army in France. Over 300,000 survivors were rescued, sans heavy and light weapons.  The army that defeated Rommel was Brits, Greeks, New Zealanders, Free French, Australians, South Africans, Indians, Poles, Nepales, French Foreign Legion. As you say, prior to this the UK was not mobilized in full.



 
(Any way it was the RN and the RAF that frustrated Hitler, and forced him not just to go east, but to go east while efficiently and effectively blockaded in the west and south by a power that was already producing more aircraft than Germany (let alone what it was buying from the US).


 Neither the RN or the RAF made Hitler invade the Soviet Union.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.187 seconds.