Most pivotal battle of WWII?

Discussion in 'History' started by Undecided, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Read the book: everything he took into account was DIRECTLY attributable to heavy bombers - better load-bearing runways etc.
    Wow, now who's second-guessing?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Both you and He, after the fact, after we won the war, you have no proof that yours and his supposition would have worked, His conclusions are a work of fantasy, they have not been proven in reality, in combat, in war, everything is nothing but the fantasy of a man who wanted to make some money and advanced his theory on how the war might have been run more efficiently, Don't you get it, wasn't done in the real world, under real conditions, with all of the marbles on the line, and that if your wrong your country will be destroyed, your family will be enslaved, and there would be a great possibility that you would end up on the Train to Auschwitz.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Oli

    May be this will make a dent in you cranium, If the war had been done as he suggested, and won, I could come in and using the numbers from the running of the war to prove that it would have been more cost effective to have had heavy bomber to end the war earlier, it can be done with any subject, as long as your don't have to do it in reality, you can use the numbers to say anything you want, and prove anything that you want, but does it work in reality, that is the one thing that you and he cannot prove because it didn't happen that way in reality, the war was won with heavy strategic bombing, so in the end it was cost effective, Why?you say? because we won that is why, it worked.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    battle of al almain sry if i spelt it wrong
     
  8. Fenris Wolf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    Changed my mind. Not Dunkirk, probably Khalkin-Ghol.
    I was thinking too much from a western perspective at the time.
     
  9. Fungezoid Banned Banned

    Messages:
    213
    Al-Amein? No way. For one, the results would not have been extremely pivotal, since North Africa was only a sideshow.
     
  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Khalkin-Gol? Wasn't the Nomonhan "incident" prior to WWII?
     
  11. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Axis El Alemein victory would have possibly led to closing of Suez to Allies(and OPENING FOR AXIS!!!), Drive up to Turkey, Iraq and Persia. The result could have been Turkey declaring on the axis side and possible Iraq(or conquest), and Persia probably would have given aid to Axis as well. If not, a route to India(the Rommel fantasy scenario).
     
  12. terryoh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    In Europe, I can understand why Stalingrad was the most pivotal battle. The Germans pretty much lost their entire Sixth Army and their Caucasus front pretty much halted.

    Although, Stalingrad proponents have to understand that after Stalingrad, the Soviets lost a major battle at Kharkov, which enabled the Germans to recover their confidence. I believe the Germans were outnumbered in this battle, especially their tanks, yet Manstein still defeated the Soviets under Golikov and Vatutin.

    This set the stage for Kursk, the last great German offensive attack against Soviets.

    I don't know honestly, both are equally pivotal in hindsight. It could go either way.
     
  13. Fenris Wolf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    Barely. Khalkin-Gol was fought in August 1939, the "official" start of WW2 was September 1st. The Russo-Japanese conflict had been going on for months before this as well.
    Again, world war two is viewed primarily from a European (and/or American) perspective where in fact the most of the participants had been in conflict for some time before that.

    Fought a month before the official start of world war two, you cannot deny Khalkin Ghol's ultimate impact on the war. Would Japan have ever attacked the USA had they held out and been able to expand into Eastern Russia?
    Russia would have faced not only the Nazis but Japan in the east, therefore Stalingrad would have had a completely different outcome, the Urals would have been directly endangered, thus limiting Russian war production... the possibilities are myriad.

    If you're going to be nitpicky regarding dates I'll stay with Dunkirk - again, long term effect seems to be something which most posters here have very little idea of. Britain's crisis management and eventual ability to stay in the European war had serious long term consequences on Germany's ability to carry out a prolonged conflict with Russia, although not generally recognised by the Nazis at the time.
    Had Britain been forced to surrender, it is questionable whether or not the USA would ever have entered the European war, and without US participation ,and British stubborness in remaining a threat, Nazi Germany would have been in a better position to conquer Russia than they actually were. I've already mentioned the pilot casualty ratios (more in Britain's favour than in the Battle of Britain which followed) and the effect this had on the Luftwaffe in the long term - in particular on the Battle of Britain itself.
    There are times when a defeat is actually a victory.

    Stalingrad, an oft suggested "pivotal" battle, was certainly important but so many prior factors contributed to its outcome that I cannot consider it be pivotal in its own right.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Fenris Wolf

    Well thought, well put.
     
  15. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    i know this may sound a stupid question, but did rusians use gurila tactics becuase i heard it's near enough imposible for an army to beat that kind of warfair.
     
  16. Fenris Wolf Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    It's impossible for any modern army to fight guerillas because they do not conquer any longer... they invade, and then attempt to apply bandaids.
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I'm not sure what you've said in the above. Who does not conquer any longer?

    However, with the assertion that modern armies can't defeat guerilla forces is because guerilla forces don't capture and hold land area ...they just kill people, then run away and hide. What's to "defeat"?

    Guerillas are like someone who whacks you on the back of the head with a big club, then runs away before you can recover and fight back. He's wounded you, sure, but what has he won? ...the satisfaction of hitting you on the head?

    What did he gain by whacking you on the head? Ahh, but if he keeps whacking you from behind and running away, soon you might get tired of being whacked on the head and leave the area.

    But you'll notice that even if you leave the area, and he moves in to take over the country, he then has taken property ....so you can move your army back into the country and drive him back out. See? With guerilla forces, they can't capture and hold territory/property ....they're just little kids whacking you behind your back and running away.

    Baron Max
     
  18. terryoh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    You're still of the conventional military thinking, which is good for fighting large divisions of a national army in an open field battle, but guerrilla warfare is entirely different.

    It is one reason why the US military cannot defeat the insurgency (currently), despite fighting them for 4 or 5 years. Any other military would've folded by now (e.g. China's or North Korea's army).

    I'm assuming you're not a fan of the Chindits, Lawrence of Arabia's Arab Irregulars during WWI, and our very own Green Berets.
     
  19. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    You didn't read my post at all, did you? Or if you did, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

    The US is not trying to defeat the insurgency, it's trying to quell the Muslim-against-Muslim violence and death. It's trying to prop up the Iraqis so they can defend themselves without our help.

    Baron Max
     
  20. terryoh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    388
    No, you play down guerrilla warfare as if it is insignificant, and this statement of yours proves it:

    If that's all you view guerrilla warfare, you're playing it down. Which is why I'm saying you're of the conventional military type, which isn't meant as an insult at all. Remember, you're the one who also doesn't believe in the "hearts and minds" campaign either, so it's no wonder guerrilla warfare doesn't wet your whistle. But as I said, that's not a bad thing. Conventional warfare is very important.


    And to quell the Muslim-on-Muslim violence and prop up the Iraqis, they are trying to defeat the insurgency, which is the biggest threat to the Iraqi government.

    Anyways, that can be discussed in another thread. Totally off-topic.
     
  21. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    well wont't gurila tacitcs pull an army out as u say hit and run eventuly they will pull out becuase of the inafectivness of ocuying the country and not geting no were?
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, not necessarily. I mean, in a smaller sense, criminals in large metro cities are like guerilla forces ...would you suggest that the police "pull out"?

    The Indians of America were a guerilla force for hundreds of years. Would you have suggested that the settlers "pull out"?

    Guerillas are nothing more than criminals against a society or nation. To call them anything else is wrong or delusional or, worse, rooting for them because they're the underdog going up against a larger force.

    Guerillas can be defeated in any number of ways if one wishes to use those methods of warfare. [deleted trolling/baiting comment]

    Baron Max
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2007
  23. ashpwner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    yea but it is hard
     

Share This Page