|
|
#11
10-26-2004, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
I'll at least mention the naval battle of Midway since the deciding factor was practically luck.
After the Jampanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the American navy was at a substantial disadvantage. As the Japanese approached Midway, the battle largely turned on whose airplanes were able to find the other side's aircraft carriers first. The Americans found a gold mine. Not only did they find the Japaneses carriers, but the Japanese planes were on the decks refueling. In about five minutes, the whole Pacific war was permanently changed. Instead of a powerful Japanese navy moving forward towards Midway and then Hawaii, the Japanese were crippled with all their big aircraft carriers burning and soon to be on the bottom of the Pacific. 
|
|
#12
10-26-2004, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
[ QUOTE ]
i would have to place the battle at midway on equal footing with the battle of stalingrad if the US loses the battle at midway, we could also be living in a very different world [/ QUOTE ] You beat me by three minutes.
|
|
#14
10-26-2004, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
The best wrestling match I ever saw was The Macho Man Randy Savage against Ricky The Dragon Steamboat for the Intercontinental Title. IIRC it was Wrestlemania III (it was the one at the dome in Detroit).
|
|
#17
10-26-2004, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
bud bowl 1
|
|
#18
10-26-2004, 02:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
[ QUOTE ]
There was a program on the history channel where it showed Hitler's plans to invade Russia 1-2 months earlier but was held up by...not sure what, but most historians agree that if Hitler had gone through with the invasion of Russia just a LITTLE bit sooner then they would not have faced the winter and that would cause a chain reaction ending with an Axis victory. [/ QUOTE ] Italy got bogged down in the Slavic countries and Greece. Against all advice, El Duce decided to invade that area. Hitler sent troops that were to be used for Russia, under the assumption that campaign would be short and not interfere with the Russia invasion.
|
|
#19
10-26-2004, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Two plausible contenders to Stalingrad
The Somme
It's plausible to argue No Somme == No WWII. The carnage and waste of human life was greater than any WWII battle, and left all the participants (understandably) so traumatized that they spawned large influential pacificism movements back in their homelands afterwards. Had France and Britain not been gripped by pacifism after WWI, they may have stopped Hitler before it was too late. The Battle of the Atlantic Before Hitler invaded Russia, he was after Britain. And Britain almost certainly would have fallen without U.S. support via transports of supplies across the Atlantic. And German U-boats did their damndest to sink them all... and lost. We got the upper hand on the U-Boats and we supplied the Brits with enough to survive. They held off Germany until Hitler got frustrated and turned East. If Britain falls.... well we might all be speaking German right now. natedogg
|
|
#20
10-26-2004, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Most significant battle of the 20th Century?
I think the consequences of a Nazi victory at Stalingrad may be overstated. How in the hell would Germany be able to be an effective occupying force? For a point of reference, look at the U.S. in Iraq.
With far superior technology and weapons, the occupying force cannot effectively maintain order. As the Germans made their way through Russia, the initial policy was to shoot surrendering troops. Bad policy. Many Russians felt they were living under the devil and may have been friendly towards the German cause. Nevertheless, many Russians realized the Germans must be defeated at all costs, thus, they would fight to the death. If the Germans take Stalingrad, then what? Is is really possible to withdraw troops to fortify the Western front? Is it really sensible to believe the Germans could have taken it easy and reallocated resources to other theaters of war? No way. Russia was a trap and would have been a huge resource hog. Furthermore, where was Germany going to get the resources to build an adequate infrastructure and supply line throughout Russia? It was simply an unattainable front, and a strategic blunder on many levels.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
