Most significant battle of the 20th Century?

[JimRivett]

I think the "Battle of Britain" was significant because of the fact that it halted the German advancement. It also changed the way war would be raged, highlighting the importance of air superiority.

Regards, Jim

[Diplomat]

It is interesting that people are mentioning the bombing of Pearl Harbour in passing when nominating the Midway, given that Pearl Harbour essentially forced the US into WWII.

I'll nominate the bombing of Pearl Harbour as the most significant battle. US involvement in WWII was a turning point for the Allies, and success against Germany and Japan was extremely questionable w/o the US. (There are only so many Canadian regiments, heh)

-Diplomat

[Neil Stevens]

Had the US lost at Midway, Pearl Harbor would go up in people's estimation of importance, I suspect.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Stalingrad does not qualify, there was no inherent value to that ground, so win or lose the result of the German push eventually stalling and being pushed back would have been the same. (The same is true of Gettyburg in the Civil War - a dramatic battle but not the turning point or the defining battle)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally. A much more significant encounter IMO was the Red Army counterattack of the German Army in the December of 1941. After that encounter the Germans were never able to attack on a as wide a front or with as much military power.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting that people are mentioning the bombing of Pearl Harbour in passing when nominating the Midway, given that Pearl Harbour essentially forced the US into WWII. I'll nominate the bombing of Pearl Harbour as the most significant battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pearl Harbor wasn't really a battle, rather it was a devastating sneak attack by one nation on another nation when those nations were not at war.

~ Rick

[jcx]

Not a battle per se, but perhaps the most important decision made in the 20th century with the most serious consequences was the decision of Woodrow Wilson to enter the US into the 1st World War. The two sides had been grinding it out in brutal trench warfare for 3 years and had all but reached a stalemate. Germany was very likely going to sue for peace and an exhausted Britain and France would have likely accepted. Instead, hundreds of thousands of fresh US troops hit the front and turned the tide of the war. Germany was forced to accept humiliating surrender terms, was stripped of its colonial possessions and required to repay the victors war reparations. This doomed the Weimar Republic from the start and set the stage for the rise of Adolf Hitler.

[W00lygimp]

Pearl Harbor was a battle...

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Pearl Harbor was a battle...

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but its outcome was insignificant. Indeed, what is important about Pearl Harbor is its (ultimately) positive impact on the losing side. Thus, what is important about Pearl Harbor is that it just happened.

Therefore, this does not really qualify under this thread.

[Neil Stevens]

I'd say Pearl Harbor rates low simply because the war was inevitable. Roosevelt was already doing all he could to get the US involved, and as time went on he would only succeed in doing more and more.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Well so stalingrad was not a pivotal battle you say? It doesn't take 3 million men to occupy a country, the US is occupying Iraq with less around 100,000 (sure Russia is a much larger country). Germany lost millions of men that winter, definately a major blow. The main point of the invasion wasn't to take Russia, it was to take the critical oil fields in the caucus. Also Modern US troops and Nazi Troops have different strategies and restrictions. If a city, St. Petersburg for instance, started revolting the Nazi's would surely have leveled the city in a heartbeat. US troops can do no such thing, do you understand Russia could not mount an effective resistance? Russian's were poor, there weren't AK47's in every household like Iraq.
Look at the other countries Germany conquered, sure they had a resistance but you can't resist an army that large... Germany had 5 million men on it's western front...5 million... Most died in the winter.

My point is Hitler would have had no problem killing every Russian citizen if he knew he would win the war.
Your theory that the Russians would not let themselves be conquered and would resist to the last is not viable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you must be ignoring the fact that if the Nazi could just "level the city in a heartbeat," why did they not do that and just move on. Oh, they couldn't. And the Russian citizens proved to be quite a bite in the ass too.

What my argument has going for it, is that this mythical "RUssian resistance" actually DID happen. What also did not happen is that Nazis were not able to level cities, but they had to go in and fight door to door - thus, taking heavy losses.

I would have loved to see what would have happened if the Nazi tried to occupy Russia with ONLY 3 million troops. Look what happened in Yugoslavia and other Baltic countries: The Nazi occupation did not go so well. Their "poor peasants" were able to mount effective partisan forces, which eventually drove the Nazis out. (Of course, the war being over helped, but the point is that the Nazis DID try to occupy "poor peasant" countries with a minimal occupying force, and it failed ... miserably.)

Yes, the Germans needed the oil from Russia ... no argument. However, you overlook the devastating expense of extending and defending supply lines. Point of reference. The Germans "strolled" into France early in the war. However, even 4-years' later, on D-day a lot of German supplies were being hauled by horse and cart. The dirty secret was that once you got past the front line of the Wermacht, the rest of the army was slow.

The point is that the Germans could not muster the resources to create a modern infrastructure in even a semi-friendly country (France). Now, how the hell was that going to happen in Russia?