The Lost Decade Average Season: 74-88
2014-22 Average Season: 71-91
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but I just want to reiterate that the Battle of Stalingrad was a freaking schlep of a battle. I truly believe that most Americans don't know the enormity of it because of the Cold War and how proud/sympathetic Americans might have felt toward Soviets if they realized exactly how bad and important it was. Many historians believe it was the worst single battle in human history. There were something like 100,000 German POWs alone and tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
Up north, the Siege of Leningrad was going on, and this I think was just as crucial if not quite as bloody. Hitler was quite keen on Leningrad because the city is really the gateway from Europe to Russia (very far up north, originally and now St. Petersburg). It's also a relatively new city for the country, built by Peter the Great for specifically that purpose, as the "gateway to the West," both industrial and cultural, and Hitler really felt like he needed it, plus he hadn't been successful in Moscow. The Germans were not really prepared for the conditions (ie. the cold) that they encountered there, but still this battle went on for three and a half years. It has always sounded like pure hell to me. Transportation to the city was cut early on, there was very little food and they went through months at a time with NO POWER. I think one of the reasons this battle has always struck me is because the effect on civilians and civilian casualties were so bad. People burned their houses so they could stay warm. The WINNING side of this battle lost one million civilians to starvation. That doesn't even count the troops. And it was a turning point, I think, even though it dragged on for so long. Some people think that if Hitler had stayed in Leningrad and focused all his efforts there instead of sending some to Stalingrad, the Germans would have won the war.
The amount of Soviet deaths (military + civilian) in World War II is insane. Conservative estimates put them around 18-20 million; many historians believe that the real number is around 25-27 million. I can't even fathom how many people 25 million is. By contrast, America lost between 300,000-350,000 in WWII. Allied civilian deaths actually account for over half the deaths of WWII. There's some crazy stat about the Siege of Leningrad and the Battle of Stalingrad each producing more Soviet casualties than the Americans suffered in World War I, World War II and the Civil War combined (don't quote me on that but I think it's right).
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
Good information! That's the thing about playing "what could have been." There's not always a clear cut answer. I know that I saw once that Hermann Goering was asked what he needed in order to defeat the RAF and he answered a few squadrons of Spitfires. There's no doubt that the RAF aircraft were superior and it's very possible they could have held out and completely outlasted the Luftwaffe. I just don't know enough to give a concrete opinion.
But I did just go and check out wiki and found a few tidbits.
These were desperate times for the RAF, which was also taking many casualties in the air. Aircraft production could replace aircraft but replacement pilots were barely keeping place with losses, and novice flyers were being shot down in droves. Most replacements had as little as nine hours flying time and no combat training.So it sounds like they probably could have just moved north and regrouped. Ultimately, the purpose of the bombing of Britain was to weaken the coastal defenses and the RAF enough for them to attempt an amphibious assault. That was destined to fail and would have significantly fractured the German military. Hitler came ot his senses in this regard, one of the few times you could say this.And yet, the Luftwaffe was winning this battle of the airfields. Another fortnight of this pounding and the RAF might have been forced to withdraw their squadrons from the south of England. This was not clear to the Luftwaffe command, which had watched its bomber force start to waste away and had grown desperate to deliver on the original timetable. They could not understand why the RAF hadn't yet collapsed, or how they were always able to get fighters to the place they were needed, no matter how many raids were sent. Something needed to be done to force the RAF into a decisive battle.
Admittedly, once the war started, I focus more on the things the Americans were involved in (I've read extensively on Market Garden). I'm more fascinated with the events leading up to the war than the war itself, so I have done a lot of reading on non-US events in that regard. I keep staring at "The Rise and Fall of Third Reich" on my book shelf, but I see 1,200 pages and just can't force myself to start. Right now I'm reading "Threshold of War" by Waldo Heinrichs. He's not the best writer in the world, but the book is the best I've seen dealing with the events in 1941 that pulled America into the war.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
this really needs divided up between continents and possibly ages.
avoiding American History i'm going to say one of: Marathon, The Battle of Stamford Bridge, and i can't remember the name of the battle, but it's where Japan became unified in the 16th century.
the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop
yes, this really is how we make our living.
Outstanding thread Abner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a big WWII buff, so I'm going to go with battles from that time period.
First, a mjor turning point also, but not much mention: El Alamein
The next few will be obvious choices: Guadalcanal, Midway, Normandy, The Ardennes, and Iwo Jima come to mind for me.
When you read about the European encounters, you find out how fortunate that the Allies were that Hitler was such a micro-manager of his resources and staff. I'm not saying we would have lost that campaign in Europe, but had Hitler let his generals (especially Rommel) use their forces the way they saw fit, plus the fact that Germany had the ME-262 and wanted it used strictly as a bomber, I believe that the war in Europe would have continued possibly another 2 years or so.
Lechfeld in 955AD also was pretty significant to history. It marked the end of regular and ongoing attacks on western Europe by different groups from the eastern steppes (Huns, Mygars, etc).
It allowed western Europe to start to form into the civilization we have today.
Interesting topic that almost certainly has no definitive answer. Many of the battles I thought of have already been mentioned. Ravenlord mentioned Maranthon. In the same series of wars between Persia and Greece, Salamis in 481 B.C. may have been as important, as the destruction of its fleet ended Persia's invasion attempt. Had Persia conquered Greece, the last 2500 years of Western civilization would have proceeded extremely differently.
WOY mentioned the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 A.D., which ended Roman efforts to conquer Germany. Had Rome conquered Germany, the development of the German people over the centuries would have been greatly different. No Hitler perhaps?
The outcome of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 changed how England developed and its integration with Europe.
The American victory at Saratoga helped bring France into the American Revolutionary War, a war we may not have ever won without French help; the Battle of the Capes sealed off the hope that Cornwallis's army had of escaping from Yorktown by the sea, and the Battle of Yorktown itself in 1781 persuaded the British to finally sue for peace.
Had Lee defeated McClellan at Antietam in 1862, Britian and France may have intervened on behalf of the Confederacy to force a settlement that would have resulted in an independent C.S.A. What would have then happened? Obviously a slave holding Confederacy would have then gone on into the Twentieth Century. Wholly apart from the huge effect in this nation upon its between torn asunder and the continuance of slavery, would a divided America have intervened in World War I, or would the USA and CSA stayed out of the war, with the result that Germany's 1918 offensive would've won it the war? Would both the USA and the CSA have fought against Hitler in World War II?
Had the South won some of the battles in the west, such as Shiloh or Perryville, or had it won more battles in the east such as Antietam or Gettysburg, weariness with the war in the North may have resulted in Lincoln's defeat in 1864 and a negotiated peace.
Had Germany won the First Battle of the Marne in 1914, Germany would have captured Paris and perhaps won the First World War.
Stalingrad, Kursk and Normandy were all huge battles, but the German defeat at Moscow in December 1941 may have sealed Germany's fate in World War II. Midway in June 1942 was the turning point in the Pacific theater of the war.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
IF you want to look at WWII, IMHO the most importan was the Battle of Britain. I think the pilots/aircraft issue was a big one but you cannot overlook that Churchill had by then won the intellectual battle with the appeasers and made it crystal clear there would be no Vichy in Britain.
Churchill
BTW, the above sends chills down my spine every time I read it.Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us now. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!
Last edited by flyer85; 02-02-2007 at 09:58 AM.
This is a great topic and very interesting opinions given by all. I'm looking forward to this series also. It should be really good. I'm feel the same that it will have to go a ways to top the "World at War" series. It was made by the BBC and has a definite British slant to it. But it is impeccable in its thoroughness of capturing the essence of WWII.
Reds Fan Since 1971
The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than political chicanery. Lincoln had no authority to actually do it and and it also didn't free a single slave. The proclamation was drafted in September and it was not to take effect until January 1st so that if any southern state wished to surrender before the new year the proclamation would not apply to them.
It was meant to keep the European powers at bay by bringing in the potential for the abolition of slavery as a war goal and it also had a chance to cause a slave insurrection.
In the end the civil war was fought to answer the Federalism/Centralism question. Our country has had two distinct periods, pre and post civil war, the war changed our republic from a federalist form of government to a centralist one.
I have seen it mentioned a few times , but the Battle of Hastings in 1066 was one of the major historical events of the last milenium. It was also the last time the island of England was invaded and conquered.
This battle changed and formed the English culture. The english language as we know it today is attributable to the French influeces of Norman culture. This battle also introduced the feudal system of government to England.
A lot of our culture today is attributable to this mark in world history.
Back to following MiLB; there's always hope for tomorrow!
The Emancipation Proclamation also began the process toward abolition and established a sort of precedent Lincoln used to push ending slavery. While there certainly were political goals, the document also acted as a policy statement that marked a turning point in Lincoln's attitude toward slavery.The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than political chicanery. Lincoln had no authority to actually do it and and it also didn't free a single slave. The proclamation was drafted in September and it was not to take effect until January 1st so that if any southern state wished to surrender before the new year the proclamation would not apply to them.
It was meant to keep the European powers at bay by bringing in the potential for the abolition of slavery as a war goal and it also had a chance to cause a slave insurrection.
In the end the civil war was fought to answer the Federalism/Centralism question. Our country has had two distinct periods, pre and post civil war, the war changed our republic from a federalist form of government to a centralist one.
At least according to David Donald, who's a a Pulitzer winner and one of the country's premier Lincoln scholars. Really, the whole thing's a lot more complicated than many people--me in particular--tend to make it sound.
fwiw, on the slavery question, while the North was slow to consider this a war goal, and did fight primarily to protect the Union, aka a central government, the initial secession was caused as much by the South's fear that Lincoln would eventually free their slaves--and the certainty that he would restrict their "rights" concerning their slaves--as it was anything else. The secession documents of South Carolina, Georgia and Texas (possible others--these come to mind immediately) and the statements of many of the leading secessionists (including Jefferson Davis and VP Alexander Stephens, who said that slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy) among others. Even the eventual failed push to free slaves to fight for the Confederacy by General Patrick Cleburne, cabinet member Judah Benjamin and others was accompanied by language that indicated that they wanted to free the slaves on their own terms rather than have the North do it for them. This way, they said, they could make sure that the freed slaves remained on the lower rungs of society, as low-paid servants. Chattel, basically.
But even this idea was rejected by the Powers That Be. Cleburne found himself suspect for even suggesting slaves should be freed, and his promising military career was stunted.
There's a lot of misinformation out there now that the South seceeded because of the tariff, but there are absolutely no contemporary documents that support this. This is simply part of a Lost Cause myth that was perpetuated after the war by ex-Confederates who wanted to make their efforts seem more noble.
which is at its core a centralism/federalism question. Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery, he had even pledged to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law
The South ceded based on issues, which were at there cores, issues about the scope and power of the Federal government. Election of a Republican president signaled that the North was moving in a different direction than the South in terms of the Federalism/Centralism question. Slavery was just the most convenient issue to get the people worked up enough to support secession. Lincoln was a disciple of Clay(who was a slaveowner himself), was for high tariffs, bonds for infrastructure and a federal bank. He was not an abolitionist. In the end the Emancipation Proclamation was about pragmatism and not idealism.
It is interesting that all of the European powers handled their slavery issues without a bloody war(there was a nasty insurrection in Haiti) and could have eventually been handled by compensating slave owners(as had been done in Europe). There was no need to fight a war over the slave issue but there ending up being one over the scope and proper role of the central government. It is also interesting that the North had much more restrictive "Jim Crow" type laws in effect than the South did. Freedmen (African-Americans of 1/8th blood or more) were not allowed to emigrate to Illinois and were denied the right to vote in almost every state.
Last edited by flyer85; 02-02-2007 at 11:20 AM.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |