it seems to me that many of the so-called great victories of history changed very little.

ex. The battle of lepanto, the great 1571ad christian sea victory over the turks, blah,blah,blah. It changed nothing, the turks rebuilt their fleet bigger than ever within 1 year and when it cruised off greece and italy the christian fleet refused to come out and fight. Where was the big change, decline,ect...

anyone think of others?

Well the battles are told from the winners perspective so the Austrians/Spanish obviously skew the event to put it in a greater light. Plus history is taught from a European perspective so any victory against foreign armies is a huge win. This doesn't apply just to the specific battle but many battles in general.

Hmmm...

The British tend to be artists of making "victories" or "epics" out of humiliating defeats, just look at Dunkirk :D

I'd probably have to go for Gettysburg. Meade should have done more on the final day IMO and afterwards with Lee's army so mauled. Drake and Howard's fight against the Armarda comes to mind also since until the battle around Gravelines the English fleet attacked twice and did nothing more than pepper a few ships with small holes. Napoleon's at Jena was blown out of all proportion at the time also, Davout at Auerstadt did as much damage with half the number Napoleon had at hand.

I will agree with Gettysburg; it was an important battle, no doubt, but not to the extent that it gets hyped up today. Equally important battles are forgotten because everyone focuses on Gettysburg.

others that come to mind

teutoberg wald
seige of vienna

Cannae. Carthage still refused to send reinforcements, and Hannibal was no closer to capturing Rome.

@Corsair

Indeed. In fact, many historians would say Hannibals inability to besiege Rome was a direct result of Cannae. Hannibal was "drained emotionally" by the Battle of Cannae, having lost a good chunk of men, and some friends, supposedly. So if Hannibal had avoided Cannae...

@Corsair

Indeed. In fact, many historians would say Hannibals inability to besiege Rome was a direct result of Cannae. Hannibal was "drained emotionally" by the Battle of Cannae, having lost a good chunk of men, and some friends, supposedly. So if Hannibal had avoided Cannae...
...he still wouldn't have conquered Rome. Such is life. ;)

My first choice would be Gettysburg, but that has been used already...
So I'll go with D-Day (at least in the USA). Most popular histories here would have
you thinking that Hitler would not have been defeated if not for D-Day, when
in fact his fate was sealed at Kursk the previous year. D-Day only determined
when and where the Western Allies and Soviets would meet.

I'll agree with Cannae- a wonderful little example of tactics, but it had no effect what so ever on the war, othe rthen to help for ce the Romans to begin using Gueilla warfare on Hannibal, and slowlly begin eating away at his army as such.

ex. The battle of lepanto, the great 1571ad christian sea victory over the turks, blah,blah,blah. It changed nothing, the turks rebuilt their fleet bigger than ever within 1 year and when it cruised off greece and italy the christian fleet refused to come out and fight. Where was the big change, decline,ect...

I disagree with Lepanto being overrated. Lepanto was one of the last great naval victories where boarding your opponent's ship was the primary focus, while at the same time lining up to blow them to pieces with the cannons. Lepanto showed that the Catholics would still stand up to the Muslim bullies of the West. Muslim pirates and regular navy were getting out of control in the Mediterranean. They were just completely dominating trade and the entire sea. Victory at Lepanto gave the Spanish a fighting chance to establish themselves as dominant in the Mediterranean. Lepanto also had great historical value in that it boosted the Spanish ego enough to build the SPanish Armada. Had the Spanish been defeated at Lepanto, they probably would not have been able to build up a new fleet as large as the Armada. Also, their victory at Lepanto basically sealed a sure victory for the English in 1588, though nobody knew it at the time. The Spanish, with their new Lepanto Style Fighting Ego in their minds, were easy prey for the English who had no intention on the normal naval boarding style fighting of the day. Francis Drake was going to bring guerrilla warfare to the sea, and ultimately demolish the SPanish Armada.

But no, Lepanto is not overrated. It caused the Turks to just have to spend all those resources on rebuilding their navy; that was resources that they might have spent on a land invasion such as going after Vienna or someplace else, which would have been more deadly. WHen it came to standing up to the Turks in the 15th and 16th Centuries, it seems as if the powers of Europe were too scared. Charles V gained great recognition after Lepanto for his decisive victory.

I disagree with Lepanto being overrated. Lepanto was one of the last great naval victories where boarding your opponent's ship was the primary focus, while at the same time lining up to blow them to pieces with the cannons. Lepanto showed that the Catholics would still stand up to the Muslim bullies of the West. Muslim pirates and regular navy were getting out of control in the Mediterranean. They were just completely dominating trade and the entire sea. Victory at Lepanto gave the Spanish a fighting chance to establish themselves as dominant in the Mediterranean. Lepanto also had great historical value in that it boosted the Spanish ego enough to build the SPanish Armada. Had the Spanish been defeated at Lepanto, they probably would not have been able to build up a new fleet as large as the Armada. Also, their victory at Lepanto basically sealed a sure victory for the English in 1588, though nobody knew it at the time. The Spanish, with their new Lepanto Style Fighting Ego in their minds, were easy prey for the English who had no intention on the normal naval boarding style fighting of the day. Francis Drake was going to bring guerrilla warfare to the sea, and ultimately demolish the SPanish Armada.

But no, Lepanto is not overrated. It caused the Turks to just have to spend all those resources on rebuilding their navy; that was resources that they might have spent on a land invasion such as going after Vienna or someplace else, which would have been more deadly. WHen it came to standing up to the Turks in the 15th and 16th Centuries, it seems as if the powers of Europe were too scared. Charles V gained great recognition after Lepanto for his decisive victory.


lepanto was fought in the same manner [ except for a few galleses ] as gally battles had been for 3000 years.

muslem pirates still dominated the sea's after

if they had loss they still would of fought the armada the same way--it was the med. sea way of fighting [ if they loss a battle by galley tactics, why would they switch to something else? ]

the armada was destroyed by storms, not the english

the turks had the resources to spend

the confindence to stand up to turks? they refused a rematch less than a year later.

The battle of the Golden Spurs.

On in 1302, Flanders starts a revolution against the King of France. On july the 11th, flemish militias win on a muddy terrain where the french cavalry is unefficient. They will steal the spurs of the losers.. so the name of the battle.

July 11 is the flemish national day, in memory of what they see as the historic start of their nation.

But what books of history forget to say is that Philippe le Bel comes back two years later and defeats Flanders at the battle of Mons-en-Pévèle ;) France with impose Flanders a hard treaty. Some flemish cities are definitely annexed to France ( Lille, Douai, Béthune,... ) The victory at the Golden Spurs was useless !

lepanto was fought in the same manner [ except for a few galleses ] as gally battles had been for 3000 years.

In no way did the English as a whole attempt to board the Spanish Galleys in 1588. They would have been demolished had they tried to fight that way. The English ships had the advantage of speed and maneauverability over the oafly Spanish Galleys. The English would fire their cannons (which had a longer range than those of the SPanish) and then sail away, a type of naval guerrilla warfare.

But aside from that, who knows if the Spanish would have stopped using the boarding tactics had they lost at Lepanto.

In no way did the English as a whole attempt to board the Spanish Galleys in 1588. They would have been demolished had they tried to fight that way.

no one said they did?

no one said they did?

I thought thats what you meant when you said they fought in the same manner.

I thought thats what you meant when you said they fought in the same manner.

no that lepanto was fought that way--miscommunication ;)

What about the Charge of the Light Brigade...??

Or for that matter, the battle of Plassey?

Clive only ensured that a native Prince would not bother him while he went around openly looting the treasury of Bengal. His "victory" and subsequent rule in Bengal was disastrous for the Company and the locals, to say the least. Total anarchy prevailed and all economic activity was curbed by the high lawlessness at all levels. Yet, Clive claims his biggest achievement was in looting only a part of, and not the entire Bengal treasury!!

In fact, the first Governer General, Lord Hastings, won more victories, secured Bombay and Madras permanently for the British, got revenue and reformed the administration of the East India Company. His thoughts, at least, were to consolidating the British rule in the area and created a system of governance which whose basic structure would be replicated throughout the British empire.

However, Clive is regarded as the "founder" of the British Empire, while Hastings was impeached!!

Those Brits were crazy!!

The light brigade is never regarded as a victory, only a heroic but stupid event

the armada was destroyed by storms, not the english

To be fair, it was the English who drove them into the storms and away from the army waiting for them though.

Here's another, Ligny. A good victory for Napoleon and Grouchy totally wasted by Napoleon's actions after the battle. He refused to allow the pursuit the Prussians for vital hours after the battle, allowing them the time to escape Grouchy's troops and reform to fight at Waterloo. All the good planning before the campaign wasted and it left the French in a virtually impossible situation at Waterloo/Wavre.

The light brigade is never regarded as a victory, only a heroic but stupid event




True, but the writings in the English press then would have you believe it was on par with Crecy or Poitiers:rolleyes:

Of course we now know that along with Custer's "Last Stand" and the evacuation at Dunkirk, the Charge ranks up there among the stupidest events of military events which were given enough "spin" to turn them into heroic acts of great bravery and courage:rolleyes:

True, but the writings in the English press then would have you believe it was on par with Crecy or Poitiers

Really? I've never seen anything much like that :) It's usually just recognised for what it was, an act of folly brought on by an error in communication.

Of course we now know that along with Custer's "Last Stand" and the evacuation at Dunkirk, the Charge ranks up there among the stupidest events of military events which were given enough "spin" to turn them into heroic acts of great bravery and courage

Actually, to be fair the charge wasn't on a par with Custer. Custer knowingly charged an enemy encampment that he was told was likely to be heavily defended on his own judgement. Those in charge of the LB charged down the valley because of a mistake in communication.

Either way, charging at an enemy in any situation is pretty damned brave to me :)

I will agree with Gettysburg; it was an important battle, no doubt, but not to the extent that it gets hyped up today. Equally important battles are forgotten because everyone focuses on Gettysburg.

I agree but it is not that so much focus is put on Gettysburg, it is just that
things could have been much different for both sides if a few decisions/actions would have been changed. And plus it is one of the best
kept sites for sight-seeing old battlefields. I love to look at battlefield
panoramas and there are several on the net :cool: .

I remember reading an eyewitness account by an English reporter, although I don't remember which newspaper exactly. Apparently it was also the first war to have live reports (embeds as they would be called now;)) sent home by reporters from the scene of the battle.

Although later analysis denounced the charge as stupid and pointless, the account I remember reading was breathless in pronouncing the extra ordinary bravery of the cavalrymen and the terror they struck into the Russian gunners and so on, as though they were MEANT to charge into those guns.

As brave as the men were, the mention of incompetence of some of the higher officers (esp Lord Raglan and Cardigan if I am not mistaken) is not even discussed.

Oh you're talking about at the time I missed that bit and thought you meant now... well that's hardly suprising given the nature of war reporters. To be fair the initial charge had some small sucess, they did indeed capture the guns and drive off some cavalry IIRC (which will be where the terror part comes into things), and the charge didn't actually have a massive attrition rate either, certainly not compared to say some units at Waterloo. Overall the event is blown out of proportion and importance by reporters and poets. It's not considered a victory now, and never will be, it was pointless, but so is comparing it to Custer's last stand. Errors in communication are not the same as incompetence by the officer in charge.

I agree but it is not that so much focus is put on Gettysburg, it is just that
things could have been much different for both sides if a few decisions/actions would have been changed

They would have changed events in the battle, but I don't think that the war would have changed much by the south winning the battle itself.

They would have changed events in the battle, but I don't think that the war would have changed much by the south winning the battle itself.

Exactly. Even if Lee had won, he would have been
forced to retreat to Virginia by lack of ammunition.
And the psychological impact on both sides would have
been mitigated by the fall of Vicksburg.

Charge of the light brigade:

I've seen it stated that the Russians who rounded up the captives from the event would sniff their breath. They assumed the British cavalry men would have to have been dead drunk to do something like that.

And then there is the comment by the French staff officer witnessing the charge from the hights alongside the British commanders:
"C'est beau, mais ce n'est pas la guerre..." (It's magnificient, but it isn't war...)

Oh you're talking about at the time I missed that bit and thought you meant now... well that's hardly suprising given the nature of war reporters. To be fair the initial charge had some small sucess, they did indeed capture the guns and drive off some cavalry IIRC (which will be where the terror part comes into things), and the charge didn't actually have a massive attrition rate either, certainly not compared to say some units at Waterloo. Overall the event is blown out of proportion and importance by reporters and poets. It's not considered a victory now, and never will be, it was pointless, but so is comparing it to Custer's last stand. Errors in communication are not the same as incompetence by the officer in charge.



They would have changed events in the battle, but I don't think that the war would have changed much by the south winning the battle itself.

I agree here too, I was speaking more of things such as picking a different
battlefield by the Conf./ Ewell's lack of EVERYTHING/ Longstreet's reluctance
to attack/ etc... & Union lack of action after battle and tactical mistakes
during. The South winning the battle would have been very serious indeed
at the time, especially a rout would have panicked the Leaders and population
in Washington :eek: .

Even without the lack of ammunition, I don't think a victory on any of the days would have shattered the northern army enough to permit a march onto and occupation of Washington. Meade's army could afford to loose and still be strong enough to withdraw into the very decent defensive forts in and around the city.

Even without the lack of ammunition, I don't think a victory on any of the days would have shattered the northern army enough to permit a march onto and occupation of Washington. Meade's army could afford to loose and still be strong enough to withdraw into the very decent defensive forts in and around the city.

I feel that the capture of Little Round Top early or a competant general in
Ewells place might have 'rolled' up the Union Army. A rout of any kind at
the time by the Confederates would have caused a panic in my opinion, but
it would have had to have been a 'crushing' defeat, which may have not been
possible anyway :crazyeye: .

Even without the lack of ammunition, I don't think a victory on any of the days would have shattered the northern army enough to permit a march onto and occupation of Washington. Meade's army could afford to loose and still be strong enough to withdraw into the very decent defensive forts in and around the city.

Also true, particularly as the VI Corps never participated in the battle.

The battle of Gettysburg was, in many ways, the high watermark of Confederate power. Because of the losses, the army of Northern Virginia was no longer able to invade the north. Its also the bloodiest battle of the Civil War (and, iirc, American history). I don't think Gettysburg was a great tactical victory (I don't recall ever being told it was), but it was significant in the greater picture of the Civil War.

The Charge of the light brigade is actually quite the opposite of what you think, of 600 around 150 died the rest carried on to take the guns and the heights achieving their objective in an unorthodox method.

Hmmm...

The British tend to be artists of making "victories" or "epics" out of humiliating defeats, just look at Dunkirk :D

I'd probably have to go for Gettysburg. Meade should have done more on the final day IMO and afterwards with Lee's army so mauled. Drake and Howard's fight against the Armarda comes to mind also since until the battle around Gravelines the English fleet attacked twice and did nothing more than pepper a few ships with small holes. Napoleon's at Jena was blown out of all proportion at the time also, Davout at Auerstadt did as much damage with half the number Napoleon had at hand.

Actually Dunkirk was crucial to the eventual allied victory in the larger war. Without sucess at Dunkirk the British Army would have been captured/forced to surrender and there would have been no army to defend Britan during the period when Britian stood alone against Germany. Hitler's Operation Sealion (the planned invasion of Britian) might have come off and Germany would have had a consolidated Europe to work with in facing the USA and the USSR. It would also have eliminated a vital staging area for the allies without which D-Day and, perhaps more importantly in the long run, the bombing raids on Occupied Europe couldn't have taken place. This would have meant that Germany wouldn't be trying to fight the war in the East while their infrastructure was being Bombed out of existance back home.

BTW, I agree with your analysis of Gettyburg. Bottom line: the union allowed the devastated army of Robert E. Lee to limp away when they should have pressed their advantage.

Actually Dunkirk was crucial to the eventual allied victory in the larger war. Without sucess at Dunkirk the British Army would have been captured/forced to surrender and there would have been no army to defend Britan during the period when Britian stood alone against Germany. Hitler's Operation Sealion (the planned invasion of Britian) might have come off and Germany would have had a consolidated Europe to work with in facing the USA and the USSR. It would also have eliminated a vital staging area for the allies without which D-Day and, perhaps more importantly in the long run, the bombing raids on Occupied Europe couldn't have taken place. This would have meant that Germany wouldn't be trying to fight the war in the East while their infrastructure was being Bombed out of existance back home.

Agree 100%, but the overall campaign was a shambles and a defeat, Dunkirk was a miracle and fortunately saved the army, but stopping the Germans from winning the campaign would have been better ;) Just not entirely likely :D

Therefore the Allies had to invade Germany in September ´39, where most troops were in Poland...

Adler

Would have been easier to declare war in 1938 if you ask me :mischief:

Best in 1929 :p

Kinda hard to remove Hitler from power when he's not in power for 4 more years :lol:

(and no that's not some loose attempt to link Bush with Hitler) :D

Action would best have been taken when German troops first went back into the rhineland.

Dunkirk was a moral victory and a naval one not for the army no it was an embarrasing defeat, however in condemnation of the British army there was an attack at Arras which almost cut off Rommels forces however the french didnt act and british forces were expecting them to. In france the Allies were thinking in an old fashioned frame of mind and the French didnt want to fight at all (not a slur by any means just re-iteration of facts). TBH Dunkirk isnt all that overated and most people with a gram of intellegence can see what it was borne from.

TBH Dunkirk isnt all that overated and most people with a gram of intellegence can see what it was borne from.

From morale reasons- the need for Britian to have some kind of 'victory' at that stage of the war.

Although it allowed the BEF to get home and fight another day.

Would have been easier to declare war in 1938 if you ask me :mischief:

Blame the French and Russians for that one. They had garenteed the Czech republic's protection. Poor old Neville always cops the flak for letting down the Czechs............

I think Chamberlain takes an undue amount of criticism for being 'pacifist', but I think not many others in his position would have done different. Even Churchill would have found it hard to convince England that he needed to go to war with Germany to save the Czechs...

That said, I think the horrors of trench warfare were not entirely forgotten, and nobody wanted another bloody war..least of all the French and the Russian who took the worst of it, along with the Germans..

Nevertheless IF Chamberlain wouldn´t made his appeasement policy Hitler wouldn´t have survived Munich. There was a first assassination planned shortly before the conference but it was suspended when suddenly Mussolini sat himself into Hitler´s car. Because the conservative assassins didn´t want to risk a war with Italy they suspended the plan. But suddenly Hitler was susccessfull. So they thought it was impossible to do their plan because killing a successfull politician gave no good PR...

Adler

I wouldn't imagine Chamberlin had that kind of thing on his mind though :D

The case can be made that WW II, in its entirety, fits this thread. When the smoke cleared Germany, Japan and the USSR remained world powers. More than anything it marked the ascendancy of the US.

J

Not necessarily. Without American aid, both Germany and Japan would NEVER have made it to where they are today. Don't forget the Marshall plan and its equivalent in Japan.If the Allies in WW2 had done the same thing as the victors of WW1, Europe and Asia would have a completely different look today.

Moslems vs the mongolians

Battle of Tours.

Charles Martel stops... what? Possibly a tentative scouting mission by the Arabs? There really isn't anything to suggest that these had any plans on pushing further north. They would perhaps have liked to hold on to southern France and northern Spain, but by the time they reached Tours they no longer seem to have had the momentum to keep going anymore.
I.e. chances are very good Charles Martel didn't save Europe from falling under "the muslim yoke".

Battle of Tours.

Charles Martel stops... what? Possibly a tentative scouting mission by the Arabs? There really isn't anything to suggest that these had any plans on pushing further north. They would perhaps have liked to hold on to southern France and northern Spain, but by the time they reached Tours they no longer seem to have had the momentum to keep going anymore.
I.e. chances are very good Charles Martel didn't save Europe from falling under "the muslim yoke".

agreed, it was a raiding force of 10,000, not an invasion

It was not an invasion, just some decent Tour-ism :D

Was Dunkirk seriously THAT important? I always thought it was a moral vicotry i and a crushing loss, but I trust PrivateHudson for he is among the foremost military historians among us :) .

But on the Battle of Lepanto, on which I read a full book about; it seriously was not a DESCISIVE victory. It was a major one though, with over 120 turkish galleys being towed off by the Venetians and Spanish. But Konstam (the author of the book) tells us this: galleys can easily be replaced, though not the lives.
Almost the experienced Ottoman sailors and captains where killed or taken captive, giving Admiral Ali the year after Lepanto a new huge fleet with noob sailors. The new fleet achieved in breaking the Holy Leauge (the one that fought at Lepanto) and retaking Tunis from the Spanish, both amazing feats. Turkish maritime superiority only slighly lessened from the battle; it was far from destroyed. Not for a century, in fact.

But another seriously overrated battle was the Zulu victory at Isandlwana, where 24,000 Zulus massacred 1,300 Brits. Yes, it was amazing that an army Roman legions would have grinned at fighting destroyed the worlds strongest army, but one month later a new British marched in. This time, the Zulu's got the rod.

Out of every battle in the historey of the world, Marathon is the most overrated. It was not an inavsion per se of Greece by the Achaemenid Persians, it was more of a raid. The Persians had completely ravaged the Attican countryside without the slightest stint of resistance, then as they were sailing off with the last of the soldiers getting into the boats to go home, the Greeks attacked. There was nothing important about the battle at all, except for the fact that the Greeks made it a glorious and decisive victory, when in reality it was the exact opposite.

Not necessarily. Without American aid, both Germany and Japan would NEVER have made it to where they are today. Don't forget the Marshall plan and its equivalent in Japan.If the Allies in WW2 had done the same thing as the victors of WW1, Europe and Asia would have a completely different look today.

Utter nonsense, both these countries were going to be great and without the United States, neither of them would have been beaten in their little wars of conquest.

The Marshall Plan, whilst useful gave a very little amount of aid relative to GNP, indeed, for Britain (the greatest recipient) it barely amounted to 1% of GNP. The Marshall Plan gets far more credit than it deserves, whilst simply the fact that people worked hard and took advantage of multinationals investment (or in the case of Germany, continuance...it was a big shock to Zhukov on visiting West Germany how many chemical plants owned by IG Faben has been left untouched).

Germany and Japan were great civilizations before because of their people and cultures...that they rose up again was simply because the people of these countries, whilst afflicted were not annihilated.

Aid is rarely of major benefit, freedom to trade and compete and with the skills and work ethic to exploit it, THAT can build wealthy nations. If aid was all it took, then surely those countries receiving loads as a % of GNP should do well...the fact is, looking to Africa that is not the case.

For the battle I'll call an over-rated great victory, I'll go with the battle of El-Alamein. The famous part being the 2nd battle of El-Alamein, which is given so much attention as it was a victory and was the high-tide of German expansion in N.Africa.

The situation was very much one where the British would have had to do alot to fail, they had at this point air superiority, a superiority in men and equipment, were close to their supplies, whilst the enemy was far from their own and the enemy were exhausted. To add to this, during the whole N.African war, the British had the option to bring in many 100,000s more men from the Middle-East and East Coast Africa if need be.

The situation was never as black as was painted even during the 1st Battle of El-Alamein.

In the end the enemy was halted faced by the impossibility of the task ahead and couldn't stay faced with utter ruin. That they were forced onto the run was the result of solid generalship deploying the massive advantage the British had in the region, as long as the fight was continued, the battle would be won.

It was a victory, but it wasn't a great one and it wasn't as decisive as it so nearly was. Had the Afrika Corps being bagged in the pursuit, as almost happened, then it would have ended the N.African campaign very quickly.

Ultimately it was to the Allied advantage to had the Germans fight in N.Africa where they couldn't operate as effectively as on the continent, but that is just another example of how not being wholly successful can be beneficial. Indeed, later on had the Germans not done so well holding Tunisia, Hitler wouldn't have sent more men, so in the end he wouldn't have lost more men as the untenable position evenutally fell.

Had those men been kept back and also had Scilly not been fought for, the Allies would have had a much bigger problem when they went to Italy.


To me, the hall-marks of a great victory is that it was against the odds or was rapid, or supremely successful. El-Alamein, does not meet that criterion and yet I feel it is considered a great victory in popular culture.

Stalingrad. Indeed the 6th army was lost. But in the same month the 6th army surrendered German troops could take out 4 Soviet armies. Stalingrad was important for morale but for the war Kursk is far more decisive.

Adler

Utter nonsense, both these countries were going to be great and without the United States, neither of them would have been beaten in their little wars of conquest.

The Marshall Plan, whilst useful gave a very little amount of aid relative to GNP, indeed, for Britain (the greatest recipient) it barely amounted to 1% of GNP. The Marshall Plan gets far more credit than it deserves, whilst simply the fact that people worked hard and took advantage of multinationals investment (or in the case of Germany, continuance...it was a big shock to Zhukov on visiting West Germany how many chemical plants owned by IG Faben has been left untouched).

Germany and Japan were great civilizations before because of their people and cultures...that they rose up again was simply because the people of these countries, whilst afflicted were not annihilated.

Aid is rarely of major benefit, freedom to trade and compete and with the skills and work ethic to exploit it, THAT can build wealthy nations. If aid was all it took, then surely those countries receiving loads as a % of GNP should do well...the fact is, looking to Africa that is not the case.

However, without the proper infrastructure and the investment that went into rebuilding the infrastructure, there would have been no rebirth of these two countries for a long time to come.
No doubt Germany and Japan because of their inherent greatness (as you put i:rolleyes:) would have made a comeback, but it wouldn't have happened at the pace at which it did with American help.

Aid given under the Marshall Plan was not just money like it is done nowadays, but actual investment in solid infrastructure which had been destroyed during the war. It must also be remembered that the morale of the peoples of these two countries was at its lowest, and they just couldn't pick themselves up, dust off the damage and get on with their lives after the war.

They also needed to convince themselves that the violent paths they had chosen before the war could never more be an option if they wanted to stay a great nation. Its an oft quoted cliche, but it is still true, the roots of the second world war lay in how the peace was inflicted by the victors on the losers, at the end of the First World War.

The same bitterness and anguish would have remained long and festered without American help and may have turned the energies of Germany and Japan to pointless, renewed warfare.

Nevertheless IF Chamberlain wouldn´t made his appeasement policy Hitler wouldn´t have survived Munich. There was a first assassination planned shortly before the conference but it was suspended when suddenly Mussolini sat himself into Hitler´s car. Because the conservative assassins didn´t want to risk a war with Italy they suspended the plan. But suddenly Hitler was susccessfull. So they thought it was impossible to do their plan because killing a successfull politician gave no good PR...
Adler

Those poor deluded, would be assisins. Always a reason why they didn't kill Hitler. The British let them down by giving in to him, a certain general changed his mind at the last minute, the wind was blowing in a northerly direction insted of a north easter blah blah blah...........

The reason no German really tried to take out Hitler before July '44 was coz they didn't have the BALLS!!!!!

The problem was the Germans saw, even the Jews, mostly no big danger in him. They didn´t recognized the bad things he did. Actions against Jews were only thought to be some small measures without a big danger and only for a certain time. Nobody expected a Holocaust. And it seemed to be that Hitler was doing something great to rebuild Germany and to delete the Versailles treaty. They were wrong indeed, but that something like this could happen was unthinkable for the most. This should only explain not justify it. Only very few saw the danger in that dictator. And these wanted to act. But then the British were now giving Hitler what he wanted. They wanted to prevent a war, a war Germany was not ready for. But he was successfull and so the legitimation was not there. They postponed their plan. Later they tried it again and again. Not only on July 20th 1944 but before: Henning von Tresckow prepared a bomb to smuggle it into Hitlers plane. The bomb didn´t explode. The British bombed a plane full of uniforms and destroyed the plan of the assassins to kill Hitler with a suicide bomber...
What bad fate was it that he survived at least 43 assassin trials?

Adler

I agree up to a point.

Yes Hitler was doing good things in Germany and its not surprising that the average German was willing to turn a blind eye to the not so good things that he was doing in return for job security and a stronger nation. If any group in Germany was to get rid of Hitler it would have to be the military caste and Hitler kept them happy by giving them more power through an expanded armed services.

The 'night of the long knives' should have given them a bit of an idea about what kind of man Hitler was. A couple of generals or ex generals got the chop and in the years following several more were discredited or gotten rid of by Goering and Himmler.

Its true that some of the generals were a bit worried about the Czech situation and how Germany might fare in a resulting war but a lot also had the same fears leading up to Poland and no-one acted.

I spose its easy for me to sit back and call them cowards and I know of several attempts- including the bottles of wine on Hitlers plane coming back from the eastern front. But the more I read about it the more I think that some of the leaders had their own best interests at heart and were too keen to stick to their rigid Prussian traditions and vowing to their oath of alligence. They commanded the armies that were being destroyed and a lot of them would have met Hitler so they were under no illusions as to the only possible outcome of the war.

It was fate that he did survive these trials, although I'd like to see a list of all 43 'attempts'. I think a greater power decided that the German people had followed Hitler into the horrible war and given him the means to wage it so they should have to suffer him until the end.

The Hitler thing:
After steamrolling France, Hitler's public standing was such that all plans to remove him were put on hold. The generals that had been talking to the British to get foreign support, decided that "What the hey, maybe the man isn't crazy? This just might work!"

They thought he was doing the job of 1918. They thought now revenge for Versailles. Also the oath was for a Prussian soldier a holy thing which was untouchable. This was a tradition because nobody misused it. But Hitler misused it. And although I concur that some generals and officers were hiding behind that, many others, also who later joined the assassins, had big problems with that. Nevertheless they decided to act but the Allies were in no way a help for them but more a help for Hitler as they didn´t support the German resistance, the only resistance that was able to end the war quickly.
The 43 assassin trials I read in a magazine report about a book, which listed them all. This could be a realistic figure. Perhaps more...

Adler

The Allies were skeptical of how serious the German conspirators were and needed some big names in there to move. IIRC the reason they wanted the British contact was to secure decent peace terms, not to arm or help them. They most of all needed the support of officers like Witzleben who controlled the German troops stationed in Germany and other countries where the Gestapo and SS were very active..

I still think this 43 figure is very high from what I have read. I suppose it depends on what they class as an attempt. We all know the Beer Hall Putsch anniversary was a fake, and I don't think you can count Speer's either. All he did was to think about doing something- and in 1945!!!! A bit late and for the wrong reasons.

The beer hall putsch was not a fake. The bomb only exploded because Hitler did not shout long enough... And Speer, well he tried it. It was an attempt, although I agree it was way too late.
Nevertheless if the allies gave them support, I mean recognized them and giving a better conditions, many more generals would have supported the coûp d'état- and millions of lifes would have been saved. But the fate was another...

Adler

I thought, Speer only considered to get rid of Hitler and didn't not try it.

Well, he wanted to pump gas into Hitler´s room. When he wanted to do so, there were guards where he wanted to do it and also there was a ventilator newly installed to stop such attacks. It was invain and he had no chance to make a new plan: Hitler commited suicide.

Adler

Can we get back on topic now, or do we have to go over again this one?

The beer hall putsch was not a fake. The bomb only exploded because Hitler did not shout long enough...

At the time of publish in the mid 1950s Shirer's 'Rise and fall of the Third Reich' it was already a proven fact that it was a fake. They got some guy from a concentration camp to make the bomb. And then inprisoned him again.

At the function Hitler left suspiciously early and the bomb was blamed on the British anyway. So it wasn't an internal attempt on his life. Even if it was real.

Can we get back on topic now, or do we have to go over again this one?

Hey man, me and Alder are the only ones keeping this thread going. So BACK OFF!!!!

Calm down rilnator. I really think we´re threadjacking this thread. Nevertheless your infos are wrong. I have never heart about that theory. All infos I got, and they are all newer since 1960, say that this assassination was no fake.

Adler

Hey man, me and Alder are the only ones keeping this thread going. So BACK OFF!!!!

I just think this off topic discussion has been discussed to death already, no point in continuing it here for round 10...

Calm down rilnator. I really think we´re threadjacking this thread. Nevertheless your infos are wrong. I have never heart about that theory. All infos I got, and they are all newer since 1960, say that this assassination was no fake.

Adler

I'm currently on holidays, and my rise and fall is at home so I can't reference it it the moment. But I think it leaves very little doubt as to the true originators of the bomb.

I'll let you know when I home again, that is, if PH lets me.

I just consider it better to combine it in one dedicated topic than regurgitate the same discussion every 2-3 months.

What about the Zeebrügge raid in 1918, if we come back to the topic? This raid should trap the German Flandres flotilla. Indeed nothing was achieved: the trap was a complete failure. Although the Brits turned it out as a big victory...

Adler

One oft-overlooked point about Lepanto is that it devasted the Ottoman naval composite bowman corps. Galleys can be built quickly, and the Christian arquebusiers who fell in droves weren't very hard to replace either, but training a composite bowman to the customary Turkish standard tooks many years, and wasn't any easier when most would-be teachers were giving mediterranean fish a lesson in osmanli. The post-Lepanto Ottoman fleet scored some successes, but never regained its former quality.

One oft-overlooked point about Lepanto is that it devasted the Ottoman naval composite bowman corps. The post-Lepanto Ottoman fleet scored some successes, but never regained its former quality.

true but lepanto devastated the venician, papal and knights of st. johns ( malta ) fleets too, so no one could take advantage of the turks weakness

Adler17, what's the name of the 17th c. "battle" between Brandenburgers and Swedes that the former played up as a major victory, but wasn't regarded as more than a cavalry screen skirmish by the latter?

It was the battle of Fehrbellin in 1675. An overwhelming force of the best Swedish forces invaded Brandenburg in order to retreat the Brandenburg soldiers from the war with France. Nevertheless Marschall Derfflinger was able to beat the Swedish at Fehrbellin. It was only a small skirmish indeed, but it was the first battle Brandenburg engaged and won alone.That´s why it is hold so high. Nevertheless there was nothing gained here. As well as the "Schwedenjagd" in winter 1678/79: Swedish troops invaded East Prussia but were beaten and followed by Brandenburg troops on sleighs over the Kurisches Haff. Shortly before Riga the Swedish troops could retreat with heavy casualities. But indeed nearly nothing was gained, only a small piece of land east of the Oder river.
Fehrbellin is only of value for the pride but not for anything else.

Adler

Well, the symbolism of some battles shouldn't be underestimated. ;)

French victories in WWII:
Koufra, the Italian held oasis in the Libyan dessert. Captured by Leclerc's rag-tag force of colonial troops scrounged from a bit of everywhere in the Free French African colonies. Totally pointless militarily. Tiny military action. Huge symbolic effect. The First Victory of the Free French.

Bir-Hakeim in the North African dessert. General Koenig's French troops encirled by the Africa Korps, eventually managing a break out. If it did anything it may have been delaying a German offensive a few days, but the BBC broadcast it as if it had been a new Thermopylae. Again huge symbolic significance.

Ezra Lee's attack on British flagship Eagle using Turtle. Captain's log on Eagle went into seaweed observed passing by the ship, so how could the Turtle not be noticed.