The five most important battles of all times.

[lolcats]

I think the most important battle of all time was the French defeat in the Ardennes in 1940. After all, if they hadn't been so quick to lose, Hitler would never have been able to massacre tens of millions of innocent people as the war would've been over much quicker and much more bloodlessly (of course they already had a chance to stop Hitler; keep reading).

The second would have to be the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. It confirmed the British as the supreme overlords of Europe, and ended Napoleon's delusions of empire once and for all. Not much else to say on that.

The third would be any battle during the Franco-Prussian War. The French lost again and gave rise to the German Empire, whose eventual fall would lead to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, the French are responsible for Adolf Hitler. Nice going, guys.

The fourth would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The French lost and this resulted in the British gaining control over all of North America (the parts worth having anyways), which paved the way for centuries of genocide against native people. Another French loss, leading to another genocide. These guys sure do have a lot of blood stains on their white flags.

The last would probably be the French Intervention in Mexico, for the French loss there ensured Mexico's independence. Without it, the Drug War as we know it today would never have occurred, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

 

[Mowque]

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

 

[Masada]

The second would have to be the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. It confirmed the British as the supreme overlords of Europe, and ended Napoleon's delusions of empire once and for all. Not much else to say on that.

It confirmed that Bonaparte was fighting with a subpar army against overwhelming odds. Even if teh British and Prussians had lost... Bonaparte wouldn't have been able to replace his losses and would have lost the very next battle probably against a combined Russo-British-Prussian army. It's not like the British interfered in the continent much after that... *ahem* the Crimea. They were content to keep a balance of power and keep aloof via the Royal Navy.

The third would be any battle during the Franco-Prussian War. The French lost again and gave rise to the German Empire, whose eventual fall would lead to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, the French are responsible for Adolf Hitler. Nice going, guys.

By that token logic, Jesus is responsible for Hitler because Hitler was Christian.

The fourth would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The French lost and this resulted in the British gaining control over all of North America (the parts worth having anyways), which paved the way for centuries of genocide against native people. Another French loss, leading to another genocide. These guys sure do have a lot of blood stains on their white flags.

By that token the Columbus caused the genocide by 'discovering' the Americas. All the countries of the New World existent have blood on their hands.

The last would probably be the French Intervention in Mexico, for the French loss there ensured Mexico's independence. Without it, the Drug War as we know it today would never have occurred, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

Can we say the same about Columbia... and Britain letting Americans revolt?

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

I'm not sure if its a right wing parody or a left wing one... the pathological dislike of France fits into the right wing parody section.. but the concern for native Americans is so very left wing.

 

[lolcats]

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.

 

[Mowque]

Then i agree with Masada on all those points.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.

Moderator Action: Well then, please try to control your generalized outbursts against specific groups of people. At best you appear silly and uneducated; at worst you could be painted as a troll and infracted by a wandering moderator.

 

[Camikaze]

The problem with mentioning Tsushima is that the Russians lost pretty much every battle of the war. It's not like a victory here would have changed anything. Even that considered, the Russian navy was so outdated at this point that a victory would have been a far-cry.

Yeah, I refrained from mentioning, say, the Battle of Mukden, because there were quite a few land battles. However, the Battle of Tsushima was clearly the biggest naval battle. And this served to prove that the modern ship was so decisive in determining the outcome of a battle.

This, of course, made the world, particularly Britain and Germany, start to take notice of new ships, leading to the Dreadnought race, which was a cause of World War One. This, of course, resulted in the Treaty of Versailles, which caused an atmosphere susceptible to Hitler's rise. As you can see, it was clearly, directly, and absolutely Japan's early 20th century navy that caused the Holocaust.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, I refrained from mentioning, say, the Battle of Mukden, because there were quite a few land battles. However, the Battle of Tsushima was clearly the biggest naval battle. And this served to prove that the modern ship was so decisive in determining the outcome of a battle.

If the modern capital ship was so important to determining the outcome of engagements, why was Jutland not more decisive? The First World War's surface naval battles meant virtually nothing to the outcome of the war; no decisive engagements, and the entire massive arms race was virtually for naught. And then, in the Second World War, the surface navy stopped making as much of a difference as, say, the aircraft carriers or the submarines.

Last part was lulz.

 

[Mowque]

virtually for naught.

A pun Dachs?

Anyway, yeah i tend to agree with Dachs. If anything Tsushima showed a false image of what naval warfare would be like.

 

[Dachs]

A pun Dachs?

You caught me.

 

[Camikaze]

If the modern capital ship was so important to determining the outcome of engagements, why was Jutland not more decisive? The First World War's surface naval battles meant virtually nothing to the outcome of the war; no decisive engagements, and the entire massive arms race was virtually for naught. And then, in the Second World War, the surface navy stopped making as much of a difference as, say, the aircraft carriers or the submarines.

Last part was lulz.

Yeah, fair enough, I 'spose. Perhaps it was more important for showing that an Asian country could pwn a European one. Contributed to end of imperialism in Asia, perhaps? Ended European hegemony, maybe?

 

[Masada]

Yeah, fair enough, I 'spose. Perhaps it was more important for showing that an Asian country could pwn a European one. Contributed to end of imperialism in Asia, perhaps? Ended European hegemony, maybe?

To borrow a word from Sharwood, the Japanese got uppity the rest of Asia was either a colony of a European power or a basket case.

 

[Camikaze]

To borrow a word from Sharwood, the Japanese got uppity the rest of Asia was either a colony of a European power or a basket case.

Despite the rest of Asia still being, well, not good, Japan was afforded concessions by the European powers, such as Britain, in Asia, such as the recognition of Japan's sphere of influence. So, it did, in a way, end the spread of European imperialism, although not so much imperialism itself.

 

[Masada]

Despite the rest of Asia still being, well, not good, Japan was afforded concessions by the European powers, such as Britain, in Asia, such as the recognition of Japan's sphere of influence. So, it did, in a way, end the spread of European imperialism, although not so much imperialism itself.

What Imperialism? It had already spread as far as was practical.

 

[BananaLee]

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.

Dammit, I genuinely thought it was a funny parody.

Why was Jutland not more decisive?

It was primarily because Admiral Scheer pooped his pants instead of going for the decisive battle.
German or rather, Tirpitz's naval strategy at the time was to engage Brits in a decisive naval battle. It didn't matter if the Germans lost because it would have meant that the Royal Navy would have to give ground elsewhere as long as the Grand Fleet was sufficiently hurt.
The Kaiser didn't really like this idea and told Tirpitz to keep it as a 'fleet in being' to prevent operations against the Baltic coast.

In addition to their own 'fleet in being' doctrine, Brit naval leadership at that point in time was pretty pathetic.

Thus, it was the 'fleet in being' doctrine that prevented epic showdowns - and the chance at a showdown (namely Jutland) was cut short by Admiral Scheer pulling back after the second exchange.

This is taken from Arthur Herman's To Rule the Waves and is apparently from Scheer's own memoirs (listed in the footnotes as "Keegan, Price of Admiralty" - no biblio and I"m not going to track down all the notes).

The English fleet had the advantage of looking back on a hundred years of proud tradition...

This was as opposed to the 2 years the High Seas Fleet had and in the heat of the moment (Herman argues), Scheer made the decision to turn around.

 

[Camikaze]

What Imperialism? It had already spread as far as was practical.

Completely destroying all Chinese autonomy? Invading Japan? There were many other possible future avenues of European imperialism in Asia before Japan asserted some power.

 

[Masada]

Completely destroying all Chinese autonomy? Invading Japan? There were many other possible future avenues of European imperialism in Asia before Japan asserted some power.

Practical... if you want to traipse around fantasy land you might as well suggest Great Britain invading France and occupying it in 1920. It suited all the major powers to have a tottering China both for the practical purpose of making money from it, as a useful counter to Japan [that was later] and because nobody wanted to be the first person to charge in and try and rule China wholesale (which was lets face it impossible short of a century or two of leisurely annexation). Most of the same applies to Japan, except you had a state which was probably going to be even more difficult to take over and occupy (and was population wise fairly homogeneous).

 

[Camikaze]

Britain backed off China with Japanese victory and increasing power. This has certainly had a great effect on the history of Asia, with the consequences including (although arguably) Japanese expansion into China in the 30's, and Chinese dominance in the region in the present day.

And let us not forget that this battle further caused unrest in Russia, and left her without a navy. Two other important things.

BTW, I don't think it should be in the top five, but I do think that it was a battle quite above average importance.

 

[Masada]

Britain backed off China with Japanese victory and increasing power. This has certainly had a great effect on the history of Asia, with the consequences including (although arguably) Japanese expansion into China in the 30's, and Chinese dominance in the region in the present day.

Proof. The British all the way up to World War Two could have convincingly trounced the Japanese, it was only after they had stripped away their fleet assets that the Japanese had a fighting chance at breaking British naval power (which was by then almost non-existent in the region). The Japanese also realized this, they were terrified of the Royal Navy, rightly so because who had trained them and sold them ships? Britain.

Japans expansion into China has more to do with China's collapse as a recognizable state, the Japanese could argue quite correctly that they were merely assisting Manchuria (a state all of its own) in restoring order or that they were striking out against the warlords. It's not like the Chinese helped themselves in the worlds eyes by siding with the invaders against each other.

And let us not forget that this battle further caused unrest in Russia, and left her without a navy. Two other important things.

The war itself led to major reform in the Russian army and a modernization program which worked nicely and culled some of the worst generals.

The Russian fleet would itself have been utterly no use in the First World War in any case... the Russians were cursed with a fleet which was going to face the Germans on its own because of the Kiel Canal if they came out of the Baltic, or they were going to have to go through the Dardanelles with Turkey, or they were going to sit impotently in Port Arthur penned in by Japan, or come from Arkhangelsk which was not practical at the time (it also had some serious safety issues for a fleet at anchor). That's why the relative strength of the Russian fleet to me in any time period (particularly the Cold War) needs to be reduced significantly because of the geographic bottlenecks they face. It also would have been next to useless against anyone aside from the Turks in World War One (and they would probably have sunk it in any case).

BTW, I don't think it should be in the top five, but I do think that it was a battle quite above average importance.

It showed that Russia could be beaten, but I'm sure if the Japanese angle is the correct one to be looking at. It certainly might have helped reinforce German thinking with regards to the Schlieffen Plan (however I couldn't tell you for sure).

 

[Tee Kay]

the Japanese could argue quite correctly that they were merely assisting Manchuria (a state all of its own) in restoring order or that they were striking out against the warlords.

Manchukuo in the 1930s was like French Indochina at the same time. Bao Dai was Emperor of Vietnam, but everyone knew where the real power was.