Top 12 Decisive Battles, Post-1900:

[Snake Featherston]

1) The Battle of Mukden-Arguably the battle that began de-colonization and cut one of the major tenets of White Supremacy down to size. One of the largest battles before the world wars, and a definitive victory for the Imperial Japanese Army. In terms of a global sense, definitely qualifies for number one.

2) Battle of Dien Bien Phu-Vo Nyguen Giap's victory over the French here arguably paved the way for all else that followed in the Indochina Wars, as well as establishing the rule that in colonial wars, try as people might, they weren't going to stop anti-colonial movements from securing independence by force of arms if they had to do so.

3) Operation Yellow-The invasion of France was arguably the moment that WWII went bad for democracy and communism alike, and it was perhaps the most decisive event of that war for the Axis side. It's the clearest example of a single decisive event *on* the Axis side.

4) Battle of Singapore-The battle that broke the British Empire. Also the one instance in WWII together with Malaya where the IJA actually fought at a level worthy of admiration.

5) Operation Bagration-The most decisive Soviet victory of the Second World War, annihilating Army Group Center and taking the USSR to the Vistula, and putting in place the key elements of the future Warsaw Pact.

6) Battle of the Ruhr Pocket-The greatest Allied victory of WWII in the West, with this the war in the West in terms of a serious battle was over. It was the greatest encirclement operation of Anglo-American warfare and is shamefully neglected like everything Western Front that's not D-Day.

7) Battle of the Bar Lev Line-Arguably one of the most decisive battles in 20th Century Middle Eastern history, as it was the moment Israeli invincibility choked on its own mythology. Also the greatest moment of achievement for Arab arms in the 20th Century. In this sense tied with the Third Battle of Gaza and the Battle of Megiddo as decisive battles in the region.

8) The Dardanelles Campaign-By itself nearly killed off amphibious warfare for good. That is no mean feat.

9) The Second Chinese Strategic Offensive-This one was a decisive victory for the PRC and helped establish its reputation and prestige in a real extent to this very day, such as it is, under arms. It was one of the few instances in modern war where the rock smashed laser to bug-dust. Douglas MacArthur may have helped make it so, but the PRC certainly had a moment of awesome here.

10) The Battle of Medina Ridge-The largest tank battle in modern history, and so lopsided a victory for the USA that it deserves mention in no small part for establishing the rule of the USA as the military 800 lb gorilla.

11) The Battle of Stalingrad-Arguably the point at which the Second World War changed from if the Allies would find the will and the ability to win, to how long it would take to crush Nazi Germany and who controlled what when, where, and how.

12) The Hundred Days Offensive-Earns last place because it was perhaps the most decisive victory in a real sense in either of the world wars, won by an alliance that felt it was on the outs a few months prior and by the end of the fighting here a few more weeks and the German army turns into an armed Mob.

___________________

Which battles would you pick? Or do you think in modern warfare there can be a decisive battle at all?

[Tongera]

The battle of Kursk - The axis loss made victory or, even stalemate in the east impossible.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tongera

The battle of Kursk - The axis loss made victory or, even stalemate in the east impossible.

I kind of disagree with that in that this holds true only if we define the offensives beginning with Kutuzov and Rumiantsev as part of the Kursk battle. The Soviet drive to the Dnepr made Axis victory and stalemate impossible, the Kursk battle itself was just the start of a process. In Eastern Front terms arguably Bagration was the more decisive, as it shattered an entire army group and put the USSR in a position to establish the Eastern Bloc.

[Zmflavius]

I'm wondering, why Mukden instead of Tsushima? Tsushima was for Japan an even more decisive and clear cut victory, and had the same effect of cutting the West down to size.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

I'm wondering, why Mukden instead of Tsushima? Tsushima was for Japan an even more decisive and clear cut victory, and had the same effect of cutting the West down to size.

A fair point. Tsushima would work just as well. I picked Mukden due to the sheer size of the armies involved and Japan defeating a European army in a straight-up fight in this war, something it never really did again afterward. In its own day Mukden was as devastating to the white supremacist mindset as Tsushima was.

[Tongera]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

I kind of disagree with that in that this holds true only if we define the offensives beginning with Kutuzov and Rumiantsev as part of the Kursk battle. The Soviet drive to the Dnepr made Axis victory and stalemate impossible, the Kursk battle itself was just the start of a process. In Eastern Front terms arguably Bagration was the more decisive, as it shattered an entire army group and put the USSR in a position to establish the Eastern Bloc.

True about Operation Bagration, but like you said, Kursk lead to the drive to the Dnepr.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tongera

True about Operation Bagration, but like you said, Kursk lead to the drive to the Dnepr.

More accurately from a Soviet POV, Kursk and the Drive to the Dnepr were one and the same, there was no lead-to, there is is-now.

[LOTLOF]

Pearl Harbor - Tactically on of the most one sided battles in modern history. Strategically it could be argued no battle had greater consequences. It initiated the Pacific War, brought the United States into World War Two, led to the humilition of the British in Malaya and the United States in the Philippines, to the use of atomic weapons, the occupation and reconstruction of Japan, and the division of Korea.

Battle of the Marne - Prevented the encirclement and loss of the French armies at the beginning of World War One. It was a very near thing and Allied victory led to eventual victory in the Great War and all that followed.

[RandomChance]

Jutland - While something of a tactical stalemate, but a strategic victory for the British, it did mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the Royal Navy. It was somewhat downhill after that.

Sure, there were subsequent victories etc, but Jutland marked the high mark - look at the modern Royal Navy to see how far we've fallen

[The Oncoming Storm]

The Six Day War, especially the opening air attack, certainly the Israelis benefited from a lot of luck and Egyptian incompetence but the attack was brilliantly planned and executed and gave the Israelis total air supremacy.

[Simreeve]

Battle of Britain?

[Athelstane]

It's a fair list, although completely lacking in naval battles. I assumed this was deliberate, but on follow-up, you seem open to Tsushima, so...

And if naval battles are to be included, I could not justify leaving out Midway or Tsushima. One marked the beginning of Japan's rise to power, the other the beginning of its collapse. Solomon Islands, Philippine Sea, and Leyte Gulf were all enormous battles fought by enormous forces with decisive tactical results, but they merely confirmed the strategic initiative of the United States. It is true that the U.S. could have won in the long run without Midway, given its advantages, but I don't think that makes Midway any less strategically decisive.

From World War I, I think that the great battles of the opening weeks of the Great War have to be considered: First Marne, in which the logistically unsustainable Schlieffen plan still came within an ace of victory; Tannenberg, in which Ludendorff turned looming strategic disaster into victory (thanks to lots of Russian incompetence); and Lemberg, from which Austria-Hungary was never to truly recover. Of all of these, I suppose I could settle for just the Marne - though Lemberg is tempting, for having dealt an (arguably) fatal blow to five centuries of Habsburg dominance of Central Europe if nothing else. On second thought, I'd like 'em both.

So I would perhaps replace Mukden with Tsushima - or you could pair them up, if you like - replace the Dardanelles with Midway, and the Bar Lev Line with the Marne, and Medina Ridge with Lemberg/Galicia. The Dardanelles would have stayed had the Allied operation been successful, but its failure merely confirmed that the strategic stalemate would continue (and that Aussies would get their first sense of nationhood). The Bar Lev Line was a notable Arab victory, and a real chink in the Israeli armor, but in the end, it resulted in strategic failure, bailed out only by Superpower diplomacy. And it would be hard to justify having Bar Lev on the list, but leaving off the Six Day War, whose results are even more tangibly with us today than anything from the Yom Kippur War.

Still, it's a good list, Snake, with some underrated battles worthily included. Even the ones I'd replace are good candidates. Some might quibble with the Ruhr being on but Normandy being left off, but I am of the same mind as you about the shame of how the Ruhr Pocket gets overlooked.

[Catspoke]

Balkan wars: Naval battle of Lemnos (or your favorite Balkan engagement) anything that effects Turkey or the Balkans changes WW1

Troubridge′s failed interception of Goeben (not really a Battle but the lack of one he could have have). Once again anything effecting Turkey changes WW1

Cruiser Madgeburg running aground or wahtever caused her to be there at the time (all the Room 40 stuff)

The British Blockade in WW1 (or perhaps any of the engagments Dogger Bank, Heligoland Bight and such that failed to break that in any way)

[Athelstane]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Battle of Britain?

The Battle of the Atlantic would be a better candidate, given Sea Mammal's impossibility.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

It's a fair list, although completely lacking in naval battles. I assumed this was deliberate, but on follow-up, you seem open to Tsushima, so...

And if naval battles are to be included, I could not justify leaving out Midway or Tsushima. One marked the beginning of Japan's rise to power, the other the beginning of its collapse. Solomon Islands, Philippine Sea, and Leyte Gulf were all enormous battles fought by enormous forces with decisive tactical results, but they merely confirmed the strategic initiative of the United States. It is true that the U.S. could have won in the long run without Midway, given its advantages, but I don't think that makes Midway any less strategically decisive.

From World War I, I think that the great battles of the opening weeks of the Great War have to be considered: First Marne, in which the logistically unsustainable Schlieffen plan still came within an ace of victory; Tannenberg, in which Ludendorff turned looming strategic disaster into victory (thanks to lots of Russian incompetence); and Lemberg, from which Austria-Hungary was never to truly recover. Of all of these, I suppose I could settle for just the Marne - though Lemberg is tempting, for having dealt an (arguably) fatal blow to five centuries of Habsburg dominance of Central Europe if nothing else. On second thought, I'd like 'em both.

So I would perhaps replace Mukden with Tsushima - or you could pair them up, if you like - replace the Dardanelles with Midway, and the Bar Lev Line with the Marne, and Medina Ridge with Lemberg/Galicia. The Dardanelles would have stayed had the Allied operation been successful, but its failure merely confirmed that the strategic stalemate would continue (and that Aussies would get their first sense of nationhood). The Bar Lev Line was a notable Arab victory, and a real chink in the Israeli armor, but in the end, it resulted in strategic failure, bailed out only by Superpower diplomacy. And it would be hard to justify having Bar Lev on the list, but leaving off the Six Day War, whose results are even more tangibly with us today than anything from the Yom Kippur War.

Still, it's a good list, Snake, with some underrated battles worthily included. Even the ones I'd replace are good candidates. Some might quibble with the Ruhr being on but Normandy being left off, but I am of the same mind as you about the shame of how the Ruhr Pocket gets overlooked.

If we include Naval battles, I'd argue that Jutland would get inclusion because it forced the Germans into USW by shredding the illusion of the Hochseefloote as a war-winner, while also arguing that if we qualify Pearl Harbor, we should surely also qualify Taranto, which was the death-knell of the battleship as an autonomous weapon of war on its own right.

The reason I note the Bar Lev Line battle as opposed to the Six Days' War is that war only confirmed the verdict of 1948-9 that relative to the Israelis Arab armies suffered major problems at a tactical level, and expanded the degree of Israeli success from their first war. 1973, by contrast, resulted in the reorientation of the Middle East to the more or less steady rise of US hegemony in the region.

The reason I included the Ruhr and not Normandy is that Overlord had certain objectives (*coughCaencough*) that weren't reached on the first day or until three weeks after, so it's not quite a "decisive" victory in any sense but the strategic and logistical. By comparison with the Ruhr Pocket, it is in fact a sign of the problems of democratic force structure in the war, where the Ruhr Pocket was a more decisive victory than even the best Soviet operations except Vistula-Oder, the only Soviet operation IMHO which actually compares.

Essentially the Ruhr Pocket *ended* German resistance and was the largest-scale and most efficient Allied victory in the entirety of the Western War. I think by itself these two factors qualify, given it explains how the democracies advanced as far and fast as they did in 1945.

[TyranicusMaximus]

I'm with John Keegan, sea power is less important and decisive than land power.

[Athelstane]

Hello Tyranicus,

I'm not saying I'd disagree. But even on my list, all but one or two would be land battles.

Hello Snake,

As I said, your choices are all defensible - well, save possibly Medina Ridge. There's just a handful I might give the nod to instead.

Jutland to my mind didn't really decide anything, but rather merely continued the existing state of affairs - British control of the SLOC, and long distance blockade of the High Seas Fleet. The Germans were already shifting to submarine warfare before Jutland. Had Scheer never ventured out, or had Scheer and Jellicoe missed each other, it's hard to believe that things wouldn't have played out the same way.

1967 and 1973 are a quibble we can have, but not important to my mind, since none of the Arab-Israeli Wars strike me as important enough to have a battle that might make such a list. It's the same problem as the Gulf War.

I think the real difficulty here is in definition of terms - more specifically "decisive." What does it mean that a battle is "decisive?" I think people have different conceptions of that. Your definition seems to lean more to the strategic - not that there is anything wrong with that. My only perplexity is that in some cases it seems to be important to you that a battle reversed a strategic state of affairs (Stalingrad, Hundred Days, Mukden), and sometimes it's acceptable that it merely continues or consummates an existing strategic trend (Bagration, Ruhr Pocket). I think this makes your definition of "decisive" somewhat elusive to me. It might have been helpful to define that for terms of the thread.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Athelstane

Hello Tyranicus,

I'm not saying I'd disagree. But even on my list, all but one or two would be land battles.

Hello Snake,

As I said, your choices are all defensible - well, save possibly Medina Ridge. There's just a handful I might give the nod to instead.

Jutland to my mind didn't really decide anything, but rather merely continued the existing state of affairs - British control of the SLOC, and long distance blockade of the High Seas Fleet. The Germans were already shifting to submarine warfare before Jutland. Had Scheer never ventured out, or had Scheer and Jellicoe missed each other, it's hard to believe that things wouldn't have played out the same way.

1967 and 1973 are a quibble we can have, but not important to my mind, since none of the Arab-Israeli Wars strike me as important enough to have a battle that might make such a list. It's the same problem as the Gulf War.

I think the real difficulty here is in definition of terms - more specifically "decisive." What does it mean that a battle is "decisive?" I think people have different conceptions of that. Your definition seems to lean more to the strategic - not that there is anything wrong with that. My only perplexity is that in some cases it seems to be important to you that a battle reversed a strategic state of affairs (Stalingrad, Hundred Days, Mukden), and sometimes it's acceptable that it merely continues or consummates an existing strategic trend (Bagration, Ruhr Pocket). I think this makes your definition of "decisive" somewhat elusive to me. It might have been helpful to define that for terms of the thread.

My definition of decisive has two aspects:

1) One that creates a whole new strategic framework, namely the Mukden/Hundred Days variety.

2) One that marks a transformation in an existing framework, namely Bagration/Ruhr Pocket.

Decisive battles IMHO come in both varieties certainly in post-1900. The Ruhr qualifies by virtue of being the literal end of large-scale fighting in the Western Front. Bagration likewise for being the epitome of Soviet operational art in WWII and the instance when the war was lost for Germany permanently in a strategic sense.

When I count an entire campaign, it's because the campaigns themselves proved decisive, moreso than any single battle in them. Gallipoli, Bagration, Operation Yellow, the Hundred Days, all marked signal, decisive moments in the history of 20th Century warfare. And IMHO any rationale for the Ruhr Pocket also applies to the Hundred Days in terms of inclusion or exclusion.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

I'm with John Keegan, sea power is less important and decisive than land power.

In a sense, yes, but it's worth noting that WWII for the democracies was decided at sea, not on land. Only the USSR of the Big 3 Allies fought a major land war, the democracies had no choice but to wage amphibious-aerial warfare, and developed means to do so with great skill. Likewise in WWI, the same major advantage appeared, the victorious coalition had seaborne logistics, the defeated one relied primarily on landbound ones.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

I'm with John Keegan, sea power is less important and decisive than land power.

I'm with the Earl of St Vincent: "I do not say that the French can not come, I only say that they can not come by sea".