Which do you think is the best battle?

obtuseobserver · Sep 15, 2010

David said:
The 6 Day War... Simultaneously ganged up on by 3 Arab nations, all with a better military alone compared to Israel and supported by every Arab nation in the world. In less then a week, Israel not only survived but conquered 1/2 of Egypt, and a decent chunk of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. From an upstart nation to a regional empire in less then a week and in a defensive war... As someone who views the Israeli Gov't as less then swamp scum, that is the most epic and admirable victory in living memory, IMO. Regardles of what they've done overall, I tip my (non-existent :giggle hat to Israel for that 1.

They are hardly a regional empire. They hold a very small amount of land. 20,000 sq miles puts them at 151st on the list of States by territory and about 20% of the smallest opponent during the 6 Day War.

They did not take half of Egypt. They took Gaza and Sinai. (Egypt is 30th on the territory list with 1,000,000 sq miles)

They took the West Bank from Jordan, that's valuable RE but not expansive. (92,000 sq mi is 112th)

They took the Golan Heights from Syria, again not a lot of RE but here strategically valuable. (185,000 sq mi is 88th)

Not sure they took anything from Lebanon.

What you think happened and what did are different things. Given that deficit in your fund of knowledge perhaps you should reconsider your opinion of their government.

AK_ID · Sep 15, 2010

I was going to post a map for David's benefit, but figured why bother. And don't confuse the kid with facts.

Ignoramus · Sep 17, 2010

David said:
The 6 Day War... Simultaneously ganged up on by 3 Arab nations, all with a better military alone compared to Israel and supported by every Arab nation in the world. In less then a week, Israel not only survived but conquered 1/2 of Egypt, and a decent chunk of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. From an upstart nation to a regional empire in less then a week and in a defensive war... As someone who views the Israeli Gov't as less then swamp scum, that is the most epic and admirable victory in living memory, IMO. Regardles of what they've done overall, I tip my (non-existent :giggle hat to Israel for that 1.

That’s the myth. If you are interested in reality, I won’t spoon feed it to you. You’ll have to look it up. It’s a fascinating story. I think the title should be "the Red Phone that Wasn’t".
I will tell you this much. With a flight time measured in minutes, the country that launched first, had a decisive advantage. If Nasser had launched first it wouldn’t have been as decisive, however, the battle would have been a Hell of a lot more interesting. As it was, the Israeli air strike was totally decisive. The question that emerges is why didn’t Nasser launch first?
There is a fascinating story there. There should be two statues in every Israeli town, one of Harry S. Truman, the other of LBJ. If you find out the reason why Nasser didn’t strike first, you will know the reason for LBJ’s statue.
It might also help to understand why we let the Israelis get away with attacking the USS Liberty and murdering our sailors.
By the way, this is not a conspiracy theory, it’s all historical fact, it’s just not well publicized historical fact. You can find most of it in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course it will tell you the facts, you will have to put the facts together. That doesn’t require a genius, but it’s a bit much for a vidiot.
　

AK_ID · Sep 20, 2010

Geez, Ignoramus, if Poland had struck first, maybe the Second World War wouldn't have occurred (and it would have been an amazing victory). I'm jesting, of course, but am also following your lead. You make it sound as if a nation having a superior and successful will to survive is an offense against humanity.

There's an old Israeli joke, still current, about that Six-Day War.

It begins with Nasser's first telegram to Kosygin, "Israeli aircraft attacks Cairo. Help."

No answer.

Another telegram, "Israeli soldiers have entered Cairo and are raping our women. Send help."

This time, Kosygin answers. "Mazeltov. Twenty years from now you'll have a good army."

obtuseobserver · Sep 20, 2010

The history of "what if" is useless except for writing novels (which it is pretty good for)

AK_ID · Sep 20, 2010

Dang, do I have to explain the joke to a barrister? My delivery must be bad. ;-)

obtuseobserver · Sep 20, 2010

no no no

liked the joke, just making an observation of the concept

AK_ID · Sep 20, 2010

And I agree regarding the what ifs. What happened, happened, and that's the history we live with (and I'm not unhappy with the results in the case at discussion, obviously). Ignoramus seems to be bemoaning Nasser's lack of a prepared military.

GalataTurk · Nov 23, 2010

Gallipoli Wars 1915-1916:

Allies (British Empire,France) vs Ottoman Empire.

Allied forces aimed to eliminate Ottoman Empire and bring help to Russia in WWI.Finally,Ottoman Turks won and sank many allied battleships.Over 500.000 casualities from both sides.

rachard1583 · May 17, 2011

The Battle of The Boyne can only be understood properly by looking at what happened in the siege of Derry. This battle is still celebrated today on the 12th July by what are known as Orangemen so called after Prince William. The reason for the latter date is due to the change from the Julian calendar to the Gregory Calendar in 1752.

Fascist Canuck · Jun 15, 2011

obtuseobserver said:
for strategic significans Tours matters more

so did Lepanto

Stalingrad is memorable for the horrible toll of lives.... it certainly was important for other reasons (stopping the German advance) but had Germnay won this battle the Soviets would have regrouped further back and made another stand. The fact is that the Soviets were willing to let the Germans keep killing Russians until the Germans ran out of bullets. Still, like I said, very important to that war.

The reason I picked Tours and Lepanto is because of the greater cultural influece. Tours stopped the Muslim advance into europe through Spain (the seiges of Viena from the east but I don't weigh them as heavily) and Lepanto denied the Turks control of the mediterranean. Had either been lost there's a significant chance the course of european history would have been vastly different. Had the Russians lost Stalingrad the Germans would be very unlikely to press their advantage and parlay that into a Soviet surrender. They remembered the end of WWI and weren't about to accept another Brest-Litovsk type treaty

You are an idiot. The Soviets would not have been able to 'regroup' once the Nazis captured Stalingrad, which is why they were under orders to fight to the death to keep it. Stalingrad was a holding action, designed by Stalin to give the Soviets time to bring in their huge reinforcements. Had they lost Stalingrad, the Nazis would have had a new forward base from which they could launch against those reinforcements and destroy them before they became large enough to take on the Nazis.

Please do not post about matters you know nothing.

David · Jun 15, 2011

Fascist Canuck said:
You are an idiot. The Soviets would not have been able to 'regroup' once the Nazis captured Stalingrad, which is why they were under orders to fight to the death to keep it. Stalingrad was a holding action, designed by Stalin to give the Soviets time to bring in their huge reinforcements. Had they lost Stalingrad, the Nazis would have had a new forward base from which they could launch against those reinforcements and destroy them before they became large enough to take on the Nazis.

Please do not post about matters you know nothing.

I'm going to have to agree. Stalin/Leningrad were win or die battles. A defeat at Stalingrad would of give the Germans a base from which to invade Siberia and a defeat in Leningrad would of opened the door to everything from Moscow to the Urals. Losing ether of those battles would of meant the war unless the Soviets pulled some masterful trick out of their sleeves.

skeptic-f · Jan 13, 2012

The Battle of Cannae. Even though Hannibal eventually lost the war by failing to gamble and try and take Rome (and by a lack of support from Carthage), his crushing of a larger and more disciplined Roman army at Cannae with an ambitious double envelopment was perhaps the greatest tactical triumph in military history. So few Romans escaped from the battle that history chiefly remembers which prominent Romans present managed to survive (compared to the long list of those who perished).

Fascist Canuck · Jan 13, 2012

Plains of Abraham = France PWNed and Canada is born.

kjones233 · Jan 25, 2012

Yes, I agree! Battle of Thermopylae is the best for me as well.

maheenangel74 · Feb 16, 2012

what u mean by best?

David · Feb 16, 2012

kjones233 said:
Yes, I agree! Battle of Thermopylae is the best for me as well.

1,300 Greeks vs. 1/2 million Persians, Greeks win (strategically). :smug:

Schmidt · Feb 17, 2012

Sorry guys i am going to have to go with the boxer rebillion the is a movie wth charleton heston in it about it

a777pilot · Oct 8, 2012

As a US Marine, the best battle is the one not fought but won anyway.

As a Marine Corps Operations Officer, my idea of a successful battle is one that is conducted as close to clubbing baby seals as possible.

Dirk · Oct 15, 2012

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. For me, it is incredibly inspiring.

Which do you think is the best battle?

Similar threads