This week, it's history's most decisive conflicts.
Argue what you believe to be the most decisive or the most influencial battle/conflict/fight in history
Your opinion on the battle itself, why it was as substantial as you believe it to be, and hell, the alternatives if it had gone a different way, are all welcome.
Remember, battles and conflicts. We're not talking entire wars here.

A) The Battle of Marathon (Greece v Persia, 490 BC) - Confronting the Persian invasion, a united Greek army victoriously defended what some would call today, Western civilization. The East came very close to prevailing over the Western world.

B) The Battle of Zama (Carthage v Rome, Punic Wars) - After recieving perhaps the most impressive victory in history when the Carthaginians defeated the biggest Roman army ever assembled, killing 50, 000 men, Hannibal was then later himself defeated, paving the way for the beginnings of empire for Rome, and forming the shape of civilization to come. Who knows what world we would live in today if Hannibal had prevailed in bringing Rome to ruin?

C) The Battle of Adrianople (Goths v Rome, 378 AD.. I think) - Romans again. Their humiliating defeat at the hands of the oppressed Goths living under Roman rule for some time. This effectively exposed Roman weakness and arguably, among other things, lead to Rome's demise.

D) The Battle of Tours (Muslims v Franks, 732 AD) - Another one of those "defending Western civilization" conflicts. Islamic crusade type mentality lead an Arab army of Islam through Iberia, over the Pyrenees, and in to France, the furthest any Islamic army came, or would again, in to Europe. Overwhelmingly outnumbered, the Frankish army managed to defend Tours and kill the Muslim general, causing the retreat of the Islamic army back over the Pyrenees, where they stayed. If the French had not beaten the muslims, the religious face of Europe could be extremely different today.

E) The Battle of Hastings (Anglo-Saxons v Knights of Normandy, 1066) - Although having just beaten the last ever Viking army to attack Britain, King Harold of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom in England marched some some 200 miles within a week to confront William the Conqueror ahead a Normandy army. Being defeated meant the Normandy reign over England, and the utter reformation of the island, bringing it out of the Dark Ages and more alike to its Roman form some 400 years before. If Harold's Anglo-Saxon army had prevailed on the hill of Hastings, the ramifications to Europe, and so the world, would be obviously tremendously different today. No America? No Australia? No French set-backs?

F) The Battle of Samarkand (Mongols v Persians, 750 AD) - Pesky Persians again, being defeated by the Khan, paving the way for some 200 years of Mongolian rule which shaped the face of Asia and the Middle East, in particular the revolutionary transcending of the silk trade road for the first time ever.

G) The Battle of Yorktown (United States v United Kingdom, War of Independence) - Perhaps the most decisive battle in the war, contributing to America's ultimate independence and, obviously, America becoming the West's most influential nation to the present day. Who knows the consequences of an American defeat? What would the British empire have achieved that it didn't, with the colossus US as a colony?

H) The Battle of Waterloo (France vs. Britain and Prussia, Napoleonic Wars) - The victory by Britain and Prussia that brought about the end of the Napoleonic Wars, sending its catalystic emporer Napoleon in to exile and humiliation. The victory ensured the balance of power in Europe, and quashed, finally, massive French dominance and expansion that begun with Louis XV.

I) The Fall of Constantinople (Byzantine Empire v Ottoman Turks, 1442) - 1100 years of Roman empire spread across the face of Europe and Asia Minor successfully came to an end with the siege of Constantinople and the fall of the city in 1442. Byzantium was, perhaps, Europe's shield from the rest of the world, and had taken the brunt of assault since its creation by Constantine the Great. It's fall and occupation were the beginnings of a thriving and massive Ottoman Empire, and ultimate muslim possession of the Holy Lands.

J) And now, I'm torn. Of course I've come to WW2 and cannot think of a single, concrete representation of decisiveness for the conflict. The battle of Stalingrad, D-Day, Midway.. too many to choose from. I guess "J" is up for grabs, lads :P

Anywho, choose your favourite, or feel free to mention one without a letter.

Charles Martel stopping the Islamic horde is tops on my list (at least from the selections given).

I would probably go with Marathon and probably the later fight against Xerxes after Thermopylae, simply due to the time the effects have had to build. If Persia conquers Greece and holds it, it's possible most of the later conflicts would not have occured. No Roman Empire, Carthage, or even christianity or islam for that matter. Who knows how western/northern europe would have turned out (celtic empire maybe?). A fascinating "what if" scenario.

Probably the most decisive point in any war was when The US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In the big picture, I'll have to agree with Thormir. Tours was the big one.

Zama wasn't relevant enough to be on the list. Rome had established some extent of thallasocracy over the Mediterranean already, and Carthage no longer had the potential to pose a threat by then.

As far as a WWII point J goes, the arc of Kursk is the obvious choice as a decisive battle, though the Ploesti bombing raids were also pretty important.

Slight nitpick, by the way - Constantinople fell in 1453.

Stalingrad

Pearl Harbor without any doubt.

i don't know if you can count pearl harbor or not, it was an attack initiated by the japanese, and ended up working against them in the long run

Battle of Britian for WWII?

If the British airforce had fallen to the Germans, Britian would most likely have fallen, and Germany would have had only one opponent: Russia.

If Germany then defeated Russia, the Axis would have been able to conquor the world. USA/Canada/Austrailia could not match the combined industrial output of Greater Germany, Japan and a subjugated Russia France Britian and China. If the USA was lucky, they could use the nuke to invoke a stalemate, and we would have a very much different cold war.

If instead Russia defeated Germany, the lack of a base in Britian would have meant that Russia would have conquored most of Western Europe. Western Europe wouldn't have had been free, and the USA would have to rely on coopting Africa and Asia to win the cold war against the USSR.

Tours is Huge.

But I'll have to go with Pearl Harbor as well. In terms of being "Decisive" it was the event that led to the US deciding to enter the war months/years before they otherwise may have.

Even if the RAF had lost to the Germans, the Brits still had a vastly superior navy. Germany would have had to relocate virtually all its planes to the French coast to provide sufficient cover for a massive landing. Even if that had succeeded, they would have sustained heavy losses and definitely would be delayed in invading Russia.

And Russia, remember, was poised to attack Germany when it was invaded. The massive concentration of its forces had orders not to respond to provocation - and burned where it stood, packed airdromes bombarded, tank formations ablaze in place when retaliation meant a bullet in the head for disobeying orders. The armies were bled and thrown back; Germany captured obscene amounts of fuel (along the lines of a year and a half worth of the production of Greater Germany) and eight million rifles...

If Germany had delayed the invasion of Russia for about two weeks, it would have been overrun by a force several times greater than its own, with three-to-one superiority in planes, substantially greater numbers (and quality) of tanks, and more fresh, experienced infantry than you can shake a stick at. Thus if Britain had fallen, WWII in its original form would have most likely ended in Europe by 1942.

D-Day - Delayed another month, Rommel probably would have finally moved the rest of his Armored divisions and SS closer to the Normandy coast (remember, he had already started doing that), and our invasion would have been a bloody mess and most likely would have failed.

Having failed, it would have been next year before we recuperated and attempted another invasion of France. By that time, Zhukov would have had a year's head start, and Germany would not have been split down the middle as it was.

Most of Western Europle, probably with the exception of Spain and Portugal, would have been under Moscow rule.

'Probably the most decisive point in any war was when The US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. '

- Well as I said, we're not talking wars or civilian incidents. Dropping a bomb on the civilians of Japan doesn't really count as a decisive or influencial conflict/battle. So no, count that one out :P

'If the British airforce had fallen to the Germans, Britian would most likely have fallen, and Germany would have had only one opponent: Russia.'

- As someone said above, the airforce was only one element of superiority we had over the germans. The navy eclipsed our air power, and, of course with air superiority the Germans could have prevailed, would cause, I guess, a major, major problem for Germany. And if that was managed to be conquered, then Britain itself must be won, all the mean while there's Russia and eventually America looming in the back ground.
Spectacular as it was, and extremely decisive in that it gave Germany *no hopes* in invading Britain, in the long run, I do not believe it was the most influential conflict.
But I think we must still remember what Hitler said when he heard about the D-Day landings.. "Let them come then, we can at least get to them now."

'Zama wasn't relevant enough to be on the list. Rome had established some extent of thallasocracy over the Mediterranean already, and Carthage no longer had the potential to pose a threat by then.'

- I hardly agree that Carthage was in no position of threat at the outbreak of the Second Punic War. Sure, they had ceeded control of Sicily and Sardina to Rome, but Carthage's expansion in North Africa over the Numidian Kings, and Hannibal's father's staggering Spanish expansion put Carthage back on to the Mediterranean power scene, hell, perhaps even eclipsing their previous state as an empire. The mere fact that, even after a number of years paying hefty tribute to Rome through the Treaty concluding the First War, Hannibal was able to muster the staggering resources he did and march to Italy must be some sign of the strength still possessed by Carthage.
Keep also in mind that Hannibal had torn a rift through Rome's own back-yard, and had the city in his sights, arguably, to conquer. Carthaginians no longer a threat? Personally, I think they were. Now at the outbreak of the Third Punic War, I would agree.

'Slight nitpick, by the way - Constantinople fell in 1453.'

- Aye, my bad. Was thinking of WW2 conflits and put "42"
instead :P

'Pearl Harbor without any doubt. '

- Again, Jap's bombing a harbour isn't exactly a battle or conflict, so I think you can't really include that. And even more decisive/influential than those on the list? I don't think so.

D-day is perhaps the best one when thinking about WW2 (which people tend to be doing rather than any other period in history :/). It was, of course, the first day in the end of the war. BUt I think people have misconceptions about Nazi Germany intention. It didn't want to rule the world, at all. Saying "And then when Britain fell it would conquer russia and then rule asia and then invade America.." is a bit.. dramatic. Hitler wanted a European empire based on the supreme white Aryan race. But definately, D-day's success meant the thrust to Paris and the push over the Rhine in to Germany. Once the Allies got a foothold on the continent, especially in such overwhelming force, I think it was all over.


Anyway, my own personal pick from the list must be the Battle of Hastings (yeah yah, I'm biast). Perhaps if Harold hadn't just beaten his brother at York and had to march some 200 miles, and perhaps if his anglo-saxon infrantry hadn't rushed down the hill to follow the feigned attempts of the Normans to ambush them.. if Harold hadn't been shot in the eye.. maybe England would have spent a long time in its Dark Age. And of course, Britain, along with France and Germany, is the European power that has shaped most of the modern world. Perhaps a spanish America would exist today, resembling a Latin South America, largely poverty strucken and troubled. No British Raj, no Australia or New Zealand. A very, very different world than what we live in today.
I guess just imagining the world today without America is more than enough to convince a person of the influence that one battle had over the future.

Dropping a bomb on the civilians of Japan doesn't really count as a decisive or influencial conflict/battle.


Both cities were major military industrial sites.

To get back to your question, it's all relative..you really need to set specific timeframes and probably even regions for it.

Just using one of your examples, the battle of Yorktown was influential to the US, but I think the case could be made that Gettysburg was just as influential...and both going the other way could have lead to a vastly different world today.

Zama took place awhile AFTER Hannibal was gone from Italy. Admittedly, he did run a successful campaign up to a point, but much of it stemmed from the complacency and incompetence of the Romans at the time. No second invasion on such a scale could have taken place - the Roman armies were under better command and wary, and Carthage could not compete on the seas after the first Punic War.

'Just using one of your examples, the battle of Yorktown was influential to the US, but I think the case could be made that Gettysburg was just as influential...and both going the other way could have lead to a vastly different world today. '

- But they were battles, and as Rome was a powerful, world-altering force in its later stages, so was America and thus its independence.
And if Gettysburg is as influential in your opinion, mention it, and explain it.

Again, dropping bombs on civilians isn't really what I'd call an influential or decisive battle.

In regards to your point Will, I agree that Carthage could no longer compete with Rome in the naval area, but it still, as shown by Hannibal, even after his departure, posed, perhaps, the biggest threat to Rome.

You can see this in the conclusion of the Third Punic War. Carthage was *exterminated*, in every sense of the word. Its peoples massacred, the city annhialated.
Rome didn't do this to her enemies. Her enemies were forced to become Roman allies and pay tribute. But not Carthage. Carthage needed utter eradication, it had spent some 80 years as Rome's biggest threat.

Anyway, my own personal pick from the list must be the Battle of Hastings ... maybe England would have spent a long time in its Dark Age. And of course, Britain, along with France and Germany, is the European power that has shaped most of the modern world.

Exactly the reason why Tours > Hastings. The preservation of Christianity (and hence, the culture of the Christian nations) in Europe was a huge factor in subsequent events. Imagine if the continent had become Muslim instead of Christian. No Crusades. No need for Henry to break from the Church. No Spanish push into the new world. The list goes on and on.

Perhaps, but taking that mentality, we could choose a number from the list. Many early Roman wars, for example. Remember, the Roman Empire (well OK, the East Roman Empire) was the soul factor in the spread of christianity. Without the rise of the Roman Empire, who could tell what religion would prevail? Islam, pagan, christian?

Relatively, and more assuredly, I do believe the Battle of Hastings had a more obvious and secure effect on the world at large.
The Muslim Army may well have been defeated at Tours, but I find it hard to believe there would have been no other barrier against Islam than the Frankish army outside of Tours.
Remember, the army was both exhausted and had supply lines that were spread almost to breaking point.

While I'm more certain that England would have had a radically different face today, and thus the world, if not for the Normandy conquering of the Saxon kingdoms.

Hehee, that's my argument for Marathon. If Persia wins, no invention of democracy, you lose most western philosophy and cultural base, no Roman empire, no christianity, no islam and who knows what the rest of Europe/North America would have looked like. Possibly the nascent celtic civilization would have survived and advanced, maybe the Central American civilizations end up conquering the new world with no interference from christian Spain. All history is so interconnected that it is mind boggling to try and see all the ramifications.

I think you're overstating a *little* there Gulor.

Halo, Gettysburg is as important because it was the turning point of the civil war. Perhaps eventually Lee would have been forced to retreat out of the north through other means and the South brought back into the Union, but the same case could be made for the battle of Yorktown.

Both battles going the other way could have resulted in a very different US today: either we could have remained as a colony for a longer time like Australia(just as an example since they are the country I personally associate with being the most similar to the US), or we could have been split into the CSA and the USA.

Both of those also have more impact on how the world would be today than say Marathon...just as both of those battles likely would have less impact on the world today than if the Axis powers had won WW2 - as I said, it's all relative.

I don't think I am...most of western civilization as we know it is based on ideas coming from ancient Greece. If Greece is conquered, the Persian emperor is hardly going to allow radical new ideas like democracy challenge his complete control. Think about it... the Persians were not noted for their sciences or tolerance, so many of the advances later (Library of Alexandria) would have been very unlikely. There would have been no Alexander to spread Greek ideas throughout the ancient world, ideas that were inherent to the founding of Rome and it's empire.

With Israel under the heel of Persia instead of the much more tolerant Rome, I doubt very much if Christianity would have gotten a foothold four centuries later. Christ would simply have been imprisoned or killed the first time he made a pronouncement the Persian's didn't like, no need for a trial. Likewise islam or any other religion beyond what the emperor of Persia followed that had even a hint of challenging his authority would have been crushed at the outset.

You are assuming the Persian empire would last that long(remember that by Alexander's time they were already well in decline) or that they wouldn't have been pushed back out of Greece by other forces if they had succeeded there.


With Israel under the heel of Persia instead of the much more tolerant Rome


Uh...yeah...sure..the Persians might have..I dunno...crucified Christians and maybe fed them to lions..

/sarcasm off

Rome was hardly tolerant of Christianity at its start.

'Rome was hardly tolerant of Christianity at its start. '

- Ah, but there's the clincher. Christianity would never have prevailed, spread, and ultimately dominate an empire such as it did Rome. Much through Constantine I, christianity almost eradicated paganism within a blindingly short space of time.

While Rome - as most empires and countries have done, right up until the 21stc century - may have persecuted christians at the beginning, it embraced them perhaps like no other.

Maybe the factors contributing to the spread of christianity would be a good topic for next week. Undoubtedly, Constantine the Great deserves an overwhelming amount of credit.

A democratic government emerged in Athens toward the end of the sixth century BC; the Battle of Marathon took place in 490 BC, so the concept of democracy had already been around. Darius, the Persian ruler at the time, wasn't a nutcase like his predecessor Cambiz (sp?) and did not seek to stamp out or humiliate conquered cultures beyond necessity. The idea of democracy would live on even if its practice did not at the time.

Halo, I'd try to rebut your last post but I'd have to pick up the history books for that. After the finals are done, hopefully :)

Persecution of Christians was sporadic, with Nero, Domitian and Diocletian being the primary contributors. Nero was a bit of a nutcase; the latter two attempted to unifty the Empire by returning its citizens forcibly to Rome's religious roots.

If I remember right, Constantine (supported by and supporting the Christian cause) defeated a rival (and supporter of Mithras). Had Constantine lost, Christianity may have been stultified in its spread or doomed to persecution and elimination. I'd have to check the history books, but that may also have been one of those major "deciding battles" of history.

Darius also brooked no competition to his rule...and certainly his nobles would demand any inherently dangerous notion as democracy be suppressed. They were all about divinely granted power over the masses and democracy was fundamentally hostile to their whole social fabric. It would have been quashed. With it would have gone the whole tradition of free speech that was absolutely required for the great teachers/philosophers to do their thing.

Persia was in decline when Alexander popped them precisely because they kept losing to the greeks. Even so, they had held on to their conquered territories for centuries (once actually conquered). I fail to see why Greece would have been any different than the other conquered territories. The Persian Empire was pretty dang tough. I notice they gave the Romans no end of problems centuries later, even after all their prior beatings (ironically with rulers descended from Alexander's Greeks).

And yes, Rome in general was very tolerant of religions, including messianic jews. As long as the religion did not espouse rebellion, the Roman's didn't give a shit who or what people worshipped. They didn't bother Jesus until it became an issue with the other jews in power. It took the Romans a while to decide christians (and jews) in general were a threat and should be persecuted. A Persian governor would probably have gotten rid of Jesus and any followers long before he could gather a significant following, thereby wiping out christianity before it began. They weren't real big on trials in those days.

'I'd have to check the history books, but that may also have been one of those major "deciding battles" of history. '

- Np. If you're thinking of the battle where Constantine recieved a "message" from god, or some such, then I think that was the Battle of Milvian Bridge.
I think he saw a vision of the cross on his soldier's shields or some such, and after defeating his brother in law Maxentius (sp?), he was able to start his long campaign of christianity.

But you're right.. a good contender for the original list. It's funny, what people deem the most important, tend to be related to religion.

Sounds right, Halo; I thought his opponent was related in some way. And yes, he purported to see a sign, the "chi ro" hanging in the air. His soldiers then adopted the sign as a banner, IIRC.

Given all the wars fought in the name of one religion or another, one would expect at least a few decisive battles to have abetted or impeded the spread of a religion. Since the major world religions transcend national borders, those battles take on even greater significance.

Given all the wars fought in the name of one religion or another, one would expect at least a few decisive battles to have abetted or impeded the spread of a religion. Since the major world religions transcend national borders, those battles take on even greater significance.

Heh, you can fight a war in the name of a bowl of warm oatmeal, doesnt mean thats the reason it was actually fought.
Religions have been a good excuse for a long time to kill people and take their shit, but if it wasnt religion, it would just be something else.

'Heh, you can fight a war in the name of a bowl of warm oatmeal, doesnt mean thats the reason it was actually fought.'

- I don't ever recall someone fighting a war in the name of oatmeal.

Hmm, guess next time I have to tackle someone resisting arrest, or anybody that needs tackling (for whatever reason) I'll be sure to shout "In the name of Warm Oatmeal !" before taking them down, just for you Halo

Warm oatmeal is a cause worth fighting for, especially if it has apples and cinnamon in it.

- I don't ever recall someone fighting a war in the name of oatmeal.

Well then, it's about damn time someone did.

That might make a good story, actually...

Word!

paragraph Homie!

In my opinion, you correctly identify the two most decisive battles of world war two, but I think Stalingrad was far far more pivotal than you rate it on your list.

The war in the east began on June 22 1941. To sum it up, Germany tried a broad offensive on 3 major fronts, and did not have the strength to meet objectives in any of them. They met the most success in the south, where Kiev was taken in a decisive battle of encirclement. The Germans waffled on whether or not to attack Moscow, and by the time the order was given to do so, it was too late in the year.

1942 was different. Hitler wanted to secure Stalingrad in order to seize the Soviet Oil fields in the Caucusus. The early stages of the offensive were successful. The Germans recaptured Kharkov, seized Rostov, and reached Stalingrad "The gate to the Caucusus" with what they believed was plenty of time. However, in the ensuing months, the German Army was bled white in street battles for which it was not prepared. The Germans had a great advantage in armor in 1942, but tanks were of small use in urban warfare. Hitler refused to allow the German forces to pull back, and as a result the entire Sixth Army was encircled and destroyed/captured. Over one million men lost. Germany had forever lost the momentum in the east. Their ill-advised summer 1943 offensives failed, and by 1944 the Soviets had pushed them back into Poland.

Had Germany taken Stalingrad, and the soviet oil fields, the war WOULD have been different. The United States, while "in" the war since 12/7/41 would not launch Operation Torch until November, and it was aimed at Tunisia, a less strategic position. Had Germany succeeded at Stalingrad, another front to the Middle East would have been opened, and it is entirely possible that not only the war in the east, but the war in the west would have been vastly different, as Germany would have seized the vital oilfields and at the same time denied those assets to the Soviets. The Soviets would have simply lost the war in that event. Germany could have rolled from the Caucusus into the Middle East and seized even more oil there...What was there to stop them?

This is the most decisive battle in world history. It is the largest battle, fought in the biggest theatre the world has ever seen.

"""And Russia, remember, was poised to attack Germany when it was invaded. The massive concentration of its forces had orders not to respond to provocation - and burned where it stood, packed airdromes bombarded, tank formations ablaze in place when retaliation meant a bullet in the head for disobeying orders. The armies were bled and thrown back; Germany captured obscene amounts of fuel (along the lines of a year and a half worth of the production of Greater Germany) and eight million rifles..."""


What world are you from, Wilgatus? The Soviets had NO INTENTION of attacking the Germans in 1941. NOt to mention no means to do so. Stalin was so paralyzed by the attacks on June 22nd that he refused to take calls. The frontier Soviet Armies were beaten savagely by the Germans. The German Army was far and away the best in the world at the time, and the Soviet one was 3rd rate, having suffered greatly from Stalin's purges. The very thought of them going on the offensive against Germany in 1941 is downright laughable. Hitler felt the time to act against the Soviets was 1941, because he could reasonably believe that there was no western front at the time. He also did not want the Soviets to establish air bases within range of the Ploesti (Romanian, a German ally) oilfields that were vital to the German econonmy.

The Germans had every advantage over the Soviets in 1941 from a logistical stand point. The Soviet T-34 tank was not present in large enough numbers to greatly impact the battles. Nor were the Soviets clever enough (at that time) to have organized their tanks into Armored divisions, instead dispersing them among infantry.

The Soviets had every intention of attacking Germany. That's why they were in constant talks with Roosevelt and Churchill.

The Soviets had likely had plans to attack Germany as early as the late 30s since National Socialism and Communism are politically at violent odds and Germany was quite obviously gearing up to invade the buffer states Russia had between itself and the rest of Europe.

The non-aggression pact was a sham and both Stalin and Hitler knew it. The Germans simply geared up to break it first.

Now if you want to say that the Russian attack wasn't planned in 1941, that's quite probable, but why in hell would the Wehrmacht wait until the enemy was most prepared to launch their own pre-emptive invasion?

I was under the impression that the main objection to Christianity was that it had collective owership: and no organization other than the Empire itself was allowed to own things, lest it possibly rival the Empire in power? (gathered from Decline and Fall)

As for Nazi Germany ruling the world: If it had Europe, Britian and Russia under its heel, they would also have Africa and the Middle East by default. It's ally, Japan, would control SE Asia and Austrailia. Their only rival would be America.

Why would they stop? Well, possibly they'd stop because the USA would have a nuke. But, N/S America vs the rest of the world, even with the nuke on America's side, wouldn't be the same situation as the world vs Japan. The nuke would matter, but it wouldn't guarantee victory.

The objection to Christianity was primarily the same objection certain emperors (notably Domitian and Diocletian) had to other religions. They wanted to restore Roman power by restoring Roman identity, and part of that mission involved abolishing the worship of non-Roman deities. So long as Christians paid their taxes, the Romans didn't care one whit about how they organized their communes.

Soviet plan to attack Germany in the *30's*? Wow, that would have been the HEIGHT of brilliance. Attack the best trained army on earth DURING your purges, in which 3/5 Field Marshalls were executed. Not to mention that the Germans had a deal with the Soviets during the 30's to train troops on Soviet soil, since the Versailles treaty severely limited the size of their army. That really sounds like a deal you'd make with a nation you plan to attack soon.

You say Stalin had talks with Churchill about attacking Germany during that time? Pretty interesting, since Churchhill was NOT THE PRIME MINISTER during that period.

The Soviets, traditionally, are not a nation that looks to attack. They wait TO be attacked, let the enemy exhaust himself, and then counter attack. They had NO PLANS whatsoever to attack Germany before Germany attacked them.

'The Soviets, traditionally, are not a nation that looks to attack'

- The Soviets are not a nation.
You can't link "traditional" Russian military tactics with that of the Soviet state, because they are different. Literally.
Unless you believe Russia's aggressive annexation tendencies from 1945 until the late 1980's even resembles their war of attrition against Napoleon during the 1700's.
See? You can't really build an argument based upon the Soviet Union's plans to attack Germany simply because Russia was primarily a defensive country pre-that period.

'You say Stalin had talks with Churchill about attacking Germany during that time? Pretty interesting, since Churchhill was NOT THE PRIME MINISTER during that period.'

- Churchill may not have been Prme Minister during the period of the late 30's, but he had dominated the government since the First World War, being Admirality of the Fleet more than once, Chancelor of the Exchequer, as well as being the leading advocate against Nazi aggression. And indeed, yes, he spoke of a radical alliance with Soviet Russia and France. Indeed, I've no idea about the actual communication which went on between Churchill and Stalin, but it's far from impossible that such events took place. It would be like Gordon Brown talking to George Bush - Very likely. Churchill was the chairman of the Military Coordinating Committee, for godsake.
And with Neville being a retard in his policies towards Nazi Germany, I find it very likely that Churchill was the man Stalin would go to. Either way, Churchill had coined the idea, staunchly, AFTER, you have to remember, Soviet Russia had called for it.

'They had NO PLANS whatsoever to attack Germany before Germany attacked them.'

- To believe such a statement in the wake of concluded Soviet history is to believe Soviet Russia annexed most of East Europe for the good of communism.

Am I saying I *know* Soviet Russia had plans to attack Germany before she attacked Russia? No, not at all.
But I find it extremely hard to believe there was no intention to confront Nazi Germany in the flow of Soviet expansion.
It's Soviet Russia, for godsake.

I would add that the Soviets had no qualms about grabbing territory when they could. They invaded Poland from the east very shortly after the Germans invaded from the west...a little detail overlooked by most people. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were all "annexed" in 1940. Finland had been attacked before the war in the late thirties

I am pretty sure that if Hitler had not attacked Stalin, Stalin would have attacked Hitler within a few years. They were both greedy for more power and were in each other's way.

Want to know WHY the Soviets annexed the Baltic states in 1940? Very Simple. Because the Molotov-Ribbentrop plan (with GERMANY) acknowledged that the Baltics were a sphere of Soviet dominance.

I'd love to see you "Soviet plan to attack Nazi Germany in '41" quote one historical work to support this ridiculous notion.

The Soviets had enough internal problems in the late 30's/ 1940 to undertake a war of aggression.


Churchhill was an afterthought during Stanley Baldwin's regime as PM. He HAD been Lord of the Admiralty previously, but did NOT hold that post in the late 1930's. He was restored to this post when Neville Chamberlain became PM.

Heh, that hardly made the Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians feel any better about it. Certainly it does not explain Poland where the Soviets wanted to grab what they could before the Germans got it all.

The Finns might argue with you too.

I agree that the Soviets were not going to attack in 1941. I'm just not so sure about 1943,44,45 etc.

'Want to know WHY the Soviets annexed the Baltic states in 1940? Very Simple. Because the Molotov-Ribbentrop plan (with GERMANY) acknowledged that the Baltics were a sphere of Soviet dominance.'

- And how on earth does that extinguish any idea of Soviet aggression?

'Churchhill was an afterthought during Stanley Baldwin's regime as PM. He HAD been Lord of the Admiralty previously, but did NOT hold that post in the late 1930's. He was restored to this post when Neville Chamberlain became PM.'

- Churchill was never an afterthought.
Ever since his rather controversial rise during World War One, Churchill had dominated British politics and government. Whether chairing Military cabinets, being Admiral of the Fleet, conieving entire revolutionary army departments, being the prime governmental opposition, or holding some of the highest seats in an elected party itself, Churchill was The Figure of politics in the early 40's.
He may have been ignored by Baldwin, but he was noticable enough to have our King choose him as Prime Minister after Neville's resignation.
Neville had treated Hitler's European aggression as something that could be sidestepped. He took a "Walepole-approach" to continental politics in the hopes of just staying the fuck out of the entire thing. Naturally with the monarch's support (least we forget that pre-world war two, the monarch was, of course of the William of Orange line, being Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: German). Churchill was everything he wasn't. He vouched for Soviet alliance, for aggressive continental policies.
Whether or not there was an approach from Stalin, Churchill would have been the man. The mere fact that, after Stalin publically announced a desire for an Anglo-Frankish-Russian alliance, Churchill very soon after brought it up relentless as something that should be pursued, supports the notion that there was a forming reltionship between the two.

Icebreaker by Viktor Suvorov (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0241126223/qid=1087506768/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/103-0349592-9010267?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I'll disprove some of the absurdities posted above later. I'm too shocked by Halo's posts right now - are you a history major by some chance?

I too seriously doubt there was any alliance talk going on between Stalin and Churchill before Hitler attacked the Soviets. If there had been, I suspect there might have been a response in 1940. Stalin was perfectly willing to let the west hang out to dry until it was his ass on the line in '41.

Well hey, don't be too shocked willya :P
I'm not, no. I've wasted 3 years of my life choosing the wrong "major", as it were, at university. It should have been history, but it wasn't. And it's one of the biggest mistakes I've made. So I took it upon myself to sort of.. school myself, until I finish this current degree and can apply again at Uni to do a BSc in History.

History's the sort of subject that's just utterly relevant, to everything. And you can't escape it. It's the story of all our lives, and it has shaped who we are, and who we may be.