FSTDT Forums

Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Material Defender on October 26, 2012, 11:09:55 pm

Title: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 26, 2012, 11:09:55 pm
For us in America, we do learn some amount wars before the time of America. Despite this emphasis on wars, though, we tend to miss important ones regardless. I'm a history buff, so I was curious if a world or more educated perspective could provide a more complete look.

Wars Americans who've had a standard Education Know About

Anything America was involved in (Though often gets renamed. Seven years war became French Indian. Napoleonic Wars became the war of 1812. Classy America.)

Battle of Tours and the repulse of Islam from the Christian Europe.

Vague, nebulous understanding of Roman Campaigns and conquest.

Cortez, his native allies, and the Aztecs

100 Years War and the Rebellion of the Netherlands from the Spanish

Alexander the Great's Campaign.



This List is much shorter than I expected. I tried to remove things I got because my History Teacher was a huge sinophile, at least of Chinese history, so learned a LOT about China that probably is missed in most classrooms. I'll refrain from talking about wars I know, but most of them relate to Russia in some way. 
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 26, 2012, 11:14:51 pm
The Thirty Years War (1618-1648). Proportionately the bloodiest war in history, probably. It created the modern nation state. Not important, though.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 26, 2012, 11:54:50 pm
The Thirty Years War (1618-1648). Proportionately the bloodiest war in history, probably. It created the modern nation state. Not important, though.

Also lead to the creation of the pride and the idea of a Swedish Empire, which led to the Great Northern War (1700–21). Also participated the rise of Russia as a far more prominent figure of European politics. But we don't need to talk about Russia doing cool things and Pyotor the Great facing off against Carl Gustov.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 27, 2012, 12:31:01 am
Also strengthened Poland-Lithuania by weakening some of their neighbours.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 27, 2012, 12:33:47 am
The Winter War is one of those 'lesser known' wars that had pretty significant impact in the way it set the stage for things to come. It involves Russia so I'm sure you're well acquainted with it. ;)

Two battles of some significance would be Vimy Ridge  in WW1 and the Dieppe raid in WW2. Major moments for Canadians, and military historians will say these were turning points or valuable lessons learned, but they are not well known. To most nations, Vimy is simply a sector in the much larger battle of Arras.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 27, 2012, 12:38:01 am
I take your Battle of Vimy Ridge and raise you a battle of Amiens. Australian-Canadian cooperation, yay! Tough an Australian was the brains behind the thing.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 12:42:57 am
And then there is the fight between China and the Abbsyaid Islamics over control of areas, which the end result decided the division of the area (Think it was around 1100. Don't remember it's name to give dates).  If the Muslims hadn't won against China, Europe would have brushed up against the borders of China. Armed with Gunpowder. That would be... different.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 27, 2012, 01:09:04 am
I take your Battle of Vimy Ridge and raise you a battle of Amiens. Australian-Canadian cooperation, yay! Tough an Australian was the brains behind the thing.
You could almost hear the entire German army let out a collective 'oh scheiße!' when they realized who they were up against.  ;D
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Veras on October 27, 2012, 01:21:32 am
The Persian War and specifically the Battle of Thermopylae Pass is usually covered pretty well, isn't it?  I teach U.S. and World History, though certainly not in a standard setting, and I always give those a reasonable amount of attention (and I don't care for military history).  I remember learning about Thermopylae in my own high school World History class--I distinctly remember thinking that it was the single coolest thing ever to happen.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: largeham on October 27, 2012, 01:33:49 am
Khalkin Gol/Nomonhan. The culmination of the Soviet/Japanese border conflicts in the late 1930s, a taste of the style of warfare that was to come and the start of Zhukov's rise through the ranks.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 01:46:12 am
The Persian War and specifically the Battle of Thermopylae Pass is usually covered pretty well, isn't it?  I teach U.S. and World History, though certainly not in a standard setting, and I always give those a reasonable amount of attention (and I don't care for military history).  I remember learning about Thermopylae in my own high school World History class--I distinctly remember thinking that it was the single coolest thing ever to happen.

My history class regarded the Battle of Thermopylae little more than a piece of propaganda. It included a lot of Arcadians, far more than Spartans, and the Persians defeated them with a bit high, but nothing too crazy, causalities. During that war, the Naval defeat of the Persians was infinitely more important than the battle of Thermopylae. Probably one of the few Naval battles were 'knowing the terrain' really was hugely important, at least I know of.

Battle of Wizna is a tad more impressive.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 27, 2012, 02:19:23 am
How much attention is paid to the various Israeli conflicts, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the war in the Falklands by the US school system?
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Osama bin Bambi on October 27, 2012, 02:27:47 am
How much attention is paid to the various Israeli conflicts, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the war in the Falklands by the US school system?

My school has covered the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the history of Afghanistan in regards to its relationship with America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but not the war in the Falklands. We do cover the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War in great detail, however. The latter is especially important to me because it seems that most Americans have never even heard of it, and even if they have, they do not know its context or what the war was actually about.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on October 27, 2012, 03:27:19 am
Interesting, I was just discussing with my cousin how certain regions/nations are left out of the world history curriculum in the USA.

I don't think that the history curriculum (at least as it was taught where I went to school) is Eurocentric so much as First-world-centric.  We covered much of Western European history, but also did a fair amount of material on modern Japan and China, as well as a little bit on the Middle East.  I remember we also did a bit on the "big 3" Native American civilizations.

Unfortunately that left out much of South and Southeast Asian history, almost all of Latin American, African, and South Pacific (Australia/New Zealand/Pacific Islands) history, and most of the early history of the Far East and Eastern Europe.

Needless to say, a number of horrific wars have been fought in all those places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll).  How many of these wars do you really know about?  After all, the deadliest post-WWII conflict was in Central Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War), and our own media barely covered it.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 03:43:55 am
How much attention is paid to the various Israeli conflicts, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the war in the Falklands by the US school system?

A good deal to Israeli Conflicts, actually. I forgot about those from history class as opposed to personal research. Soviet occupation was more or less glossed over, while the War in the Falklands was given a little detail and background.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Old Viking on October 27, 2012, 04:20:57 pm
The War of the Roses.  Introduced horticulture to England.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Material Defender on October 27, 2012, 04:38:09 pm
The War of the Roses.  Introduced horticulture to England.

I see what you did there.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Atheissimo on October 28, 2012, 06:49:52 pm
From an English point of view, the English Civil War. Played a big part in the formation of what would become the basis of lots of world governments and legal systems, including the US.

Also, the Great Emu War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)) of Australia.

Nevar Forget.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Meshakhad on October 28, 2012, 10:43:46 pm
Actually, while living in England, my history class paid scant attention to the Thirty Years War, mostly because England pretty much stayed out, and it would have gotten in the way of the giant English Civil War unit we did.

More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Witchyjoshy on October 28, 2012, 11:12:42 pm
More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.

I'm actually curious about what England tends to think of that.  What their side of the story is.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: armandtanzarian on October 29, 2012, 12:11:15 pm
China had some awesome war stories to go along with its long-ass history. For instance, for all the talk about how Qin Shih Huang Di unified China 2200 years ago, there is no mention of the fact that, a few hundred years later, the Kingdom shattered into warring states for a further few hundred years. Most of classical Chinese culture, from the language and idioms we use to quite a bit of the post-Confusion lessons actually date from here (The Art of War, logically, came from this period, as did many of the best attempts to chronicle and secure earliest Chinese history).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

The histories at the time were full of utter bias as you'd expect. Infused in Confucian thinking is the idea that a monarch can actually be removed if he failed to take care of his people. That's where you get the idea of Dynasties, and usually the last king was portrayed as such an ass the peasants were justified in taking him out. For instance:

Quote
In his later years, Di Xin was given over to drinking, women, sex and a lack of morals, preferring these to the proper governance of the country, and ignored almost all affairs of state. According to Sima Qian, he even hosted festive orgies where many people engage in sex at the same time with his concubines and created songs with crude (erotic) lyrics and poor rhythm. In legends, he is depicted as having come under the influence of his wicked wife Daji, and committing all manner of evil and cruel deeds with her. In fictionalizations, including the novel Fengshen Yanyi, she was said to be possessed by a malevolent fox spirit.
One of the most famous forms of entertainment Zhou enjoyed was the "Wine Pool and Meat Forest" (酒池肉林). A large pool, big enough for several canoes, was constructed on the Palace grounds, with inner linings of polished oval shaped stones from the sea shores. This allowed for the entire pool to be filled with alcohol. A small island was constructed in the middle of the pool, where trees were planted, which had branches made of roasted meat skewers hanging over the pool. This allowed Zhou and his friends and concubines to drift on canoes in the pool. When they thirst, they reached down into the pool with their hands and drank the wine. When they hungered, they reached up with their hands to eat the roasted meat. This was considered one of the most famous examples of decadence and corruption of a ruler in Chinese history.
In order to please Daji, he created the "Cannon Burning Punishment" (炮烙之刑). One large hollow bronze cylinder was stuffed with burning charcoal and allowed to burn until red-hot, then prisoners were made to literally hug the cylinder, which resulted in a painful and unsightly death.[citation needed]
Zhou and Daji were known to get highly aroused after watching such victims. Victims ranged from civilians and prisoners to high government officials, including Mei Bo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Xin
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Meshakhad on October 29, 2012, 01:03:31 pm
More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.

I'm actually curious about what England tends to think of that.  What their side of the story is.

My impression was that they try not to think about it.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Atheissimo on October 29, 2012, 03:43:28 pm
More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.

I'm actually curious about what England tends to think of that.  What their side of the story is.

My impression was that they try not to think about it.

Unfortunately, though the revolution is obviously important in American history and world history since then, it is not really considered significant enough in British history to warrant class time outside specific study of colonialism. Just another transfer of colonial power at a time when they were being traded about like football cards.

Remember, they've got to get from 96CE to the end of the Cold War just to get a good impression of British History, never mind the stuff they do about other cultures like the Greeks, Romans, Vikings and Egyptians. The Industrial Revolution, scramble for Empire, the First World War and the Second World War all get almost whole years devoted to them.

I get the impression from talking to Americans that the revolution is another of the world's great one sided rivalries, like Germany vs Holland. They tend to expect it to be thought of as a great national shame spoken of in hushed tones or an instant beserk button for any Englishman. When most Brits are only vaguely aware of it, and even then only in the context of another plot by the dastardly French before we licked them at Waterloo.

If you're looking for an English perspective though, it's seen as a sort of double edged sword. On the one hand, it is seen as a great stepping stone towards democracy building on the British tradition of individual rights (debatable, I know). On the other hand it's often thought that the true motives of the founding fathers were based on tax evasion to increase their personal wealth rather than freedom. We also don't get why you all hate King George so much, who was relatively benign for a European monarch. We've had Cromwell and Henry VIII, so it's hard to paint him as the tyrant you guys do.

Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: wyvern999 on October 29, 2012, 04:56:41 pm
More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.

I'm actually curious about what England tends to think of that.  What their side of the story is.

My impression was that they try not to think about it.

No. It's just not that important, The UK has a 2000+ year history. From the Roman invasion to the present day. How do you decide which parts of it are more important than others. At some point we have been allied to or at war against most of the countries on this planet. We have built and lost the largest empire ever to exist. We have spread our language, culture, and form of governance around the globe, We have fought every day of not one but two wars and was on the winning side both times. We have been a major power for centuries. Not too shabby for a small island off the west coast of western europe.

From this perspective the loss of 13 American colonies was a minor inconvenience. It barely phased us. We still had Canada and the sugar islands of the Caribbean which in cash terms were worth more at that time and we discovered Australia and added that to our ever expanding empire. We had bigger fish to fry.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: myusername on October 29, 2012, 05:06:42 pm
As a Brit I don't think I did the American Revolution either, I did a lot of Hitler/WWII, the Industrial Revolution, the Slave Trade, WWI, oh fucking hell, my memory of this stuff is pretty bad...so if I did do it I don't remember anything about it except the bit where you chucked our fine English tea in the sea (aren't Americans aware that that makes it taste too salty?  :P)
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on October 29, 2012, 05:24:14 pm
More amusingly, we also kinda skimmed over the American Revolution.

I'm actually curious about what England tends to think of that.  What their side of the story is.

My impression was that they try not to think about it.

Unfortunately, though the revolution is obviously important in American history and world history since then, it is not really considered significant enough in British history to warrant class time outside specific study of colonialism. Just another transfer of colonial power at a time when they were being traded about like football cards.

The American revolution was, however, a devastating blow to the British ruling class, especially because it meant that they couldn't dump their convicts in the Thirteen Colonies anymore.  Which is why you guys had to sail around the world and dump them in Australia.

The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Witchyjoshy on October 29, 2012, 05:52:42 pm
Thanks for the information guys.

I didn't expect it to be a mark of shame or anything, I just wanted to fill in some gaps that I'm pretty sure existed due to being an American citizen who had previously only heard the USA's take on the situation in history.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Random Gal on October 29, 2012, 06:37:26 pm
From an English point of view, the English Civil War. Played a big part in the formation of what would become the basis of lots of world governments and legal systems, including the US.

Also, the Great Emu War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War)) of Australia.

Nevar Forget.

(http://missycaldwell.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/oh-no-you-didnt.jpg)
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 30, 2012, 04:24:09 am
The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Not that any Australian would ever admit it.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: wyvern999 on October 30, 2012, 02:50:14 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Atheissimo on October 30, 2012, 03:03:36 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

THIS

Imagine if the pride of the Wermacht hadn't been destroyed at Stalingrad, but had stood at the beaches in 1944. It was costly enough to defeat the conscripts and walking wounded that comprised a portion of the Nazi forces, never mind thousands of their best and brightest.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: largeham on October 30, 2012, 03:18:58 pm
I think he means that in reference to Australia's involvement in WW2, not the war in general. And that is another can of worms right there.

But because I can, after June 1941 over 70% of the German army at any point was on the Eastern Front and over 75% of the Wehrmacht's total casualties were suffered in the East. However Bagration, the Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, the operations in Romania, and etc would not have been possible without the hundreds of thousands of trucks given to the Red Army by the Americans.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on October 30, 2012, 03:28:18 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

The sacrifices of the Russian/Soviet people notwithstanding, the USSR didn't declare war on the Empire of Japan until April of 1945 and was only marginally involved in the Pacific Theater.

If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and the USA hadn't declared war on them, there would have been nobody to stop the Japanese advance in the East.  Everything from the Aleutians in the North to New Zealand in the South would have been theirs for the taking.  The British, French, and Dutch were in no position to defend their colonial/territorial holdings, and in India, the crown jewel of the British Empire, some of the pro-independence forces actively collaborated with Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army).

The Soviets won their part of the war by throwing more and more bodies at the Axis.  The USA won because back then, our industrial base could simply outproduce its opponents, and we were producing better weapons than the Japanese were anyway.

I think he means that in reference to Australia's involvement in WW2, not the war in general. And that is another can of worms right there.

But because I can, after June 1941 over 70% of the German army at any point was on the Eastern Front and over 75% of the Wehrmacht's total casualties were suffered in the East. However Bagration, the Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, the operations in Romania, and etc would not have been possible without the hundreds of thousands of trucks given to the Red Army by the Americans.

Yes, thank you for clarifying.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Atheissimo on October 30, 2012, 03:49:01 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

The sacrifices of the Russian/Soviet people notwithstanding, the USSR didn't declare war on the Empire of Japan until April of 1945 and was only marginally involved in the Pacific Theater.

If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and the USA hadn't declared war on them, there would have been nobody to stop the Japanese advance in the East.  Everything from the Aleutians in the North to New Zealand in the South would have been theirs for the taking.  The British, French, and Dutch were in no position to defend their colonial/territorial holdings.

THIS too.

As somebody whose great grandad fought the Japanese in Burma and Singapore, and who probably wouldn't be alive without American air support.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Meshakhad on October 30, 2012, 05:47:20 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

The sacrifices of the Russian/Soviet people notwithstanding, the USSR didn't declare war on the Empire of Japan until April of 1945 and was only marginally involved in the Pacific Theater.

If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and the USA hadn't declared war on them, there would have been nobody to stop the Japanese advance in the East.  Everything from the Aleutians in the North to New Zealand in the South would have been theirs for the taking.

They wouldn't have taken Australia, though.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 30, 2012, 07:42:28 pm


The sad thing is, even though the USA was indirectly responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia AND saved your asses in WWII, your economy is doing better than ours.

Whether we in the west like it or not Russia saved all our "asses" in WWII. Our 1 year on the european mainland cannot be compared to Russia's 4 years combatting the German invasion of their homeland. The largest armies, the biggest battles, the highest number of casualties were all in the east not the west. Read your history. WW2 was won and lost in the vast interior of Russia. Everything else was secondary to theatre of war.

This is the kind of thing that happens when history is taught from our own point of view. Especially when it means giving credit to those who we no longer like, in this case "communist" Russia.

I'd argue that China played the second-most important role of any of the allies, by drawing off the IJA from a potential invasion of Eastern Russia- the only eventuality I can think of that could have easily caused the Soviets to lose the war. Third is maybe Britain, or the US Navy.

But yeah. More Vietnamese died fighting in that war than Americans (and the Australian Army barely fought at all). Australia was too irrationally afraid of Japanese invasion* to deploy soldiers anywhere they could be properly useful.

* An invasion we actually should have encouraged.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on October 31, 2012, 03:30:07 am
I'd argue that China played the second-most important role of any of the allies, by drawing off the IJA from a potential invasion of Eastern Russia- the only eventuality I can think of that could have easily caused the Soviets to lose the war. Third is maybe Britain, or the US Navy.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

But yeah. More Vietnamese died fighting in that war than Americans (and the Australian Army barely fought at all). Australia was too irrationally afraid of Japanese invasion* to deploy soldiers anywhere they could be properly useful.

* An invasion we actually should have encouraged.

Are you suggesting that Australia would somehow have benefited from a Japanese invasion?   :o
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on October 31, 2012, 05:31:27 am
I'd argue that China played the second-most important role of any of the allies, by drawing off the IJA from a potential invasion of Eastern Russia- the only eventuality I can think of that could have easily caused the Soviets to lose the war. Third is maybe Britain, or the US Navy.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

But yeah. More Vietnamese died fighting in that war than Americans (and the Australian Army barely fought at all). Australia was too irrationally afraid of Japanese invasion* to deploy soldiers anywhere they could be properly useful.

* An invasion we actually should have encouraged.

Are you suggesting that Australia would somehow have benefited from a Japanese invasion?   :o
I'm hoping what he meant is that if Japan had committed forces to an invasion it would have been easy for the Aussies to deal them a swift and crushing blow with their Emu cavalry regiments.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: largeham on October 31, 2012, 07:04:50 am
Emu regiments supported by shock Cassowary battalions and wombat-drawn artillery.

It was impossible for the Japanese to come anywhere close to invading Australia, it could have been possible if that was all they focused on after 1931 and didn't bother invading China.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

But the Soviets thrashed the Japanese in 1938 and 1939. And funnily enough the Japanese signed their non-aggression pact only months before Barbarossa (though not as funny as the lack of cooperation between the North Koreans and the Chinese). Khalkhin Gol led directly to Pearl Harbor.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 31, 2012, 09:51:42 am
I'd argue that China played the second-most important role of any of the allies, by drawing off the IJA from a potential invasion of Eastern Russia- the only eventuality I can think of that could have easily caused the Soviets to lose the war. Third is maybe Britain, or the US Navy.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

The Americans weren't really fighting on two fronts though. Neither front had any capacity to force them into engagement by threatening anything, so they could shift resources at will- and did.

Quote
But yeah. More Vietnamese died fighting in that war than Americans (and the Australian Army barely fought at all). Australia was too irrationally afraid of Japanese invasion* to deploy soldiers anywhere they could be properly useful.

* An invasion we actually should have encouraged.

Are you suggesting that Australia would somehow have benefited from a Japanese invasion?   :o

Not directly. But every IJA soldier who landed in this country would have starved, every aircraft that landed here would have been shot down to little loss and every ship that sailed here would have been easily sunk by an American submarine.  It would have been the end of the war within a month or two. Unfortunately, the Japanese were too smart to try it- and Australia was too dumb to reduce our land defences in order to encourage them. Virtually every allied soldier defending Australia was worse than wasting his time; he was basically acting to the advantage of the Japanese.

That's why I think the decision to move the Australian part of the ANZAC Corps from North Africa was one of the stupidest, most selfish things we ever did.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: TheL on October 31, 2012, 12:08:04 pm
The Persian War and specifically the Battle of Thermopylae Pass is usually covered pretty well, isn't it?  I teach U.S. and World History, though certainly not in a standard setting, and I always give those a reasonable amount of attention (and I don't care for military history).  I remember learning about Thermopylae in my own high school World History class--I distinctly remember thinking that it was the single coolest thing ever to happen.

My history class regarded the Battle of Thermopylae little more than a piece of propaganda. It included a lot of Arcadians, far more than Spartans, and the Persians defeated them with a bit high, but nothing too crazy, causalities. During that war, the Naval defeat of the Persians was infinitely more important than the battle of Thermopylae. Probably one of the few Naval battles were 'knowing the terrain' really was hugely important, at least I know of.

Battle of Wizna is a tad more impressive.

Worse:  I never had any actual battles covered in any K-12 class I ever took that mentioned ancient Greek or Roman history or mythology, except for the Trojan Horse's role in ending that particular war (in literature class, not history class), and some vagueness about the sacking of Rome by the Vandals.  Alexander the Great was discussed, of course, as was the prowess of Julius Caesar, but absolutely none of their actual battles or tactics were even mentioned in passing.

I learned about Thermopylae, the whole Antony/Cleopatra thing, the Punic Wars, the rape of the Sabine women, and Archimedes' role in the (failed) defense of Syracuse from outside sources, mostly pleasure reading and the Internet.  (I also learned an insane variety of non-age-appropriate mythology, literature, and history from my father.  I knew at age 6 that the reason Macduff kills Macbeth in the play is because, while "No man of woman born can harm Macbeth," Macduff was "from my mother's womb untimely ripp'd."  I knew the basic outline of the mythical founding of Rome and the story of Achilles by age 4 at least.)

How much attention is paid to the various Israeli conflicts, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the war in the Falklands by the US school system?

In the schools I went to?  Zero.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on October 31, 2012, 04:58:58 pm
I've always hated the secondary school presumption that events must be more important if they happened a long time ago. You get a lot of emphasis on things- like Athenian democracy- that have no obvious long-term significance. And, of course, nobody ever goes to any effort to try to analyse how one thing caused another.

Also, I hate the near-complete lack of evidence for anything. As a result, you get centuries of historians writing about the Cathars- a group that never existed.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on October 31, 2012, 11:07:24 pm
The Americans weren't really fighting on two fronts though. Neither front had any capacity to force them into engagement by threatening anything, so they could shift resources at will- and did.

Well, the Americans certainly did have more options available to them.


Not directly. But every IJA soldier who landed in this country would have starved, every aircraft that landed here would have been shot down to little loss and every ship that sailed here would have been easily sunk by an American submarine.  It would have been the end of the war within a month or two. Unfortunately, the Japanese were too smart to try it- and Australia was too dumb to reduce our land defences in order to encourage them. Virtually every allied soldier defending Australia was worse than wasting his time; he was basically acting to the advantage of the Japanese.

That's why I think the decision to move the Australian part of the ANZAC Corps from North Africa was one of the stupidest, most selfish things we ever did.

So...you would have drawn the IJA into Australia and used it as a "quagmire"-type trap?

It's an interesting theory, but I think it would have cost far too many civilian lives and too much infrastructure to have been worth it for the Aussies.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on November 01, 2012, 01:04:32 am
The Americans weren't really fighting on two fronts though. Neither front had any capacity to force them into engagement by threatening anything, so they could shift resources at will- and did.

Well, the Americans certainly did have more options available to them.


Not directly. But every IJA soldier who landed in this country would have starved, every aircraft that landed here would have been shot down to little loss and every ship that sailed here would have been easily sunk by an American submarine.  It would have been the end of the war within a month or two. Unfortunately, the Japanese were too smart to try it- and Australia was too dumb to reduce our land defences in order to encourage them. Virtually every allied soldier defending Australia was worse than wasting his time; he was basically acting to the advantage of the Japanese.

That's why I think the decision to move the Australian part of the ANZAC Corps from North Africa was one of the stupidest, most selfish things we ever did.

So...you would have drawn the IJA into Australia and used it as a "quagmire"-type trap?

It's an interesting theory, but I think it would have cost far too many civilian lives and too much infrastructure to have been worth it for the Aussies.

Know how big this country is? Presuming the existence of the US navy, they would have taken a single city or town- perhaps Townsville or Cairns- and then be stuck there forever, gradually starving to death. At most a few thousand civilian deaths, and that's assuming the IJA went full-Nanjing. Totally worth it to end a war that cost millions of civilian lives.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on November 01, 2012, 01:07:33 am
Know how big this country is? Presuming the existence of the US navy, they would have taken a single city or town- perhaps Townsville or Cairns- and then be stuck there forever, gradually starving to death. At most a few thousand civilian deaths, and that's assuming the IJA went full-Nanjing. Totally worth it to end a war that cost millions of civilian lives.

Australia is big, almost as big as the lower 48 states.  But I see no reason that the Japanese would not be able to expand beyond an initial beachhead, given the proper amounts of vehicles and equipment and that they could maintain a supply line.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Lt. Fred on November 01, 2012, 01:12:43 am
Know how big this country is? Presuming the existence of the US navy, they would have taken a single city or town- perhaps Townsville or Cairns- and then be stuck there forever, gradually starving to death. At most a few thousand civilian deaths, and that's assuming the IJA went full-Nanjing. Totally worth it to end a war that cost millions of civilian lives.

Australia is big, almost as big as the lower 48 states.  But I see no reason that the Japanese would not be able to expand beyond an initial beachhead, given the proper amounts of vehicles and equipment and that they could maintain a supply line.

Presuming that the IJN could ship even one millilitre of petroleum to Australia, through the submarine-long-range-aircraft-and-main-fleet-infested waters, which they couldn't.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on November 01, 2012, 02:17:49 am
Emu regiments supported by shock Cassowary battalions and wombat-drawn artillery.

It was impossible for the Japanese to come anywhere close to invading Australia, it could have been possible if that was all they focused on after 1931 and didn't bother invading China.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

But the Soviets thrashed the Japanese in 1938 and 1939. And funnily enough the Japanese signed their non-aggression pact only months before Barbarossa (though not as funny as the lack of cooperation between the North Koreans and the Chinese). Khalkhin Gol led directly to Pearl Harbor.

You have to love the twists history takes.

An act of mercy at the battle at Marcoing saved Hitler's life.
Talvisota led directly to Hitler deciding launch Barbarossa.
A would be Russian poet was wounded in the Battle of Bryansk which led him to design the most iconic weapon of the 20th century.

Anybody here remember the series Connections by Jame Burke (or his follow up The day the Universe Changed)?
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Askold on November 01, 2012, 02:48:12 am
Emu regiments supported by shock Cassowary battalions and wombat-drawn artillery.

It was impossible for the Japanese to come anywhere close to invading Australia, it could have been possible if that was all they focused on after 1931 and didn't bother invading China.

If by "drawing off" you mean requiring the greatest amount of manpower/resources to kill people, I suppose you are right.  If the Soviets had been compelled to fight on two fronts (as the Americans were) they might not have been able to do it.  As it was, they were throwing everything they had at the Germans, who already held a big chunk of their western territory.

But the Soviets thrashed the Japanese in 1938 and 1939. And funnily enough the Japanese signed their non-aggression pact only months before Barbarossa (though not as funny as the lack of cooperation between the North Koreans and the Chinese). Khalkhin Gol led directly to Pearl Harbor.

You have to love the twists history takes.

An act of mercy at the battle at Marcoing saved Hitler's life.
Talvisota led directly to Hitler deciding launch Barbarossa.
A would be Russian poet was wounded in the Battle of Bryansk which led him to design the most iconic weapon of the 20th century.

Anybody here remember the series Connections by Jame Burke (or his follow up The day the Universe Changed)?

Also Talvisota/winter war revealed the horrible state the Soviet military was in after the purges. They had only a few experienced higher ranking officers left, the young officers (like the one who rose from a platoon leader to division commander in three years) were simply not ready for the war. After the winter war seeing how they had been humiliated they started to rebuild and retrain their military. Not that it would have been done immediately, but this did give them a bit more time.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Canadian Mojo on November 01, 2012, 03:28:41 am
Also Talvisota/winter war revealed the horrible state the Soviet military was in after the purges. They had only a few experienced higher ranking officers left, the young officers (like the one who rose from a platoon leader to division commander in three years) were simply not ready for the war. After the winter war seeing how they had been humiliated they started to rebuild and retrain their military. Not that it would have been done immediately, but this did give them a bit more time.

The same sort of thing happened to Russia under Peter the Great in the Great Northern War. Sweden curb stomped a much larger Russian force at Narva but Russia managed to lick it wounds and learn its lessons which allowed it to return the favour nine years later at Poltava with a much improved army.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Meshakhad on November 02, 2012, 01:52:36 am
Know how big this country is? Presuming the existence of the US navy, they would have taken a single city or town- perhaps Townsville or Cairns- and then be stuck there forever, gradually starving to death. At most a few thousand civilian deaths, and that's assuming the IJA went full-Nanjing. Totally worth it to end a war that cost millions of civilian lives.

Australia is big, almost as big as the lower 48 states.  But I see no reason that the Japanese would not be able to expand beyond an initial beachhead, given the proper amounts of vehicles and equipment and that they could maintain a supply line.

How about the local wildlife?
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Askold on November 02, 2012, 02:27:05 am
Also Talvisota/winter war revealed the horrible state the Soviet military was in after the purges. They had only a few experienced higher ranking officers left, the young officers (like the one who rose from a platoon leader to division commander in three years) were simply not ready for the war. After the winter war seeing how they had been humiliated they started to rebuild and retrain their military. Not that it would have been done immediately, but this did give them a bit more time.

The same sort of thing happened to Russia under Peter the Great in the Great Northern War. Sweden curb stomped a much larger Russian force at Narva but Russia managed to lick it wounds and learn its lessons which allowed it to return the favour nine years later at Poltava with a much improved army.

There was this quote I can't seem to find or remember correctly. Basically:

"Russia has never been as strong as we fear it to be nor as weak as we hope it to be."
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Smurfette Principle on November 02, 2012, 03:45:32 am
The War of Austrian Succession, also known as "Never underestimate the power of someone who can give birth to sixteen children."
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: largeham on November 02, 2012, 04:08:24 am
The War of Austrian Succession, also known as "Never underestimate the power of someone who can give birth to sixteen children."

Eh, not really considering that she didn't get Silesia back. But it does show that people/countries/states can change their foreign policy quite quickly if they want to*.

* Though then again, this could be more of a feature for monarchies as opposed to liberal democracies.
Title: Re: The Greatest Wars (Or Battles) the Ameri-Centric World has never heard of.
Post by: Fpqxz on November 02, 2012, 04:14:42 am
Bangladesh War of Liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War).

Horrifically bloody, and resulted in more civilian deaths than military.  And it's recent history too, which means that public school history curricula are even less likely to cover it.