The 5 most decisive leaders and events in American history.

Looking back through American history from now to the revolution, I think there are 5 top decisive moments and leaders who profoundly changed the course of both World History and national history by the very moment they made their choice to act as they did. In my mind those top 5 moments and men were...

5. Barrack Obama and the killing of Osama Bin Laden May 1, 2011.

4. 1st Continental President Doctor Joeseph Warren and Bunker Hill June 16, 1775.

3. General John Beuford and Gettysburg, June 30, 1863

2. Admiral Chester Nimitz and the Battle of Midway May 25, 1942.

1. Douglas MacArthur and the Inchon landing of 1950

 

I would tend to concur about Bunker Hill. Prior to Bunker Hill, the British (justifibly) wrote off the American resistance as glorified banditry. After Bunker Hill, it was war. Holding the hills over Boston meant that once Ethan Allen brought in the artillery from Fort Ticonderoga the Royal Navy could not stay in Boston. Captains of wooden ships are rightly worried about land-based artillery they cannot counter. Without the Royal Navy Howe had to bug out.

It is hard to criticize Buford choice of ground at Gettysberg. It was (given the limitations of tactics and technology of the time) lovely defensive ground. But in terms of being decisive US Grant had been far more decisive in running the transports past Vickburg, then cutting his army loose from its logistical base and fighting all the way to Jackson (crippling any relief) then taking Vickburg from the rear. After winning at champion Hill he could re-establish logistical support at Steele’s Bayou and Pemberton was done for. Not only did the conquest of Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in two, but it allowed the US to easily resume its antebellum export trade in grain, and freed up railroads in the Midwest for more military usage. Vicksburg was the decisive blow. Whether Lee broke through a Cemetery Hill was irrelevant.

Myself I think the decisive moment in the Pacific War was a Guadalcanal. Midway was a position the Japanese could not hold and it could be neutralized by air power out of Kauai. Midway was way too far out for Japan’s limited logistics, but Guadalcanal was much closer to existing bases. When they were ground under in six months at “Starvation Island” despite throwing the remainder of their carriers and a fair chunk of their surface assets into the fray, both sides really knew the issue had been decided.

I myself think Washington’s New Jersey Christmas offensive was decisive. It showed the Americans that they could beat the British and that the Hessians were not invincible. It demoralized the British in they had to realize that their hessian mercenaries were not as tough as they thought and the war was a twelve-month-a-year proposition. That last point was important because in the age of sail two trips across the Atlantic a year was a difficult feat. Year-round warfare required a bigger force and a lot more logistical support. It was important to me because one of my forebears was Jakob Helmenthaler, captured at Trenton. Jakob was a private in a Hessian regiment. Washington knew that young, unmarried European peasants (the raw material of German armies) were about the most land-hungry people there were and Washington’s long suit was land. Washington offered his German captives patents of land if they fought for him. Jakob did and the Helmenthalers still own Helmenthaler’s Mountain in Virginia to this day.

Inchon was MacArthur’s masterpiece.

Schwartzkopf’s envelopment of Saddam’s army in Kuwait put paid to any claims of Arab military competence once and for all.

 

I picked Midway mostly for the number of moments the battle could have swung for either side, certainly if the USS Yorktown wasn't able to join the fight after being damaged at Coral Sea. The Yorktown repair story is so overlooked for its masterful and timely completion. Men were still welding repairs even as she was steaming out of Pearl.

Yamamoto screwed up when he sent a carrier task force to bomb Dutch Harbor, it went against his usual emphasis on concentration of force and those extra carriers would have been decisive against what we had, a mere 29 surface ships.


Guadalcanal was mostly a surface ship and submarine clash made less difficult by our Midway victory and probably the only time Japan's submarines were used to some effect.

 

I come from Charlestown Mass. and we were taught that Bunker Hill was an American defeat, which I might understand from the tactical POV, but strategiclly it worked brilliantly. The Brits didn't go on from Charlestown neck to take the weapons stores at Cambridge and the Revolutionary army had them bottled in Boston.

 

MacArthur? Can't agree with that at all. The entire Korean War, ended where it began at the 38th parallel. It was a waste of lives, with no significant
historical value...the war between North and South Korea has still not ended in fact, some 60 years later.

#1, by far...is Truman and the decision to drop the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it immediately put America into the sphere of geo-politics as a Super-Power.

 

Was it really necessary to drop it on civilians' heads? SU was somehow considered superpower without doing that.

 

A Russian arguing over the value of civilians?

Your Stalin alone murdered 7 million Ukrainians.

Please, I have no idea what sfuff the Pravda puts out regarding Russian propaganda, or what they teach you in school...but Russia makes the Third Reich look like Boy Scouts. There is a trail of blood from Warsaw to Moscow...alone. Whatever is in between, was murdered or sent to the Gulag.

All civilians.

 

I hardly see Osama's death as decisive. I think President Bush would have made the same decision 10 out of 10 times. I actually view Bush as one of the more decisive leaders in American history despite the controversy surronding him. He may not have neccessarily made the right decisions, but he stood by what he did and wasn't afraid to commit to action.

 

By 1945 the Soviet Union had already carried out the following:

Decossackization, Holodomor, deportations/murder in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Chechnya, Germany, Finland, Ukraine, and many more places. Then when you consider Stalin's purges, the Russian civil war, and forced collectivization you're EASILY talking about 10,000,000+ civilians killed by Bolshevik/Soviet Leaders.

The U.S. was considered a superpower without murdering tens of millions of civilains, many of whom were their own citizens.

 

Oh, nice to see you tried evading the question with typical american BS. Sorry but "Stalin murdered 20 billions!!1111" won't work it out.
So I'll repeat that again.
Was in necessary to murder about 500 000 civilians to be considered "superpower"?

1) New fantasy event from US history books? 2)Famine. (*)(*)(*)(*) happens sometimes. Wanna discuss famine during great depression or just shut up? 3)Wanna discuss US deportations of ethnic Japanese or just shut up? 4)no argue about that. *cought*McCarthyism*cought* 5) That is just stupid. US civil war, anyone? 6) Was it supposed to be volunteer? 7)You better to reach an agreement about these numbers in the US fantasy history books. You look stupid and silly, when one Yank claiming it was 2 million, other 7, next one is for 10, next one is for 20 and the last,most retarded, is for 100.

So pull a tree out of your own eye before trying to put a stick into ours.

 

Not so. Korea was the first test for the Western powers as to how they would react to outright Communist aggression. Call it the credability doctrine. By proving we would go to the defense of South Korea, the West proved it was more than prepared to defend other points of the globe, like South Vietnam. Of course we saw clearly what happened when we didn't do anything such as in Cambodia.

No consequence? Korea turned out the way it did because of Truman the guttless coward who refused to meet Chinese communist agression. We are dealing with the results of that cowardice today with a strong terrorist government in Beijing or do you forget what their so called People's Army did in 1989 to their own people?

When I see an image of Korea and see the lightless north and the gleaming south, that was no consequence? The North is on a slow road to a self-inflicted death, we only need to be sadly patient to that horrible fact. We left millions of Koreans to die in that hell hole because Truman was a guttless coward.

MacArthur's bold landing at Inchon was a masterful use of covert operations, science and tactical inititive which the Communist didn't see coming.

 

The first test of Communist aggression was the Berlin airlift...saving West Berlin from the Soviets.
In 1945 at Potsdam, Germany: It was at Potsdam the allies decided, without consulting the Koreans, to divide the peninsula at the 38th Parallel. The war itself, was a stalemate...I have no idea why you would regard it as the most siginificant event in our nation's history...it isn't. Korea was already divided, and it still is today....almost 70 years after Potsdam.

 

Obviously my friend you've never been to Japan or Hiroshima. I know many Japanese who call the bombing a blessing. Do you think Stalin would have stopped at Manchuria had we not demonstarted the bomb?

By the way, Hiroshima was a military garrison city and the command post for the army group of lower Honshu and Kyushu....a legit military target back in the 1940's.

And you speak of murder? Was it right for Japan to rape and murder through Asia? My Japanese friends would consider you pretty much an idiot. Until Emperor Hirohito (by the Meji consitituion) was given the authority to speak and end the war, the military fanatics, including General Anami, were totally prepared to sacrifice the whole country to save their sorry butts even after Nagasaki.

Thankfully Anami had honor and once Hirohito decided to surrender, Anami killed himself to deny the other military fanatics the benefit of his power when they tried to overthrow the Emperor.

 

It wouldn't be divided had Truman worn a set of nuts. And the Berlin airlift, though daring, wasn't something the Russians were willing to risk opposing. Militarilly they were spent, they didn't have any capability of delivering a nuclear weapon even during Korea. The Russians didn't become a viable military threat again until the mid-1950's, which is why they switched their tactical doctrine to supporting communist insurgencies and client states.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree that the battle of Inchon is the most significant military event in America's history. The success of the landing was largely negated by a slow, 11-day advance on Seoul.

 

i dont understand the obsession the left has with obama..he is by far the dumbest president we put into that office..when he says anything it doesnt make any sense..and they praise him..are there that many really stupid people in this country now?

 

A new fantasy for history books? I think you mean a well documented and well understood event in history that historians from around the world agree on. I assume that you perhapes grew up in Soviet Russia and were taught differently?

How many Americans were killed in the "famine" of the depression? Was it forced collectivization that led to it? Was it deliberate as it was in Russia? Did it involve mass exportations of populations to Gulags in the North where Millions died? No, it didn't.

How many people were killed as a result of McCarthyism? I can't find evidence of a single one. Stalin's purges in 1937-38 alone, carried out by the NKVD, killed 600,000+ people. When you include the entire reign of the Soviet Union you're looking at 4-10 million people. Comparing McCarythism to Stalin's purges is one of the most intellectually dishonest comparisons I've ever seen on this forum.

How many people were executed or died of maltreatment in U.S. internment camps for the Japanese? Trying to compare them to the holocaust or the Soviet gulags is a complete and utter joke. The living conditions for the Japanese in these camps were quite comfortable when compared to the aboslutely horrific things occuring in Russia, Germany, and Japan at the time. The events were regretable, but not even remotely comparable to death camps.

You keep accusing the U.S. of making up history books. Were you taught history under the Soviet Union? Most of these numbers are corraborated by European and even Russian historians. They're also backed up by official Soviet documents released after the collapse.

I won't ignore the murder of tens of millions of people by your country simply because the U.S. has committed a few crimes on a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller scale. One of the points of studying history is to learn from your mistakes. Denying history and denying the past atrocities of your country is what leads to more horror in the future.

 

My vote for #1. was the decision to drop the atomic bombs...everything from the Manhattan Project to the Marines who captured Tinian island...all played a part....the Enola Gay and Bock's Car were only the tip of the iceberg.

Runner-up is Maj. Gen. George G. Meade's contribution at the Battle of Gettysburg...
how often is Meade regarded as a top General from the U.S. Civil War?

Not often enough, Gen. Lee's attempt to invade the North was thwarted as Pickett's Charge proved the Confederacy to be a lost cause....Gen. Meade held the line. In my estimation, America's most underrated General, General Geroge Gordon Meade.

 

Meade showed up late after the first day of battle at Gettysburg. The best thing that can be said for him is that he didn't get in the way on the second and third days of battle. The worst thing that can be said about Meade is that he didn't pursue Lee after Gettysburg.

Lee gave battle at Gettysburg more by accident and blind faith than anything else. The steadfastness of the dismounted Union cavalry on the first day coupled with the Confederate failure to seize the heights guarnateed the Rebel defeats of the second and third days.

 

Some kind of Stockholm syndrome?

So why asking him to invade it? Just to have an excuse to kill half a million and test your fancy new toy? It is strange. In what way they "stopped" Stalin, if Manchuria invasion started 9-th August, after Nagasaki?

How big it was? Was it worth it? Was Nagasaki a military garrison too?

Nope. But I don't remember Japanese raping Americans you know. So I can't find sort of "moral right" to kill half a million, most of which killed and raped nobody during their life.

Nice to see we have the same opinion about each other.

There are interpretations of the facts. Historians tend to give different estimates of the same events, depending on the political situation, in order to generate the desired view. In your case it is
a)drawing Soviet history as all-black in order to form "we are fighting evil" during Cold War.
b)drawing American history all-white in order to form "we are the good guys".

Your assumption is wrong.

Different estimations. Starting with 500 000 and up to 7 millions. There is vary clear demographic loophole in 1930-1940.
1900 76,212,168 21.0%
1910 92,228,496 21.0%
1920 106,021,537 15.0%
1930 123,202,624 16.2%
1940 132,164,569 7.3%
1950 151,325,798 14.5%
1960 179,323,175 18.5%

Unreasonable manipulations in the stock market. It was deliberate, unlike it was in USSR were the main reason ,but not the only, was drought.

There is no need to have 160 IQ to open Wikipedia for one and "discover" that actual death tool for 20 years was about million. And, of course vast majority of "innocent prisoners of bloody GULAGs" were usual criminals. Heck, you have your own GULAG now, called Guantanamo, where your government and secret cervices can torture and kill as long and as many as they want for the sake of SECURITY. But still pretending on having "higher moral ground".

Are you going to pay me for searching?

You need to be more serious. Why would I waste my time on reading "holocaust or the Soviet gulags" and "The living conditions for the Japanese in these camps were quite comfortable" total BS? Even your beloved Reagan apologised for it. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership". Still pretending it was "good" just as (i'll try it too) NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You keep accusing the U.S. of making up history books. Were you taught history under the Soviet Union? Most of these numbers are corraborated by European and even Russian historians. They're also backed up by official Soviet documents released after the collapse.

Same with me.

No. Repeating "sweet,sweet,sweet,sweet,sweet,sweet,sweet,sweet" won't make it tastier to eat (*)(*)(*)(*), I assume.

...That is why americans are so bad in history?

Denying history and denying the past atrocities of your country...makes you American.

Thank for the conversation.

 

Tactically, a defeat (the colonists lost the hill). In the short term, more or less a draw (the hill wasn't all that important, the British suffered many more casualties,. and as noted, they didn't advance from Boston). Strategically, a victory, because for the first time, the militiamen stood up the the Redcoats on more or less even terms.

 

A Soviet invasion of Hokkaido was a real possibility.

It was also the site of Japan's largest torpedo factory.

There was also the very real possibility that trying to end the war might have gotten Hirohito assassinated!

Fortunately. An invasion would have been a bloodbath the likes of which have never been seen and can barely be imagined.

 

The lack of General J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry was the critical thing. With his cavalry, Lee could very well have won the battle.

 

I agree. The thing that strikes me is that Lee knew he was blind because Stuart was out of contact, but Lee decided to give battle at Gettysburg anyway. I think this was probably because of Lee's supreme confidence in the victorious men of the Army of Northern Virginia. This confidence is sometimes called hubris.

 

Lee could have won Gettysburg easily without Stuart; his indecisiveness in committing to battle at Gettysburg the first day, and instead feeding units in piecemeal lost it for the most part. It is considered an 'accidental' battle mainly because neither side was sure if the other was going to commit it's army or not til late in the skirmishing. Imo Lee should have just screened his march north and continued with his original plans. The lack of Stuart's cavalry was only 'critical' in the context of earlier indecisiveness and confusion. An earlier committment in strength would have denied the Union forces some critical terrain and maneuver room, especially on Lee's left flank.