I’ve often thought of moments where wars were decided down to the exact moment.

The one I often think of is the American Civil War. Gettysburg July 1st 1863. Had the confederates taken the hills that day, or just not engage the 2nd. How does history play out from that day on. Lee is now aware of the position of the union army. Could the campaign have been won?

Many think world history would have been different had it not been for the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae etc.

Thoughts? Opinions?

The battle of Zama (202 BC), in N. Africa. The Roman army defeated Hannibal's Carthaginian army, essentially destroying Carthage as a major military world power.

Gallipoli, when the British stopped their initial attack (for tea?) allowing the Turks to reinforce their positions.

British General at Singapore surrendered a superior force to the Japs.  Could have halted their advance South, and diverted their Eastern advance by relocating troops to take the island.

Let's not forget the plan to plug up the Bosporus with scuttled British ships, abandoned because those in command served on those ships 20 years ago and would not let them be sunk.

Yorktown, 1781.

US in Afghanistan, could have left in 2002-3 after fall of the Taliban and AQ removed/killed from Afghanistan. Essentially capping it off as a 'punitive expedition' rather than nation building.  

Iraq- May 23 2003 - Paul Bremmer disbands the entire Iraqi Army, placing hundreds of thousands of trained armed men out of work and in opposition to the new regime...big ooof that proved to be. Keeping the Iraqi Army fully employed - and giving them all a nice raise - would have totally changed the security situation in Iraq.

WW2- June 25 1940. Germany just conquered France...and declares victory, and that the war is over. Does not invade Russia, and seeks a cease fire / peace with Britain, with offer of favorable trade terms of and some of Frances overseas colonies to Britain to sweeten the deal. Germany spends the next several years that would have been wasted in Russia/UK instead turning Europe into an impregnable fortress and economic power, while pursuing skilled deplomacy vis a vis UK and especially US. Germany then offers to attack Japan for the US after Pearl Harbor...

Midway. Look at all the things that had to go wrong for the Dauntlesses to arrive over the Japanese carriers with a free shot. The best known is the 35 of 41 Devastator and Avenger torpedo bombers lost, including all of Hornet's Torpedo 8 save rear seater Ensign George Gay (a American Indian, BTW). Without their sacrifice, arriving first and with no escort, the Japanese Zeros would have intercepted the much deadlier Dauntlesses instead. But there was a lot more than that that went "wrong" or right that led to the American victory that was the beginning of the end in the Pacific.

Those Devastatiors essentially did a suicide charge that day

I contend that Midway is perhaps the most miraculous and improbable battle outcome in history.

28 June, 1914.
Franz Ferdinand's driver gets advised of the itinerary change after the first assassination attempt and doesn't drive straight to Gavrilo Princip and his FN 1910.

Gay was a pilot, not a gunner/radioman.
A lot went wrong, but the Americans had their shots in the attack and screwed up….. TB 8 was the only squadron from that CAG to attack the Japanese.
Hornets SBDs and Wildcats never located the enemy, and eventually lost most of the F4Fs to fuel stavation.
A real shit show.

As far as important events, I believe Guadacanal was the true turning point in the Pacific war.

That’s a good one.

For Australia it was stopping the Japanese at the Owen-Stanley Range in New Guinea.  It was one of the first Allied victories over the seemingly invincible Japanese offensive.  Had Port Moresby in New Guinea had fallen, then Northern Australia would have been vulnerable to invasion.

Guadacanal in the Solomon Islands was important in that it was necessary for the Allies as a line of communication between Australia and America.  Japanese aircraft operating from Henderson Field on Guadacanal could threaten that link.

In the Mediterraneaan, the failure of the Germans to capture Malta meant the supply to DAK was always tenuous.  Just like the failure of the Battle of Brtain to control the air over the English Channel mean that the German Army could not cross the Channel.  The RN would have sacrificed itself to destroy the German invasion fleet.

Operation Zitadel (Kursk) should never have been launched because of all the delays that allowed the Red Army to prepare  defense in depth.   Instead the German Army lost the initiative in the East and was always on the defensive afterward.

Too bad Hitler was accepted into the Vienna Art School.  He could have channeled his creative talents to enriching humanity with art instead of causing millions to die and Germany to be destroyed.  Too bad one of the numerous assassination attempts didn't succeed either.

Midway was the decisive battle in the Pacific.  The Japanese Navy never recovered from the loss of valuable airmen and aircrew.

Hitler should never have launched Die Wacht am Rhein and Boddenplatte (Ardennes Offensive).  He should have fought defensively on both fronts.

Hitler should never have launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded Russia.  He should have remained on the defensive and attacked only after being attacked.  Suck the commies in, destroy them and then Drang Nach Osten.

Italy should have remained neutral.  Regia Marina (Italian Royal Navy) didn't think it would have been ready for war until 1944-5.  Oil supply in 1939 was only good for nine months.  A neutral Italy meant that the Allies would have to stage Operation Dragoon (invasion of Southern France) would have been from N. Africa. Plenty of espionage and aerial reconnaisance (and help from Italian neutrals) could have alerted the Germans to it and its surprise would have been a lot more difficult.

Thankfully Hitler was a control freak and not the military genius he believed himself to be.  

Regarding the American Civil War, Longstreet's Corp should have been entrained to the support a Confederate offensive to relieve Pemberton at Vicksburg.  Even if Lee won at Gettysburg, then what.  He didn't have siege artillery to besiege Washington.  He could have burned Baltimore, but then he'd have to march home with his flank threatened by the Army of the Potomac.  Sending a corps to Johnston could threaten Grant's rear and force Grant away from Vicksburg.  Knowing Grant, he would have turned around to defeat Johnston before returning to Vicksburg.  Pemberton wouldn't have been able to stage another offensive like he did at before being bottled up in Vicksburg.

In the American Revolution, Clinton ordered Cornwaliis to go to Yorktown.  Cornwallis would preferrred to have either returned south or more likely, march north to New York where he and Clinton could have caught the Continental Army in a pincher movement.  When Cornwallis was ordered to go to Yorktown, he knew he would have been trapped there (especially with the French fleet defeating the RN or keeping the RN from evacuating Cornwallis' army).

The most remarkable campaign of the American Revolution was Greene's Campaign in the South to liberate the Carolinas.  Greene lost every battle (even those he should have won) but in the end defeated the British in the South.  There were several small battles in the South where the riflemen played a key role.  1776 British attempt to capture Charles Town (SC, now Charleston), was defeated b/c of the palmetto log fort (Fort Moultrie).  While the RN couldn't smash the fort, a landing force behind it that could have stormed the fort was stopped dead in its track by riflemen.  Tory resistance at Moore's Creek Bridge collapsed after the tory leader was shot.  Several British forts fell because the colonies built lincoln log siege towers (Maham/Mayham Towers which were prefabricated elsewhere and erected overnight) that loomed over the British forts.  Seeing how the rifleman could shoot down the defenders, the British surrendered several forts.  The only place it didn't work was at Fort Ninety-Six; but even though the Americans retreated under threat of a relief column, the British evacuated afterward.

Battle of Quebec.  Montcalm should not have led his forces out to fight Wolfe.  Montcalm was killed (as was Wolfe) but Wolfe would have to engage in a lengthy siege to capture the city.  It would become a matter of whose navy got there first.  Remember that after Quebec was captured, the French counter-attacked with forces organized in Montreal.  They were stalemated and it depended on whose navy got there first.  The RN did.  The year of miracles might not have been.  BTW, if the Indians rallied after Bushy Run, they may have been able to destroy Bouquet.  Even Bouquet had his doubts and ordered that should they be attacked again, that each man best make his way to Fort Pitt.  But they lost their heart Bouquet reached Fort Pitt.

A lot of this flintlock stuff is told in chapter 1 & 2 of my first book (some of you guys have it so read those first two chapters and do a book report for Arfcom ).

@Riter link to book?

@M1Zeppelin - You can get it from the Log Cabin Shop in Lodi, Ohio or directly from me.

The Japanese cut off the fresh water supply to Singapore.  They either had to counter attack or get real thirsty.  There was no way the British could have kept Singapore supplied in the face of the Japanese Navy.

The Jap Navy was not an issue.  Multiple gun batteries made sure of that, hence the land invasion across the Straights of Mullacca.  If the Japs thought they could have starved out S'pore, they would have done that instead of a bicycle invasion commiting tens of thousands of Soldiers against a superior defensive force.   They took a gamble, and it paid off.

S'pore had it's own fresh water supply.

Alexander the Great killed in Battle of Gaugamela

Mediterranean pirates murder Caesar after they kidnap him.  

Charles "The Hammer" Martel charges Muslim lines instead of other way around.  

Wehrmacht doesn't pause at Dunkirk nor Luftwaffe switch to terror bombing but keeps up pressure on the RAF.

Russians challenge blockade around Cuba, things go hot.

Trump wins re-election, Putin doesn't invade Ukraine, Biden goes to jail for grifting his "10% for the Big Guy."

Attached File

There are a few waaay out there stories, but most are a simple change or two.  I forget if it's the first Alt General book or second, but there's a story called "Billy Mitchell's Overt Act" wherein Billy Mitchell doesn't die in a plane crash and instead keeps talking about air power like he had, then gets exiled from regular army air forces to Hawaii...where he's convinced the Japanese will attack, and flies his B17 unit on recon patrols for months until December 7th, when they find the Japanese attack fleet and preemptively strike it.  He dies heroically kamikazeing a Japanese carrier, and the story is written from decades later, where the consequences of the US not taking Japan as seriously because their surprise attack never manifested led to US isolationism and ascension of the Soviets to the greatest world power because they won WW2 without our intervention, leading to global Moscow-centric realignment.  Really good story.

Some just a handful of moments extrapolated.

I think a major one for the US would've been if Captain Silas Soule and the other opposing officers present had straight up stopped Chivington and stopped the Sand Creek Massacre, which would've changed the frontier by heading off years of plains indian wars.

That's the surprising thing about Midway, it's sold the plucky US outfoxing the Japs.  When in reality the US effort was an uncoordinated mess.  Incompetency reigned and a lot of people died needlessly.  The efforts of about a half dozen airmen saved the day.
Guadalcanal was where the Jap aircrew attrition occurred.  Contrary to popular belief the Jap aircrew losses at Midway were not significant.
Shattered Sword and Neptune's Inferno are the go to references.

General Longstreet was the south’s secret weapon.  If lee listened to Longstreet the south would have positioned themselves between DC and the Potomac army, dug in, and won/forced terms.  Lee began to lose his grasp

Thermopylae was big

Burning the library of Alexandria set the world back centuries

Who knows the damage Mohammad caused to earth, we don’t know what he destroyed historically speaking.

Barbarossa.  Imagine if Germany and Japan tag teamed Russia intelligently and didn’t declare against the USA

Waterloo

This sort of question is tougher than it sounds because structural factors often determine the outcome of conflicts, and changing some detail of the conflict will often only change the details of how the conflict is resolved, but not the resolution. Though you can easily take this train of thought too far.

Example: Gettysburg. Sure, the south could have not made mistakes and won this battle. But the south was massively overmatched in terms of industrial output, population, etc. They were never going to win a one-on-one fight. The north made a ton of mistakes in the beginning of the war (Lincoln was right to keep firing generals) and the south was running things near perfectly, and the moment the south makes a mistake it's basically over for them. They couldn't win.

But that said, we can caveat this in a lot of interesting ways.

1) The south didn't need to win a fair fight against the north, they just needed to win. If they could string together enough battlefield victories, they might have been able to get foreign support to help tip the scales. This was exactly the plan the colonies used during the revolutionary war, and it worked - without France's help the colonies probably couldn't have put up enough of a fight to convince the Brits that fighting on wasn't worthwhile. The south was actively courting foreign partners, but they were apparently less convincing. I'm not sure of the details there, perhaps no major power had an interest splitting the US, or perhaps they needed just a little more convincing and another battlefield win or two would have done the trick.

2) The south didn't need to win total victory against the north, they just needed to convince the north that continuing the fight was not worthwhile, just like the colonies vs. Britain in the revolutionary war. This is true, but I'm not sure how important it is. The north seemed pretty committed to the fight. Though perhaps if the south took D.C. the north would have immediately sued for peace.

3) Who won the conflict may have been overdetermined, but the details of how it plays out can still be important! E.g. imagine the inverse, where the north didn't make so many mistakes early on and started the war of attrition against the south much sooner. Perhaps Lincoln no longer feels the need to sign the emancipation proclamation (which was initially a wartime measure) because of those early victories, and slavery lasts even longer in the U.S. Maybe this leads the U.S. into another conflict with Britain - interestingly, slavery was abolished in much of the rest of the world at the points of British guns. Perhaps this is why the south couldn't get them to join the civil war on their side.

This is not to pick on the Gettysburg example, lots of examples are like this. This is also not to say that the Gettysburg example is wrong - I'm not sure, but you have to think about those structural factors to know.

Nah. Napoleon was facing every army in europe, all at once. He thought that if he could defeat 2 of the powers at waterloo that the russians and austrians would back off? Not a chance. Waterloo just shortened his reign a few months.