Midway
Sixty-one years ago, World War II was raging and the pivotal battle in the Pacific began, namely the Battle of Midway. I like to remember this battle because it is arguably the point around which the entire war, in the Pacific and in Europe, turned. US defeat here would have meant a dramatically different war against the Japanese. Oh, we probably still would have won, but when? How much longer would it have taken? If the Japanese plan had succeeded, and their forces had come out more or less intact, how would that have effected battles that were yet to come? And if we had to devote more resources to the Pacific, how would that have effected our European campaign? I submit the obvious, that things would have been very, very different, up to and including a less-than happy outcome to the entire war.
Midway also illustrates the entire notion of the "fog of war." The US won by a combination of skill, courage, determination, pluck, and sheer luck. In turn, the Japanese lost for almost the exact same reasons, only in their case the luck was almost all bad. Before Midway, the Japanese roamed and ruled the Pacific. After Midway, they were on the losing end of things. Yamamoto had tried to guarantee his country twelve months of victory following Pearl Harbor; he could only deliver six.
After Midway, the US could starve Japan because bit by bit, we controlled the Pacific. Cut off from external supplies, Japan's war machine began to starve. After Midway, the outcome of WW2 was a foregone conclusion. Oh, there were still times here and there where it could have been different, but the key, the focal point, was Midway. I've yet to identify a similar event in Europe; the closest -- and perhaps the one, only I don't know it yet -- was when Russia stopped the German advance. Right there, at that moment, the outcome for the War of Europe was a foregone conclusion, because from then on Germany was on the retreat. Some silly mistakes by the Allies here and there almost allowed a surrender that would have left Germany intact, but that was not meant to be.
And if you are really into this stuff, consider: I have read the the Battle of Hampton Roads (USS Monitor vs. CSS Virginia [the Merrimac]) was actually the key battle of of the US Civil War. Most historians focus on Gettysburg, but the argument is that at Hampton Roads, the Confederates almost succeeded in breaking the Union blockade. If they had done so, they would have had a guaranteed supply route to their European benefactors, namely the British. It would not have lasted, as the North could outproduce the South, would have built more warships, and eventually sealed the Confederates back up. In the meanwhile, though, there would have been a growing chance that the British would enter the war on the Confederate side. It goes without saying that if that had happened, the United States would be a very different place today.
Gettysburg was where General Lee's winning streak ended, but that end became inevitable at Hampton Roads. Think about it.
Comments