Their naval plans specifically aimed for effectively a second Battle of Tsushima. Basically, harass the American strike force from afar to whittle them down as they steam towards the Home Islands in a decisive, epic showdown, and once the Americans lose that engagement and see their entire fleet sunk, they give up and go home. (The Kantai Kessen plan).

The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decisive battle, no matter if they were winning or losing the various engagements, but they never got the big battle they wanted. Eventually, they did try to force it at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, although that attempt did not turn out well for them.

I sometimes get the impression that the last time "decisive" battles worked was during the Napoleonic Wars. And even then the Russian campaign played as much a role as did Waterloo. After that everybody trying to force decisive battles got wars of attrition wich were ultimately lost.

The person you're replying to literally gave you an example of a decisive battle, the Battle of Tsushima.

And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean.

The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion.

The battles of Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in WWI were decisive and stopped Russia for up to years, and they never recovered in the north, their only successes coming against the Austria-Hungarians.

In WWII, the Bagration and Manchurian strategic operations were pretty decisive on land. Midway was on water. The invasions of the low countries and France, Denmark and Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, (present day) Malaysia and Indonesia were decisive and swift as well ( even if they indeed resulted in a war of attrition ultimately lost to allies of the decisively defeated countries in question).

Except Sedan, none of these battles were as decisive, or at least not in tye same sense, as the battles won and lost by Napoleon. The Pacific war just really started after Midway, After Bangration the Nazis didn't surrender. The Low Lands and Denmark fell early in the war. And as you said, despite being turning points, these battles were part of modern industrial wars. They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table. Aiming for that, as part of a strategy, against a peer adversary stopped working in the mid 19th century. One could even argue that the British defeated Napoleon by forcing him into a decisive battle, Waterloo, they could afford to loose but he couldn't. It does work so against adversaries that cannot hope to win, or afford to loose. E.g. Denmark. If Denmark would have been the only country to be conquered that is.

> They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table

But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.

But neither battle was decisive for the second world war. And deciding a war is what decisive battles are about.

France fought on, the Free French forces were active on each front. Including the Eastern Front. Norway formed a government in exile, and continued the fight. Including the sabotage of the Nazis heavy water production. So no, these countries didn't surrender, as defeated countries did in the Napoleonic Wars.

the Japanese leaders who were US-educated (including Konoe and Yamamoto) absolutely knew that attacking the US would steel the Americans' resolve against Japan:

> In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.