News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor by hef19898 on Tuesday June 01, 2021 @03:12PM (#27359793)
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.
Re:We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor by sofixa on Tuesday June 01, 2021 @03:35PM (#27360101)
> 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.

Re:We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor by hef19898 on Thursday June 03, 2021 @01:22PM (#27384479)
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.