I was thinking of them as civilian casualties/collateral damage, though I have no doubt that no small number of Japanese imperial forces were present at the time, as well as the industrial personnel which were turning out war materiel there (one of the justifications for that city being the target). However, I don’t know that those can be easily quantified.
Of course, if civilian casualties are counted as “combatants”, then Hiroshima is clearly not a reasonable answer to this thread.
I’ve pondered that one before, but ultimately I don’t think things would have ended up any differently. Ironically, the situation at the time was that Mexico didn’t have enough people to move up north and settle those territories. The numbers involved in that war demonstrate this. Santa Anna’s army consisted of only a few thousand soldiers. By the time San Jacinto came around, he had just over 1,000 soldiers. Santa Anna had invited Americans to settle the land due to that lack of numbers, but those Americans decided they didn’t like the rules Mexico wanted them to play under, especially the lack of slavery. Had Santa Anna won that battle, more Americans would have kept coming, up to and eventually including the US Army. Mexico wouldn’t have had a chance either way.
True. A lot of the examples here are ones where they were just the particular point where the first battle or final battle was fought, but the forces causing the conflict were going to cause a war somewhere at about that time frame. Like the Civil War- if it wasn’t Fort Sumter, it would have certainly been somewhere else within the next year or so, anyway.
I’m not really sure if they should or not. It is an interesting question. I’m just thinking a fight/battle takes two side so we have The Crew of the Enola Gay vs ???. Who is the “???”? The target was the civilian population, but they certainly were not fighting back so it seems odd to count them as combatants (and they certainly are not from a Law of Armed Conflict point of view). I guess you would count the military forces stationed in the city, although they were not really fighting back either? Regardless, I like the answer. 
From a technical point of view Hiroshima was a terror attack, so that might leave the door open for 9/11 qualifying.
That’s a good point. I wonder if maybe a more interesting question would be to add an additional rule (yarr, guideline matey) since I think what is interesting are small battles that were decisive/impactful in an ongoing conflict. That isn’t to say the answers so far have not been good or interesting, as they are, but maybe this might find more oddities of scale to impact in larger conflicts, which is somewhat more what I envisioned.
Nitpick – it was the pre-Santa Anna Spanish and Mexican governments that invited some Americans to settle in Texas. By the time Santa Anna came to power, the Mexican government had already reversed its policy and banned further immigration to Texas from the United States. But large numbers of Americans continued to immigrate illegally to the territory.
Only about 20,000 troops fought in the July 1864 Battle of Monocacy - very small by Civil War standards. Had U.S. forces not delayed the Confederate army long enough to buy time for the defenses of Washington, D.C. to be reinforced, the capital would likely have been taken and occupied by rebel forces, however briefly. That would have been a terrible political blow to President Lincoln, who was already expecting to be defeated at the polls that November. President George McClellan would then almost certainly have agreed to an end to the war and Confederate independence.
I agree. I don’t see the bombing of Hiroshima as a battle, even if it was a military act. I feel the same about the Vemork and Osirak attacks.
On a separate note, I’ll be the devil’s advocate and argue that the bombing of Hiroshima wasn’t all that influential. What exactly resulted from it?
It didn’t lead to a significant change in the way wars are fought. Atomic bombs haven’t been used in combat since 1945.
It didn’t end World War II. Japan didn’t surrender after the Hiroshima bombing. They surrendered after the Nagasaki bombing and the Soviet declaration of war.
That’s right. Varus had three legions accompanied by some additional troops, the number of Roman combatants is estimated at 15,000-20,000. We don’t know the number of Germanic warriors , but the Roman legions were reported to have been almost totally wiped out, and it takes a lot of men to slaughter 15,000.
During the battle of Gettysburg there was a group of Confederate cavalry that was going to attack the United States army from the rear (at the same time that the main body of the Confederates were attacking the front). Causing confusion, panic, collapse of the front, and a different outcome to the battle. However a small body of troops let by George Armstrong Custer managed to stop them and to keep them away from the main battle.
Seeing as the battle of Gettysburg was the “win” that Lincoln wanted before announcing the Emancipation Proclamation — the influence was enormous.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation the year before, after the good-enough win at Antietam.
Not to dismiss the heroics of the Norwegian forces involved with that operation but the German nuclear program wasn’t going to go anywhere with or without that heavy water plant. The Germans had suffered a major brain drain to the west and also didn’t have resources for a Manhatten project. Hitler had pretty well abandoned the idea of a nuclear bomb. Of course the Allies couldn’t be sure of that so it was worth the risk to try taking it out.
Definitely. And from just three years ago: Norwegian hero Roenneberg who blew up Nazi plant dies at 99 | AP News.
That’s an interesting one. I had never heard of this at all, so it was off to wikipedia. Amazing! Thanks for posting this.
Knowing just how destructive an atomic bomb can be shaped the military policies of the world super-powers for at least fifty years, and continue to be used as deterrents for military action among lesser powers as well (e.g., India and Pakistan).
Japan surrendered after the second bombing, but you can’t have a second bombing unless you have a first bombing. It wasn’t Nagasaki was in and of itself such an asset that its destruction in particular is what did the trick. As for the Soviets, the Emperor’s formal surrender statement pretty much belies that idea. To him, it was the demonstration(s) of the new weapon that could obliterate a city in an instant that made continued resistance impossible.
Yeah, the wars not fought because of a battle/weapon/etc… are just as important as the wars that were fought. I have little doubt that without the specter of mutually assured nuclear destruction hanging over the world, the US and USSR would have come to blows in conventional warfare at some point long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
I think there needs to be a distinction made between an attack, which is mostly a one-sided affair, as opposed to a battle, which needs at least two sides.
There’s also the categories of “attacks which became battles”, as in a first group ambushes a second group with the intent to wipe out the second group, but the second group rallies and gives back at least some of what was dished out.
Hiroshima and Osirak were definitely attacks. The “defenders” never really responded. Pearl Harbor started out as an attack, but became a battle when at least some US forces fought back.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.