Talk:Decisive victory

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

just battles but not wars? Could this be generalized from battles to armed conflict in general?Zebulin 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

point of this article

I have been working on improving an article called Turning point of the American Civil War (not a very good article by Wikipedia standards, which I can admit because I was the original author in 2004 or so) and I came across this article because sometimes the term turning point is used as a synonym for decisive victory. But I have to ask: what is the point of this article? It gives three different definitions of the same term and then provides a brief list of battles that meet one or more of those definitions, without identifying which ones are which. For example, the Battle of Gettysburg is not considered decisive in terms of the entire war, but it was decisive in terms of the Gettysburg Campaign and was indisputably a victory for the Union Army. So it meets the second two definitions, but not the first. Given the breadth of the three definitions, in the American Civil War alone, there were at least a dozen decisive victories, so I wonder whether this list actually adds any value. In any event, citations would be needed to justify these subjective judgments. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could Vietnam be considred a "Decisive Victory" for Vietnamease?

Could the Vietnam war be considered a Decisive VICTORYFor Communist Vietnamease?(dated,decidedThur12:04P>M>PST>Dec31,200921stcnt.Dr.Edson Andre'Johnson D.D.ULC.Romapax (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite, "decisive strategic victory of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which directly led to the Japanese surrender", because it conflates the technical and mechanical aspects of dropping an atomic bomb, with a "strategic victory". Simply dropping a bomb may be difficult to accomplish, and therefore a victory in some sort of engineering sense, however, the conflation doesn't fly properly in the context of the stub/article. The article is not about a victory in engineering. Further, another, better example should be chosen instead of the atomic bomb, "which directly led to the Japanese surrender", because this claim is highly disputed, over decades, by many, many historians. First the conflation error, then the disputed claim. Presumably, the objective is to provide a clear description of a "decisive victory". Well, let's try to do that. It is very poor form to include highly disputed remarks in what can be a simple description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.139.8 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

Edit notes for reference.

Litesand : Undid revision 1010271651 by Hohum (talk) This content is legitimate and properly referenced. The source is a military article, in reference to a military term. This is not an attempt to define the term decisive victory over anything, but merely in a military battle setting. The term must be defined as inferior if places against bad tactics or bad strategy, otherwise the entire article is useless.
Hohum : rv. please abide by WP:BRD. Section is for defining the term, the added text doesn't, and neither does the source.

Litesand : Undid revision 1011293052 by Hohum (talk) No, the source is valid. She examines effectiveness of a victory. "The dangers of tactical victories are discussed with reference to their possible affect on the psychology of troops, the commander, and national leaders. The military commander, thoroughly schooled in the principles of operational art, must provide the critical link in the rational evaluation of the ultimate effectiveness of a victory."

Contested text:

Most attempts to define an absolute victory seek to locate an amplified effort between stoicism, strategy, and tactics rather than an apparent advantage of either strategy or tactics during a struggle against any enemy, either working alone or in an alliance. Tactical actions that are successful yet improperly linked or sequenced; not aimed at the enemy's true center of gravity: or ignore culminating points, operational reserves and sustainment, are the most insidious failures of operational art.

The contested text in in a section about the definition of "Decisive victory". The contested text does nothing to help explain the definition by Colin Gray that it has been tacked onto, and isn't a response to Gray. More importantly, the section of the source being used isn't about the definition of Decisive victory. It's irrelevant and/or synthesis and should be removed.

I urge the editor in question to remove the text and abide by WP:BRD instead of edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victory of the japanese over Pearl Harbour

This has been attributed to general lack of preparedness on the US side and the employment of "Jets" on the Japanese side.

I am reasonably certain that the japanese hadn't used jet propelled aircraft as early as 1941. BleachedDog (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]