Wars and Conflicts permalink
What else happened on Aug 1st?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 1st August 2005
Partly inspired by ArualB’s outrage at the poor old Â鶹ԼÅÄ’s handling of heady topics such as two world wars, I thought I’d add my 2p’s worth of criticism on a more particular issue. Every week the Â鶹ԼÅÄ team highlight the ‘most momentous’ events that occurred in history in that particular week, and for today, Aug 1st, they draw the attention of ‘all’ history lovers to Nelson’s victory in the Battle of the Nile. Well yes, over 200 yrs ago that was a pretty decisive British victory, a dozen or so French ships were captured or destroyed – well done chaps! But then again in the general scheme of things was it really all that important? I mean even in the Napoleonic era this was long before Trafalgar and Waterloo, let alone before Napoleon’s rather more momentous victory at Austerlitz or his capture of Moscow.
And yes, I must confess for personal reasons, I can think of an even more momentous incident that officially started around 1700 hrs on Aug 1st. In military terms of course, the 1944 Warsaw Rising can be considered a colossal failure: in the 63 days that Polish resistance fighters (usually teenage boy scouts and girl guides armed with no more than Molotov cocktails and more or less betrayed by all their ‘allies’) held out against SS armoured units and Stuka dive bombers some 200,000 of the cities inhabitants were killed. That’s approximately a 9/11 every day for 63 days in a row. Next, on Hitler’s express orders, the rest of the population were deported (many to concentration camps) and the Polish Capital was razed to the ground. When Warsaw was finally ‘liberated’ by the Red Army in Jan 1945, all they encountered was a deserted pile of rubble (more or less what Stalin wished to encounter).
But on the other hand, on Oct 2nd this motley bunch of insurgents, previously referred to as ‘bandits’ did now receive POW status (previously they’d have been simply shot) and were even saluted by some of the enemy as they marched out in formation and surrendered their weapons. Well, they had held out against all odds for 63 days and this was the largest partisan uprising ever. In moral terms it was a great victory against tyrants, because it showed that a considerable minority could never be bullied and suppressed to submission and would prefer to die fighting rather than cowering. The enemy had lost valuable men and materiel too. The effect this had is incalculable, but after the war Stalin did treat Poland somewhat more circumspectly than the rest and perhaps it’s no coincidence that later in August there’ll be another important Polish anniversary (this one a 25th anniversary).
So why did the Â鶹ԼÅÄ ignore this event? Was the Battle of the Nile more important, or was the Warsaw Rising, from the British and American perspective, a bit more shameful? -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 1st August 2005
Jozef, hi,
Thank you for drawing this date to my attention. The Â鶹ԼÅÄ for some reason is a little centred on Britain and so as one of the people who pays for the service I can only apologise.
In a previous discussion I think I explained my own personal view so I'm not going there again, unless specifically asked.
So to sign off, take good care,
AA. -
Message 3
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 1st August 2005
In a previous discussion I think I explained my own personal view so I'm not going there againÂ
I know Arnald, I apprecated it and this post was most definitely not targeted at you, so have one
on me 
-
Message 4
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2005
What could the Western Allies have done to help the Warsaw uprising? Given the distance and proximity to Soviet forces (and therefore friendly fire opportunities) I do not see what the West could have done.
Throughout a thousand years of history (more but the days start getting fuzzy), I'm sure a lot happened on various 1 Augusts but for a British website, I don't see anything particularily wrong with celebrating a great British victory, especially given the Trafalgar anniversary.
In terms of importance, it limited French capability globally, enabling the British Empire to take more French colonies. As long as the RN kept defeating the French Navy, they could not land a force in Ireland or launch a direct invasion. -
Message 5
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Tuesday, 2nd August 2005
Mahros,
First of all, thanks for giving the website address, and apologies to the Â鶹ԼÅÄ â€“ I take it all back.
Second, there’s absolutely nothing wrong about the British Broadcasting Corporation ‘celebrating a great British victory’, which indeed it was. It’s not the Polish Broadcasting Corporation, so it’d even be ok if they marked Aug 1st as the anniversary of the birth or death of one of Princess Diana’s hamsters. I was only taking the proverbial p out of ArualB’s ‘outrage’.
And that would be it if not…
Three, you had tried to justify the importance of the Battle of the Nile by saying: As long as the RN kept defeating the French Navy, they could not land a force in Ireland or launch a direct invasion. “Hitler had far greater landing facilities, but I don’t think he ever gave it that much serious consideration because why should he? He was mad, but not that mad. The British notion that their Island was in imminent danger of invasion any time after 1066 never ceases to bemuse people from continental countries that have been overrun time and again. Yes, a dozen or so wooden vessels as well as some five thousand Frenchmen neutralised somewhere near Egypt and England was saved!
Four, you ask: What could the Western Allies have done to help the Warsaw uprising?  Well, for one, they could have insisted that their ally Stalin, whose Red Army was just on the other side of the Vistula, granted permission for RAF and USAAF long distance aircraft to land on Soviet held territory in order to refuel and thus make drops of badly needed materiel over Warsaw – which could have made all the difference. Churchill certainly saw it that way, but FDR (more concerned with an election two months away) refused to do anything, and so Churchill did nothing because he no longer counted in this power game. In short, one little American’s political ambitions cost the lives of many thousands of loyal and freedom loving allies and it is good to try and understand why because such situations have reoccurred in history more than once.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 6
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
I still think defeating the French Navy during the Napoleonic Wars was important. I know Britain getting invaded at various times would not have meant disaster for the world as a whole (other than in 1940) and also, that we are flexible about invasions - we discount Scottish invasions and the Glorious Revolution, when we invited the Dutch to take over.
However, my reasoning is that Britain was financing much of the fighting against Napoleon and to do so it needed to maintain control of the seas. If the situation had been reversed, with French naval victories, I'm sure Napoleon would have invaded this nation of shopkeepers. Perhaps C19 French domination would have been no worse than British domination for the world but its not something Britain would want.
As far as a German 1940 invasion, Hitler was never keen on it, for racial reasons as much as anything. But I doubt he would have tried to destroy the RAF, built invasion barges and planned Operation Sealion if he was not prepared to invade.
I don't see how the West could make Stalin do anything, although I agree Rooselvelt and his administration failed to understand the aggressive nature of Stalinism. Rooselvelt was single-minded in his determination to defeat the Axis and would not jeopardise the alliance. Further, to act and in a timely manner, the West needed to know that Stalin would do nothing.
Personally, I find Munich 1938 far more shameful for Britain. -
Message 7
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Jozef.
Just on a lighter note and in reply to your <<<<<<<
What else happened on Aug 1st?>>>>>> i would like to add that;
" I was born which is now many moons ago".
and 
-
Message 8
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Hi Mahros,
Yes, there are invasions and there are invasions. As you say, the Glorious Revolution was invasion by invitation and as the name implies, hardly brutal – the invasions I have in mind were far from glorious. Bonny Prince Charlie’s incursion into England was scarcely an attempt to impose a completely alien system, alien language, alien culture by a completely alien imperialist power. It was after the Act of Union and could be termed at most as northern Britain trying to invade southern Britain. Be honest, unlike the Scots, the Irish or the Welsh, the English have since the time of the Norman Conquest never been second-class citizens in their own land.
As for Operation Sealion, after the war, British Military Academy wargames did show that a German landing was feasible, but with the RN’s 10 to 1 superiority over the Kriegsmarine any German land force would have soon been cut off from supply lines and forced to surrender. Seeing that the operation just took a month to mount, the air attacks must surely be seen as an attempt to break Britain’s will to fight rather than a genuine intention to invade the island. And here there was indeed a very real danger. Following all of Hitler’s previous successes, if the RAF then lost Battle of Britain, Churchill could well have been replaced by Lord Halifax as PM, who would no doubt have sued for peace. Churchill’s stirring speeches of that time were definitely heartfelt in more senses than one. But how that scenario would have affected the final outcome of the world war, is far from certain. IMHO Hitler’s ultimate defeat was inevitable anyway. The shock of Britain’s surrender would surely have woken up America and whilst Stalin was then on the surface more than willing to supply his German ally with vital resources, he was with characteristic duplicity already quietly preparing for a massive Soviet offensive on his mortal fascist enemy (one which would have been much more stretched if it was also to occupy Britain) when the time was right. Hitler simply pre-empted him. Operation Sealion was supposed to involve some 160,000 troops; Operation Barbarossa involved 3m troops – now that’s what I call a serious invasion plan!
Personally, I find Munich 1938 far more shameful for Britain.Â
But was Munich 1938 just one exceptionally shameful incident never to be repeated or a symptom of the West’s cowardly and selfish general attitude towards less fortunate nations? History clearly shows that both Hitler and Stalin thought the latter; it also shows that they weren’t wrong. When it’s in anyway inconvenient, such countries abandon their lofty ideals and follow what is usually called ‘Realpolitik’, although in fact it’s just the same as the appeasement of 1938. Tehran 1943 was appeasement as was Roosevelt’s refusal to demand from his ally Stalin (whom he was then supplying with vast amounts of aid) to allow RAF and USAAF planes to land on Soviet occupied territory. FDR was above all single-minded in his determination to win a record fourth term in office, and any signs of strain in the grand alliance with Russia could have jeopardised, for him, that most important of goals. Talking tough with Stalin at that stage could only have in fact hastened Soviet defeat of Germany.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 9
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Hi Dirk,
A belated HAPPY BIRTHDAY! and also have a couple of (I'm bit of a prol in that respect ). August is a wonderful month in many respects. One of my sisters has her birthday on Aug 15th, which also coincides with annother v. important Polish anniversary - do know which one it is?
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
Jozef,
it is sad many times, but democracies are always for appeasement. It is therefore that apart from the neo-conservative drivel I am won for a though management from the US against regimes, which want to be anti-democratic. I agree some backed by the US are also anti-democratic, but they are for the moment still yet no threat for the world democracy. In my humble opinion.
And yes I said it already on these boards. Would-be historians always underestimate IMO the impact from the homemarket of the voters on decision making.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 4th August 2005
And Dirk,
Newcastle and the Hadrian Wall. Here we come...
Dirk, will make an apart message of it.
And happy birthday my Dutch born friend.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Friday, 5th August 2005
Paul,
I think the vast majority of ordinary people in any country simply abhor the notion of war. This is something ambitious politicians in democracies find just too tempting not to exploit. This is of course wrong because whilst general foreign policy objectives should be clearly explained and acceptable to all citizens, the strategy and tactics of arriving at these goals should be based on very good and top secret intelligence – i.e. not even the citizens can know. Western-style appeasement occurs when governments decide to fool their own people rather than the enemy.
Of course there are other cases, the last Iraq war immediately comes to mind, when governments deliberately lead their people astray to start wars and not honestly explain the motives. In the Iraq war I think there was an attempt to kill many birds with one stone, not least for the influential US military to justify the existence of its vastly expensive arsenal. Still the plan was clearly not properly thought through and the biggest sin was the lack of good intelligence.
Perhaps only historians can assess whether particular foreign policy decisions were justified or not. As I said, the vast majority of people hate wars. The problem is that a hysterical public fails to distinguish the wisdom of courage and holding onto your basic principles in order to avoid needless suffering from recklessness that might lead to wars. Being tough does not mean starting wars. The Cold War ended peaceful, yet I clearly remember all the stick Thatcher and Reagan got in the 1980s.
Moreover, pre-emptive offensives can sometimes be justified. The 1919-1921 Polish-Bolshevik war is an excellent example of that. Pilsudski has frequently been criticised (even by his political associates) for attacking the Bolsheviks at a time when they were officially offering a police proposal. What has only recently been revealed is the fact that as C-in-C of the newly founded Polish Army Pilsudski had access to some excellent intelligence material: intercepted and deciphered Bolshevik radio messages. Bolsheviks were heavily reliant on wireless communication as Russian telegraph cable networks were devastated during WWI and Polish sabotage groups made sure they stayed down. From these messages it transpired that as the peace proposal was being made the Bolsheviks were in fact amassing vast numbers of troops on the Polish border. The plan was to dash across Poland and spread the Bolshevik Revolution to Germany. The plan was thwarted thanks largely to excellent intelligence, yet to the outsider (and with the exception of a tiny group of military intelligence officers, everyone else was an outsider) it seemed like another foolhardy Polish uhlan escapade.
Kind regards,
Jozef
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.