Jutland: 95 years already!

General naval discussions that don't fit within any specific time period or cover several issues.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue May 31, 2011 11:07 pm

In 5 years it will be an "old" battle with 100 years history.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

frankwl
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:32 am

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by frankwl » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:54 am

People live a short time in comparison to their history so they forget what went before. Jutland guaranteed an Allied victory, a starving Germany and Austria, a revolution that ousted the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War. Heck, we're still living with the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles (the Middle East?) and maybe one in a thousand people have even heard of it. Those steel and iron monsters rampaging around the North Sea had influence far beyond the range of their 12, 13.5 and 15 inch guns.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by RF » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:26 am

frankwl wrote:. Jutland guaranteed an Allied victory, a starving Germany and Austria, a revolution that ousted the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.
I think that is overstating it. Germany could have won in 1918 if the unrestricted U-boat warfare hadn't forced the USA into the war.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by RF » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:30 am

frankwl wrote: Heck, we're still living with the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles (the Middle East?)
This statement about the Middle East is incorrect. It is also off thread so I will confine myself to saying that you are confusing the Treaty of Versailles with the Treaty of Sevres and the later Treaty of Lausanne.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:19 pm

RF wrote:
frankwl wrote:. Jutland guaranteed an Allied victory, a starving Germany and Austria, a revolution that ousted the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.
I think that is overstating it. Germany could have won in 1918 if the unrestricted U-boat warfare hadn't forced the USA into the war.
From what I've read that would have been extremely unlikely. The treaty ending the war might have not have been as punative though as they may have essentially declared it a draw. Germany was having a much more severe food crisis than Britain for instance.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:27 am

Lee:
From what I've read that would have been extremely unlikely. The treaty ending the war might have not have been as punative though as they may have essentially declared it a draw. Germany was having a much more severe food crisis than Britain for instance.
Victory on WWI looking only naval perspectives is not correct. The war on sea could define an outcome but will not be the only variable to consider. I think that unrestrictred U boat could have helped a different context for the 11-11-18 armistice.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by lwd » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:46 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Lee:
From what I've read that would have been extremely unlikely. The treaty ending the war might have not have been as punative though as they may have essentially declared it a draw. Germany was having a much more severe food crisis than Britain for instance.
Victory on WWI looking only naval perspectives is not correct. The war on sea could define an outcome but will not be the only variable to consider. I think that unrestrictred U boat could have helped a different context for the 11-11-18 armistice.
I agree. However whether or not that context would be considered a "win" for Germany is a rather debateable question. From what I've read all the players were reaching the point of exhaustion. Germany might have been able to get a pretty good settlement by pulling back in the west and making up for it in the east. Whether or not that would be a win would be down in the details and the definitions.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:34 pm

lwd:
I agree. However whether or not that context would be considered a "win" for Germany is a rather debateable question. From what I've read all the players were reaching the point of exhaustion. Germany might have been able to get a pretty good settlement by pulling back in the west and making up for it in the east. Whether or not that would be a win would be down in the details and the definitions.
I do not think that could be the case: Germany as France and Britain were, as you point out, exhausted. The "winning side" would have been that chosen by the US, in this case the "allied powers". A draw would have been the best Germany could have hope for but not in 1918 but in 1916 or 17. By the 18 Hindenburg and Luddendorf had made sure that Germany would go down all the way alone.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by lwd » Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:26 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... I do not think that could be the case: Germany as France and Britain were, as you point out, exhausted. The "winning side" would have been that chosen by the US, in this case the "allied powers". A draw would have been the best Germany could have hope for but not in 1918 but in 1916 or 17. By the 18 Hindenburg and Luddendorf had made sure that Germany would go down all the way alone.
But the starting point of this digression was the line about unrestricted u-boat warfare forcing the US into the war. Now there's a question if it really did but I was assuming the US wasn't in the war due to that statement. If the US isn't in the war then the US may not choose. But as you say Germany was not in the best of positions.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by RF » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:22 pm

lwd wrote:
RF wrote:
frankwl wrote:. Jutland guaranteed an Allied victory, a starving Germany and Austria, a revolution that ousted the Kaiser, the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.
I think that is overstating it. Germany could have won in 1918 if the unrestricted U-boat warfare hadn't forced the USA into the war.
From what I've read that would have been extremely unlikely. The treaty ending the war might have not have been as punative though as they may have essentially declared it a draw. Germany was having a much more severe food crisis than Britain for instance.
For the avoidance of misunderstanding my comment was made taking into account the specific war situation for the period March to May 1918 but with the USA still neutral and not sending an army to the western front. In such a situation the German offensives in spring 1918 could have led to an armistice the other way, with Britain and France exhausted and no American help. I was not looking purely at the naval aspect. Such an armistice in favour of Germany would obviously have mean't an end to the Allied blockade that was starving Germany.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

frankwl
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:32 am

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by frankwl » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:22 am

Oh darn, I was going to opt out because of RF's unrelenting attacks on me, but I can't resist. It wasn't just unrestricted submarine warfare that brought the U.S. into the First Word War. America had loaned Britain so much money that a German victory would have been a national financial disaster for the U.S. Now I sound like a Marxian historian, which I'm not, but Wall Street backed the Empire. America's participation was vital but long before the first doughboy landed in France Germany and Austria were starving, cursing the German navy, calling for the kaiser's downfall. Read the diaries of some of the little girls, the women, who survived that time; the shock of captured German uboat sailors to discover what they viewed as the "prosperity" of Britain. No wooden shoes, pig carcasses on display, tobacco, pineapples. I'm too old to supply a bibliography, but it's there for the finding. Christ, the Austrians were hijacking German wheat barges on the Rhine because Vienna was starving. Mosly because of the naval blockade.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:23 am

Let's remember that Wilson was an anglofile. And a sinister figure too...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by RF » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:57 pm

frankwl wrote:Oh darn, I was going to opt out because of RF's unrelenting attacks on me, but I can't resist. It wasn't just unrestricted submarine warfare that brought the U.S. into the First Word War. America had loaned Britain so much money that a German victory would have been a national financial disaster for the U.S. Now I sound like a Marxian historian, which I'm not, but Wall Street backed the Empire. America's participation was vital but long before the first doughboy landed in France Germany and Austria were starving, cursing the German navy, calling for the kaiser's downfall. Read the diaries of some of the little girls, the women, who survived that time; the shock of captured German uboat sailors to discover what they viewed as the "prosperity" of Britain. No wooden shoes, pig carcasses on display, tobacco, pineapples. I'm too old to supply a bibliography, but it's there for the finding. Christ, the Austrians were hijacking German wheat barges on the Rhine because Vienna was starving. Mosly because of the naval blockade.
Now here we have another example of what I have been trying to have corrected - overblown invective and hyperbole with facts that are inaccurately placed and facts that are taken out of context.

This is not an attack on frankwl or anyone else; it is a matter of getting the historical record and its interpretation correct.

Firstly the financial aspect. Yes the British government, through the merchant bankers J P Morgan did borrow a lot of dollars. To that extent Wall Street was largely hostage to an Allied victory. But a British defeat would not have been such a disaster to the US because the Americans would have seized Britains' assets in the US and in Canada to cover more than what Britain owed, not least to stop the Germans from having them. The US would also have moved into other parts of the British Empire and the French colonial empire, again to deny them to the Germans. Either way, whoever wins the war, the US is the clear economic winner.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by RF » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:25 pm

Secondly there is the matter of the Allied blockade and its effects is causing food shortages in Germany and Austria.

I'm not clear as to how this is to tie in with the causes of the USA declaring war on Germany. The effects of the famine described in the post relate to summer 1917 onwards and especially for 1918. Events post US declaration of war.
The reasons for the famine are complex and not down to one factor such as the Allied naval blockade. Indeed to a large extent it was self inflicted by Germany on Germany and Austria. In 1914 Germany was mobilised in a hurry for a short war. War came in August 1914 and the mobilisation involved conscription of the almost entirely male agricultural labour force - just weeks before the annual harvest of grain was to be got in. German agricultural production sharply fell as a result, causing shortages which for a time were alleviated by imports from Denmark, Holland and Romania. By 1916 the shortages were beginning to bite - but German agriculture didn't have either the manpower or mechanisation to properly support the war effort, which had they planned for a long two front war they could have done, not least by utilising the female labour force. To an extent the nazies did better in WW2 in that respect, though they had the benefit of the wholesale looting of the countries they overran.
Crop failures and an inadequate internal transport and distribution system made matters worse, along with the army and the Junkers estates getting first call on the produce. Austria-Hungary was in an even worse position - the economy was far more backward, the system of transportation chaotic and increasingly river based. And in 1918 they did attempt to hijack German wheat shipments from occupied Romania - but by then the Hapsburg Empire was starting to fall apart.

The main effect of the Allied blockade in respect of food supplies was to prevent seaborne imports from replacing the lost domestic food production. The Germans didn't anticipate that happening, they didn't have any alternative source of food and they couldn't finish the war. Even the peace treaty with Russia didn't help, as Russia itself was starving. And Russia was starving because their war effort had left its agriculture unsupported.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Jutland: 95 years already!

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:13 pm

On the other hand economics was a factor. With US trade to the central powers greatly curtailed US trade with Britain grew. That meant there was an increase in sympathy as well as commercial interest. Submarine warfare was certainly a major factor and indeed one of key rationals for the US intering the war but other things played into this as well.

Post Reply