"Did the Battle of Jutland Really Matter?" Topic

"A century ago, the two greatest fleets of the industrial age fought an inconclusive battle in the North Sea. The British Grand Fleet and the German High Seas Fleet fielded a total of fifty-eight dreadnought battleships and battle cruisers, ships over the twice the size of most modern surface combatants. Including smaller ships, the battle included 250 vessels in total.

The two fleets fought to a draw, with the Germans inflicting more casualties, but still being lucky to escape alive. The Grand Fleet could very easily have annihilated the Germans, an outcome which, however tragic, would not have moved the needle on the rest of the war. But what if the Germans had won?…"
See more here
link

Amicalement
Armand

My opinion is that a British victory changes absolutely nothing in terms of the duration or nature of the war. A major German victory that lifts the blockade is a potential war winner. Jellicoe really could "lose the war in an afternoon."

I hardly think that "annihilating the German fleet" would have been "tragic".

The Germans precipitated the war after all. Much like the French and Spanish at Trafalgar or the Argentinians in the Falklands: they asked for what they got.

due to how the British stockpiled ammunition around the turrets, there is something wrong with our ships today!
not really sure if the Germans won it would make a difference.most of ww1 was ground into meat grinder assaults anyhow.

I don't know enough about the period to really comment but had the Royal Navy been destroyed wouldn't the Germans have then been able to control the Channel and North Atlantic? If so how much of an effect would this have had on the war?

ochoin you might remember that it was Austria and not Germany who declared war first just wanted to point that out.

As for Trafalgar this was a battle that that shouldn't have happened at least at that time.

The French Admiral was going to lose his job so to speak fairly soon and he fealt taking his Fleet to sea to fight the English was better than losing his job as Admiral of the Fleet.

And with regards to the French asking for what they got at least in this case you must blame the English for if the English had not broken the Treay of Amiens then Trafalgar might never would've happened so the English asked for and got another bloody war that they didn't want.

BBC Radio 4 has a documentary on this very subject:

link

Yes, WW1 was basically Austria/Serbia/Russia dragging everyone else in. The irony of that war is that Britain wasn't on Germany's side – France and Russia were both traditional enemies, it was partly fear of Germany building a fleet in the first place that inclined Britain towards the Franco-Russian alliance.

In fact, didn't one aged British general keep getting mixed and kept calling the enemy 'French'?

As far as the North Sea is concerned, the fact that the Royal Navy managed to impose a distant blockade on Germany that eventually caused stringent rationing in Germany was the real victory. When people at home began to starve, it created the conditions that led to the eventual German collapse. Had the High Seas Fleet been able to break that blockade by destroying the Royal Navy, they would have won a massive victory … but they didn't. They may have sunk more warships than they lost, but some of the German ships only just made it home. Had the Germans tried to mount a similar foray into the North Sea the week after Jutland, the Royal Navy would have been able to meet it … and given it another bloody nose.

GarrisonMiniatures you are correct it was in the Crimean War where British General Lord Raglen a veteran of Waterloo(he lost a leg there)and during the Crimean War he said several times that the French were the enemy which he was wrong since the Russian's were the enemy.

CPT Gideon, I thought I should point out to you that Germany's machinations, not to mention support of Austria's bloodyminded reaction to Serbia actually caused the war.

It's far more complicated than who declared war first, don't you know.

And finally nearly every historian would agree that French aggression and the desire to invade England was the root cause of Britain's naval campaign against Bonaparte.
I can't see how a fleet on the coast of Spain waiting to invade England is any different from ejecting foreign invaders from British territory in the south Atlantic.
Your view is, again, simplistic and quite, quite incorrect.

"Your view is, again, simplistic and quite, quite incorrect."

I would argue that your assertion that "… the Germans precipitated the war …" is simplistic.

Not being a German apologist here, but the commencement of hostilities in 1914 are much more complicated than those of say 1939.

Nope. The majority of modern historians think Germany. if you read more widely you'd see. This will start you off:
link

Nope, only the german submarines kept taking part in the war as did before

I am reminded of the old saying – "There is a simple answer to every complicated question, and it is usually wrong".

IMHO, anyone who believes that Germany was solely responsible for WW1 is, to put it kindly, taking a very selective and simplistic point of view.

B

It's not widely appreciated that 'Jutland' is Danish for 'fridge magnet'.

Blutarski is correct.

Who, if anyone, on this thread said "solely" responsible?
I can't find anyone at all.