Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Why Germany was not able to win the maritime war between 1914 - 1918



Why Germany was unable to win the maritime war between 1914 -1918 and failed in her ambition to overtake Great Britain as the World’s foremost sea power.

  Abstract

“The First World War was above all a maritime war, not in the sense that most of the action was at sea, but rather in the sense that maritime realities shaped it”[1]

Maritime considerations were crucial to Britain during the First World War, her wealth and vast empire were based upon global trading links maintained and protected by the Royal Navy but in the decade before the outbreak of the war Britain was to see her global maritime dominance threatened by Germany who had global ambitions of her own. The 1908 and 1912 Navy Laws passed by the Reichstag and backed by the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, allowed the German Admiralty to commence the building of a battle fleet intended to be of a size that would be capable of mounting a direct challenge to Britain’s global dominance yet, despite this, she failed to do so.

The Anglo German Naval Race and German Admiralty War Planning

Following Germany’s defeat of France in 1871 Germany viewed Great Britain as her closest rival in terms of global dominance. The Kaiser had close family links with the British royal family which bred a certain amount of resentment and envy on his part and the success of Britain’s empire led him to view any international crisis of the day in terms of naval power, emphasising to him the limitations that not possessing a navy was having on German expansion. Britain’s empire was spread throughout the globe and its wealth and commerce, built on its global trading links, was protected by its Royal Navy, which at that time was twice the size of the next largest navy owned by any country[2]. Many, including the Kaiser, bought into the ideas of the US Admiral and naval historian Admiral Alfred Mahan in his work “The influence of sea power upon history 1660-1783” that the naval aspect of warfare had determined the outcomes of the great European wars of the 18th century. It was widely believed that naval supremacy was the key to economic prosperity and international prestige and that naval supremacy was based on the number of large battleships that a country owned.[3]

In 1908 and 1912 Navy laws passed by the Reichstag were the trigger for the growth in the naval power of Germany. Germany’s naval secretary Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz intended to put Germany on an equal footing with Britain and so attempted to build a navy that would rival that of Great Britain and challenge Britain’s undisputed position as the world’s leading sea power thus posing a serious threat to Britain’s security and a challenge to her maritime dominance. Indeed the German navy bill of 1900 stated that “Germany required a fleet of such strength that a war against the mightiest naval power would involve risks threatening the supremacy of that power” Tirpitz was convinced that the struggle with Britain was for what could be termed the financial “world monopoly” which was held by Great Britain.[4] However, to challenge Britain meant that Germany would have to start from scratch as Germany’s navy had only been in existence since the 1871 Franco Prussian war.[5]

Between 1906 and 1914 naval rivalry became the major cause of antagonism between Britain and Germany. Tirpitz’s vision was for an immense “blue-water battle fleet” so that when faced with the might of the new German navy Britain would back down and accept Germany’s demands and ambitions relating to colonial expansion.[6] In other words deterrence was the primary purpose of Germany’s new fleet forming the basis of Tirpitz’s justification for the vast increase in fleet size in the face of increasing alarm from the German military over naval expenditure.

 In memoranda of 1888, 1891 and 1894 Tirpitz had outlined his strategy as to “annihilate British Sea power” if Britain was to refuse to recognise Germany’s claim for her “place in the sun”.[7] Germany’s intentions appear obvious when viewed in the context of the decisions taken at war council meeting of 8th December 1912 between the Kaiser and the leaders of his armed forces. The Kaiser’s demands at this meeting included that the navy prepare for war with both Britain and Russia, put preparations in place that would enable them to be ready to torpedo Royal navy ships, lay mines the Thames estuary and increase U boat production. These instructions were not carried out and Tirpitz was able to concentrate on the development of his fleet of battleships.[8] Tirpitz also thought that what he called “future power shifts” in Asia and South America would weaken the British empire and that Germany should build a navy in order to take advantage of this decline in Britain’s strength.[9] In fact by the time war broke out in 1914 Tirpitz felt that the German navy wasn’t yet ready to challenge Britain and the reality was that the Imperial navy required at least another five years of building and preparation. Tirpitz actively sought to avoid war in 1914.[10]

Another problem for Tirpitz was that his new fleet had not attracted new alliance partners to join Germany despite his assurances that this would be the case,[11]relying on an assumed naval deterrent when Germany gave its absolute backing to Austria in the form of the so called “blank cheque”. Tirpitz had concentrated on the idea that Germany’s fleet would deter Britain from becoming involved in the conflict on the side of Germany’s enemies and appeared to be surprised when deterrence failed. Ultimately Tirpitz failed to understand that Britain’s dependence on naval supremacy meant that she would never tolerate a hostile naval challenge in Europe especially from a country that had declared its intentions in terms of world supremacy and global maritime domination. What Tirpitz viewed as a deterrent, Britain viewed as a provocation, exactly the opposite to what Tirpitz had intended, and the result was that Germany was forced to go to war earlier than Tirpitz would have liked. This was the concern of many in the German government at the time such as Friedrich von Holstein, the head of the political section of the German foreign office, who was quoted as saying in November 1906 “the more we arm at sea, the more we push England into the arms of France[12] Naval rivalry did not cause the war but it ensured that when the war did break out, Great Britain would be on the side of Germany’s enemies.

In 1914 The German army had gone to war based on the objectives of the Schlieffen plan, the details and execution of which had not been co-ordinated with the Imperial Navy nor indeed even with her own foreign office and certainly not with her allies, resulting in the absence of a co-ordinated strategy where for instance the navy could provide a role in supporting the army in certain circumstances.[13] Noticeably the Schlieffen plan did not give cognisance to the transportation of British troops across the channel nor explored how the German navy could have assisted the Imperial Army in dealing with this threat despite the fact that Schlieffen had noted that he expected British troops to cross the channel. It is possible that Schlieffen believed that it would be the task of the Imperial Army to deal with them once they arrived in Belgium rather than the navy.[14]  

Tirpitz had gone to war on the expectation that the Royal Navy would immediately offer the much anticipated battle at sea or at the very least, close blockade, and as such, had no alternative plan to fall back on when Royal Navy did not comply. Put simply, the British position was a defensive one and the German Navy found itself faced with the unexpected question of what to do if the British Navy did not come and seek battle as was expected of them[15]. There were no operations against ports or against the German fleet by the Royal Navy, nor did they invade the Baltic. The Grand fleet remained as a “fleet in being” and at once imposed its economic war and its distant blockade. No clear strategic concept guided the Tirpitz plan other than a belief that the war at sea would be settled by a large scale sea battle.[16]

The conflicting aims of the German military and navy are evident in the way that Tirpitz looked for peace with Japan and Russia in order to concentrate on gaining superiority over the western naval powers which was in direct contrast to the aims of the German army who were intent on annexing lands in the east. Eventually the imperial navy and army were to clash in the final year of the war over the issue of the future of the Black Sea[17]. Because the German navy was not considered in the context of German security needs, army war planning gave scant attention to the navy and little consideration as to how the navy could be best used.

The German war plan didn’t include capturing French channel ports although Tirpitz did press for the Belgian coast ports. After the assumed defeat of France and Russia the Belgian coast was seen as something that would provide a vital strategic asset for any future war against Britain.[18] Thus German naval planners and army planners were opposed from the start and remained as inconsistent throughout the conflict. Even within the German naval command itself a sort of “strategic paralysis” set in as there were those who wanted the immediate deployment of the High Seas Fleet to justify the vast amounts that had been spent on it and there were those who wanted to preserve the fleet to use as a bargaining chip at any future peace talks[19].

Not all of the German high command were in agreement with the latter strategy. Commander of the German forces Paul von Hindenburg stated in his autobiography that the fear or “sensitiveness” that the Royal Navy had of a potential invasion justified the greater use of the German fleet and that this would have tied up the British forces at home thus relieving the pressure on the German army on the western front. He was not in favour of “saving” the German fleet for use in peace negotiations stating that “A calculation of this kind would be absolutely erroneous, for a power which one dare not use in war is a negligible factor when it comes to a peace treaty”[20]

The Anglo-German Naval Race and British Admiralty War Planning

Despite the threat of the Anglo German arms race Britain appeared to be in some respects remarkably unprepared for war. The British government was preoccupied by internal affairs and social unrest[21] and Britain’s empire presented many issues in terms of defence that required consideration and so defence plans or contingency plans[22] are probably a better description than war plans however. Since 1902 Britain had a Committee of Imperial Defence in place and so demonstrated some co-ordination between government, civilian departments, the military and the navy.[23]

Sir John “Jacky” Fisher was appointed as First Sea Lord in 1904 where he remained until retiring in 1911. He was reinstated into the role by Winston Churchill in 1914 before finally resigning in 1915 in protest at Churchill’s Dardanelles campaign. During his tenure as First Sea Lord, Fisher introduced many controversial reforms in the attempt to overcome the stagnating effect that he thought nearly one hundred years of relative peace had on the Royal Navy - “the long calm lee of Trafalgar[24]. 

At the turn of the century the ships of the Royal Navy were dispersed over the globe looking after the interests of the empire with little concentration of strength of force.  The Royal Navy had been successful in its peacetime functions such as the British intervention in the slave trade but the dominance of the Royal Navy not been seriously challenged and at the beginning of the century it appeared to have no rivals. This changed with the passing of the German Naval Act and Britain was faced with the possibility of a genuine challenge to her naval supremacy and the possibility that any challenger would find the Royal Navy unprepared for war.

Fisher was one of the first to recognise the threat of Germany however at that point the Admiralty could not rule out a coalition between Germany and another powerful European ally which gave rise to the prospect that the Royal Navy would be faced with a combined enemy force that they would not be able to defeat.[25]

Throughout the nineteenth century Britain’s policy was to maintain the balance of power in Europe to prevent any single other state becoming dominant particularly at sea. Britain was determined to maintain her “two power standard” against her next two most powerful rivals, that is Britain must be powerful enough to face an alliance of the next two most powerful countries with naval power at that time measured in terms of possession of capital ships.[26]

The development of HMS Dreadnought which sparked the naval arms race and which “rendered all other battleships obsolete” actually levelled the playing field and took away Britain’s initial advantage. Fisher did not believe that the construction of these battleships was the optimum use of resources when it came to defending Britain but he defended this project for two reasons. Firstly he preferred that the Admiralty build cruisers which he could see far more use for but the Admiralty would not allow this and so instead he pushed for the construction of Dreadnoughts as a means of protecting his naval construction budget.  Secondly, Fisher wanted to create a sustainable working partnership between private ship building industry, armaments firms and the navy and he intended to feed into this partnership as much money as possible to keep it solvent as Fisher realised that private companies could build ships faster than the royal dockyards, they used civilian expertise and were not subject to unionism and strikes. During a war they would be able to produce new ships whilst the royal dockyards were employed to repair damaged ships.[27] The success of this was seen in the rate at which British battleships could be replaced when compared with German battleships.

Although he is most closely associated with the development of the Dreadnought battleships, Fisher’s reforms for the Navy included the re-deployment of the fleet in recognition that the navy in its current form was not strong enough to dominate both home waters as well as those overseas. Adopting Mahan’s theories about concentrating the battle fleet in home waters was the obvious thing to do but would have proved to be politically unpopular as it would have left the defence of Britain’s colonies and empire weakened and exposed to enemy attack.[28]

Fishers “Flotilla defence” was comprised of smaller cruisers, torpedo ships and submarines which would patrol the home waters thus allowing fleets of the larger battleships to be deployed to anywhere in the world they were required to counter an enemy threat. Fisher also believed that advances in technology and communications had altered the effect of geography on strategy so that the concentration of British naval strength in home waters was the best way in which Britain and her empire could be defended. A further consideration for the redeployment of the fleet was that it gave the fleet the strategic advantage of being able to carry out exercises and manoeuvres in the area of ocean where the fleet were actually likely to be fighting – “the battle ground should be the drill ground”[29]

The redeployment of the fleet by Fisher occurred along with the political alliances that Britain made with France and Russia, something that Tirpitz had not anticipated given the historic animosity between Britain and these two new allies of hers. Not only had Germany failed to deter Britain she had, as von Holstein predicted, pushed France and Britain into joining an alliance which was also joined by Russia. Now Britain could concentrate her naval forces in the North Sea while France could concentrate hers in the Mediterranean and Russia in the Baltic and the Black Sea finalising the feared “encirclement” of Germany by potential enemies. Instead of acting as a deterrent Germany’s aggression became a catalyst for the building of more and more battleships.[30]

 In terms of having the fleet organised and the battleships and reservists in place and ready to go to sea, the Royal Navy were ready but another issue for the British and their unpreparedness to play the part of the aggressor in 1914 was that, as described in Jellicoe’s “Grand Fleet” published in 1919, the navy was unprepared for war[31] in other ways such as lacking in mines and torpedoes, and in having few submarine defences. Social reform was the priority of the Government ahead of defence expenditure other than in the race to maintain the two power standard and conditions of modern sea warfare were an unknown particularly in terms of facing unrestricted submarine warfare.[32] At the start of the conflict Germany was actually ahead of Great Britain in terms of engineering and industry and in the production of shells, mines, torpedoes. On the whole German ships were of a better construction than were British ships but the weaker protection of British ships was down to the need for them to have greater striking power in worldwide operations whereas German ships were designed for battle in short range operations.[33] This was to have implications later when the two fleets eventually met in battle and the flaws in the British ship design were discovered.

The two fleets were to eventually meet at the Battle of Jutland on 31st May 2016 where after many hours of fighting there appeared to be no clear victor. The Royal Navy in fact sustained greater losses than the High Seas Fleet but at the end of the day it was the High Seas Fleet that turned and fled for home leaving the strategic position in the North Sea unchanged. Given a large scale sea battle could have resulted in the destruction of one or other of the fleets the naval commanders were very cautious in their approach. The defensive mentality came across in Jellicoe’s battle strategy at Jutland, “He fought to make German victory impossible rather than to make a British victory certain[34] The end result of the Battle of Jutland, however, changed little for the royal navy in terms of strategy.

 Britain had a long sea going heritage and many years of experience that were put to good use. The importance of morale on board ship was something that had been learned in the tradition of the Royal navy which, as Admiral Chatfield was quoted as saying “The Germans have never been a sea nation; efficient as they are they have not the real seaman’s spirit of character.” Tirpitz too admitted “The German people did not understand the sea. In the hour of its destiny it did not use its fleet, we were defeated by the old traditional English naval prestige…..This prestige made our governors fear to send our fleet to battle while there was still time[35]  A  real weakness that the German navy had was in the “gulf” between officer and ordinary sailor. The German officers gave out harsh discipline and bad food which did little for morale and German sailors were not given any form of entertainment to take their minds off both the fighting and the boredom whereas the British sailors had sports events and concerts to keep them entertained.

Geographical and Economic Factors

Overall Britain held greater geographical advantages over Germany. Germany’s disadvantage in geography would only be overcome by having a much stronger fleet so not only was Germany’s starting position going into the conflict numerically and logistically weaker but it was also in a position of weakness in regard to geography.

As Admiral David Beatty put it -

“the British Isles form a great breakwater across German waters thereby limiting the passage of vessels to the outer seas to two exits, one on the south, narrow, easily blocked and contained, and the other on the north, of such a width (155miles) that with forces at our disposal it could easily be commanded so as to preclude the possibility of the passing of any hostile force without our knowledge and without being bought to action by a superior force”[36]

At the outbreak of war the Royal Navy had taken control of the world’s underwater cable networks so all German communications had to be transmitted by wireless. The Germans believed that improvements in wireless communications might offset their numerical inferiority as it allowed real time communication but the effect was that these communications gave their enemy the advantage as within four months of the outbreak of war the British were in possession of all three German naval codes, the merchant shipping code book, the imperial naval code book and the traffic signals book. Listening stations were set up along the east coast and intercepted signals were analysed and interpreted by academics in a newly created admiralty department.[37]

Despite the obvious advantages that this gave the Royal Navy over the German fleet these intelligence intercepts were not always accurate which at times negated the advantage that the Royal Navy had. During the Battle of Jutland Jellicoe had received a signal informing him of Scheer’s location however during the day he had already received two signals both placing Scheer’s fleet in the wrong place and he had only received 3 of the 16 signals that were actually intercepted that day and so he had no real context or understanding as to the true situation and by late evening he was rapidly losing confidence in the accuracy of the information with which he was being supplied. Scheer’s fleet escaped and Jellicoe did not give pursuit.[38]

The objective of economic warfare was to precipitate the collapse of the enemy’s financial systems and the resulting effect of this on the economy would be to paralyse the enemy’s military. There was a recognition that a long drawn out conflict would lead to financial and social disintegration for all involved and as these countries were ever more dependent on international trade their interlocking financial systems made them economically interdependent as well as vulnerable. War between great powers would precipitate a sort of mutually assured destruction economically speaking and, on top of this, 90% of the world’s trade was carried by sea and so the maritime aspect of war was critical.

 In his book “The Great Illusion, Norman Angell noted the “profound change in methods of global trade to the expansion of European banking systems in the main British banking system”. He predicted that any major European conflict would cause catastrophic damage to the global financial system.  During 1910 Sir Edward Grey publicly cited Angell’s book twice and the Daily Mail Newspaper called it “the most discussed book in years”.[39]

The aim of economic warfare in this context was not the mere intervention of enemy trade or “blockade” but also the maximisation of pressure upon economic systems underpinning Germany’s economy by denying access to shipping, communications and financial services.[40] These dimensions of economic warfare were beyond the Admiralty’s competence and control and even beyond those of the Committee of Imperial defence, The widespread expectation of war in the last week of July 1914 generated a financial crisis and global financial panic and prices dropped across the stock market.[41] The importance of the global market can be seen in the quote from Robert H Brand MD of Lazard Brothers (one of America’s leading financial services companies) “Before a single shot had been fired, and before any destruction of wealth, the whole world-fabric of credit had dissolved.”[42]  

A question to consider is whether full economic warfare would have meant the Britain could have defeated Germany much earlier or whether this economic interdependence between countries meant that the implementation of economic warfare would have led to the destruction of British global finance as well as those of her allies.

Since the start of the war the implementation of economic warfare was hindered by flagging political willingness both in Britain and among her allies to use “offensive measures against Germany which would entail collateral damage to her own economies”. From the beginning of 1915 there was significant dissatisfaction with the blockade and the board of trade was receiving many complaints that sales were being lost[43]and certain cases trading with the enemy was unavoidable[44] Sir Maurice Hankey, the Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence, believed that the effectiveness of economic warfare and the blockade could have been improved with better information management as that which existed was haphazard and inaccurate. For example, cutting off German supplies through neutral Sweden and Holland caused diplomatic and economic difficulties as “to starve Germany would mean to starve Sweden and Holland too” and to involve Sweden would have consequences for Swedish supplies to Britain’s ally Russia.[45]

In 1914 international transactions depended upon telegraph cables, banks, insurance companies, and shipping. British cable companies continued to control communications across the Atlantic, technological as well as financial and geographical factors prevented effective competition. American banks had only just started to compete with Britain in the short term credit market so their connections with foreign banks were not yet fully developed. The US merchant marine was not yet big enough to service the needs of US exporters let alone foreign clients, and US insurance companies “declined to issue policies unless they could lay off risks on London”.[46]

A large amount of contraband trade through neutral countries was financed by the City of London and carried in British ships as identified by Brand. He discovered that “large credits are being opened for Holland, Denmark and other countries and it is probable that at least some of this trade finds its way through to Germany” Brand advised that “much German contraband was “probably” being financed by the City[47]

On 7th January 1915 the British government published a new royal proclamation intended to deny German businesses worldwide access to banking facilities in the city of London and making it an offence for banks to conduct business on behalf of enemy owned firms even when such firms were located in neutral countries. It demanded government intervention into the workings of the free market economy.[48] These measures met with limited success.[49] Lord Robert Cecil who was minister for the blockade from 1916 admitted that “the financial blockade was the least successful of any measures undertaken”. Banks would never allow the government to direct who could or could not be granted access to British credit. The best the treasury could do was to receive returns so that they knew who was trading with whom. Banks were requested to supply such information but not required to do so.[50]

In a letter to Lord Selbourne the minister of Agriculture, The Prime minister stated

“There remains to be considered the result of economic and financial attrition. I do not think that we shall starve the central powers into submission. They are too self-supporting to enable us to achieve our end that way; but the financial difficulties both of their governments and of the commercial and industrial interests may bring them to their knees before the military force is exhausted. But if we are to wear the central powers down by economic and financial attrition we must be able ourselves to “stay the course” longer than they can, and that is why I believe that finance is going to settle the result of this war just as much as arms, and in the value of small economies as well as of big ones

Greater confidence existed in the power of financial pressure than economic pressure, that is the denial of financial services such as credit rather than just blockade[51] and the question arises that maybe Germany would have been defeated sooner had the full extent of financial warfare been implemented as originally planned. This of course has to be balanced against the potential financial destruction that exacting full economic warfare on Germany may have had on Britain herself as the world’s markets and trading and credit systems collapsed. Either way Britain, with her capital city, London, the hub of world trading was in a far more dominant position in the world’s financial markets than was Germany and was in a position in 1914 to use this advantage against Germany. Her strength can be attributed to her long sea faring history of trading and naval strength which protected her trade links something Germany, despite her brand new powerful navy, could not imitate.

Prior to the war the German government thought that it had enough supplies to last for about nine months and, like Britain, it was dependent on imports for food. In the case of conflict with Russia and her allies in all likelihood this supply would be cut off meaning Germany would have to rely on imports from other countries – which would be cut off by a British Blockade.[52] Tirpitz had recognised the potential danger of blockade but the German government did not introduce any preventative measures such as stockpiling due to all manner of political and financial issues at a time particularly as the Reichstag finances were under strain and stockpiling would have been seen as an admission of failure of the Schlieffen plan to deliver the aforementioned quick result.[53]

Blockade successfully denied supplies to Germany and formed the basis of her post war revolution. The blockade was successfully enforced and maintained by the Royal navy who, as noted earlier, made the most of Britain’s advantage in geographical location with Germany’s responses to the blockade being submarine warfare, and latterly food rationing, crop requisitions and the plundering of her occupied territories all of which did little to help the situation of the German population.[54] Reports from the day note the famine conditions experienced in German cities and contemporary statistics trace the decline in meat consumption of the German population between 1914 and 1919. A report in a Swedish newspaper of January 1918 quoted reports from German life insurance companies whose statistics showed that the death rate of the civil population was starting to compete with the battlefield death rates and statistics for average monthly death rates show that the average monthly deaths in 1913 were 78,820 and by 1918 were 191,320.[55]

By August 1918 the plundering of German army food stocks and desertions from the army had begun although the collapse of the German army on the Western front had started to occur after the spring offensive when food and supplies had begun to run out. Ludendorff’s explanation for the German defeat of 8th August 1918 was due to influenza, food shortage and a resulting breakdown in morale with one source quoted as saying “officers could only inspire men by telling them that there was no food in Germany, but plenty of it in the French and British depots”.[56]

The viewpoint from Admiral Scheer, Commander in Chief of the High Seas Fleet, was that “At the outbreak of the war the British Admiralty had decided to adopt the strategic defensive, inasmuch as it hoped to achieve its goal by the operation of the principle of “the fleet in being” for, favoured by the geographical position of the British Isles in their relation to the North Sea, it determined to cut Germany completely off from all traffic by sea and thus strangle her economically by the quiet pressure of maritime power

By 1917-1918 the UK-USA alliance was the most powerful economic bloc in the world and created global monopolies in the purchasing of food. Blockade underpinned this and gave the allies the power of coercion. Whereas Admiral von Holtzendorff had hoped that the submarine warfare would scare neutral shipping away, in reality it had the effect of cutting the flow of imports to Germany’s border neutrals and so reduced the quantities available for outwards shipments thus squeezing the central powers out of the world markets. Again, the German military and admiralty had made a serious misjudgement as its decision to adopt unrestricted U-boat action had completely the opposite effect from that which the Germans anticipated and bought a very powerful enemy into the war on the side of the allies tightening the stranglehold in which Germany was gripped.[57]

Conclusion

Ultimately Germany failed to defeat Great Britain at sea and take her place as the world’s leading maritime super power for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Britain had a natural geographic advantage in lying like a breakwater across the entrances and exits to the North Sea. The Royal Navy took full advantage of this favourable geography and held the German fleet “in check”. This strategy for ensuring the control of the North Sea underpinned the Royal Navy’s entire war strategy and it was something that the German navy were unable to overcome.[58]  Germany’s chief advantage, and one which she failed to capitalise on, was that the British fleet always had to be ready to defend any part of her empire which was coming under threat which put a strain on personnel and this meant the German fleet held the initiative and could wait and pick its moment for battle whilst using the downtime to train and make repairs or improvements.

The German naval war strategy depended on the Royal Navy attacking the German fleet without consideration of the fact that as the Royal Navy already had control of the sea all that the Royal Navy had to do was maintain their position. Once war had broken out the Royal Navy did not immediately seek battle as Tirpitz had assumed they would but had immediately set up a distant blockade which would prevent the import and export of essential food and materials to and from Germany.[59]Tirpitz’s strategy was an “all or nothing” type of strategy where there was little room for adjustment or manoeuvre.[60] The absolute belief in Mahan’s theories and teachings about naval supremacy became for the German navy a one size fits all theory that was designed to be applicable in all situations and ignored many complex factors such as geography, strategy, economics and politics.

It was the German navy who stood to gain from a full scale naval battle not the Royal Navy.[61]Correspondence from the Admiralty to Admiral Jellicoe backs this up “The British fleet is vital to the success of the allied cause. The German fleet is of secondary importance; its loss would not vitally affect the cause of the central powers and it can therefore, be risked to a much greater extent than the British fleet”

Britain had everything to lose from a large naval engagement and that the Germans had everything to gain and therefore Jellicoe’s primary objective at the Battle of Jutland was to hold on to British command of the sea[62] and this he achieved despite the lack of a decisive victory. Although it was not a great decisive victory by Trafalgar standards, it was still a victory, after all you can lose most of your chess pieces in a game of chess but still win by putting the king in “check” with one other piece.[63]

German naval war aims as laid down in the Schlieffen plan and the Tirpitz plan were based around Germany’s preoccupation with British global dominance at “the grand strategic level” through which Germany attempted European hegemony and global maritime dominance at the same time but had neither the resources nor the leadership to achieve either.[64] As the German General Wilhelm Groener admitted in 1919 “we struggled unconsciously for world dominion before we secured our continental position” Germany was not able to look past battle at sea as being an end in itself and had no all-encompassing strategy which would have enabled her to capitalise on a victory at sea. If she had been the victor at the battle of Jutland she would still have had to address the issues of geographical and financial inferiority, not to mention American suspicion.

Germany failed in her war time objectives, she failed to defeat the Royal Navy in the North Sea and failed in the destruction of the allied army on the western front. There was no co-ordination of strategy between the armed forces, the state, her allies and political and military leaders each jealously guarded their own roles. Army and navy, finance and resources, industrial production and logistical planning were never regarded in the context of strategic war planning such as how the use of the German navy could have assisted the army. There was a focus on building larger and more powerful battleships but Germany was unable to develop any piece of technology which would have given her a ground breaking edge over the British fleet.

In his book ‘The Pity of War’ Niall Ferguson states that few historians believe that Germany could have won the war as they forgot the definition of war as defined by Clausewitz – “war is the continuation of political intercourse with the intermixing of other means” and that Germany became preoccupied with the act of warfare itself rather than the “political intercourse”[65]that she saw victory in a great sea battle as her war aims for her navy and as an end in itself. Since the original purpose of the creation of the High Seas Fleet and the Dreadnought arms race was to deter the British from war against Germany, it had failed and because it had failed it had lost its relevance.[66]

Britain had a considerable advantage in her global trade links and her wealth. Although technological advances had done little to break the deadlock and give one side and advantage over the other in battle, technological revolutions in communications, transportation and financial services had facilitated the global spread of market capitalism and the growth of international commerce with London at the centre of the world’s financial markets and consequently other industrialised nations, including Germany, came to depend on an uninterrupted flow of maritime trade.

The economic situation led British naval planners to see the vulnerability of Germany and looked at how they could best use Britain’s monopoly control over shipping, financial services and global communications to put pressure on Germanys economy while mitigating the effects on her own and between 1905-1908 the broad outlines were formed for an “economic war strategy” over Germany. This strategy was formed with both state and civilian expertise and the British government was successful in exploiting civilian expertise. The basis of the strategy was that Britain would take measures to severely hurt the financial systems upon which Germany depended to fight the war.[67] On 5th August 1914 Britain implemented economic warfare but within a fortnight this was halted under pressure from bankers, businessmen and civilian departments in the government who resented admiralty control and neutral countries who persuaded the government that it was not in British national interest to endanger the security of the global trading system. At this point there was still confidence on both that this would be a short war.[68]

Increasing pressure from the USA was another factor which led to the British government suspending economic warfare however it became obvious by Christmas that the war would not be the short conflict that many believed and by then the chance to defeat Germany through what Lambert terms a “sudden imposition of an economic stranglehold” had passed. Admiralty attention then focused on blockade as the approach which was less disruptive to the world’s economic systems and this was a strategy which relied completely on the strength of the Royal Navy.

Ultimately Germany was unable to win a protracted maritime war against an enemy with access to and the control of the world’s resources, trade links and finance and, in cases where she did hold an advantage, she was unable to capitalise on that advantage. The two biggest failures of Germany were firstly to ensure that Britain entered the war on the side of Germany’s enemies and secondly, through her attempts to break British links to the rest of the world by U boat warfare, she managed to bring the USA into the war on the side of her enemies. Germany formed her plans based on a willingness to gamble on these two points. In both cases she was wrong.[69]



[1] Freidman, Norman (2014) Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology. Naval Institute Press, Maryland, USA. P12

[2] Rubin, Louis B Jnr. The Continuing Argument over Jutland” in Virginia Quarterly Review. 2001, Volume 77, Issue 4. P584

[3] Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. “Geography, Technology, and British Naval Strategy in the Dreadnought Era” in Naval War College Review, Summer 2006, Volume 59 No.3. P90

[4]Herwig, Holger H. “Admirals versus Generals: The War Aims of the German Imperial Navy, 1914-1918 in Central European History, Vol 2. Issue 03, Sept 1972. P222

[5] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning Before 1914” in Historian Vol 77 Issue 2 Summer 2015. P304

[6] Maurer, John H. “Arms Control and the Anglo-German Naval Race before World War 1: Lessons for Today?” Political Science Quarterly; Summer 1997 112, 2. P287

[7] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning Before 1914” in Historian Vol 77 issue 2 Summer 2015 P305

[8] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning Before 1914” in Historian Vol 77 issue 2 Summer 2015 P312

[9] Herwig, Holger H. “Admirals versus Generals: The War Aims of the German Imperial Navy, 1914-1918 in Central European History, Vol 2. Issue 03, Sept 1972. P210

[10] Ibid. P211

[11] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning Before 1914” in Historian Vol 77 Issue 2 Summer 2015. P304

[12] Marder, Arthur J. (1970) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 5. Victory and Aftermath: 1918-1919. Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley. P335.

[13] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning Before 1914” in Historian Vol 77 Issue 2 Summer 2015. P298

[14] Kelly, Patrick J. (2011) “Tirpitz and the Imperial German Navy”. Indiana University Press, Indiana, USA. P379

[15] Ibid. P303

[16] Mombauer, Annika (2010) Chapter 3 German War Plans” in War Planning 1914, Ed. Hamilton, Richard F & Herwig, Holger H. Cambridge University Press. New York, USA. P66

[17]Herwig, Holger H. Admirals versus Generals: The War Aims of the German Imperial Navy, 1914-1918 in Central European History, Vol 2. Issue 03, Sept 1972. P225

[18] Herwig, Holger  H. Admirals versus Generals: The War Aims of the German Imperial Navy, 1914-1918 in Central European History, Vol 2. Issue 03, Sept 1972. P226

[19]Herwig Holger (2010) Chapter 8 Conclusions” in War Planning 1914. Ed Hamilton, Richard F & Herwig, Holger H., Cambridge University Press. New York, USA. P249

[20] von Hindenburg, Marshal Paul (1920) Out of My Life. Cassell and Company Ltd, London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne. P146

[21] Goldrick, James “The Impact of War: Matching Expectation with Reality in the Royal Navy in the First Months of The Great War at Sea” in War in History 2007 14 (1) P22

[22] Neilson, Keith (2010) Chapter 6 Great Britain in War Planning 1914, Ed Hamilton, Richard F & Herwig, Holger H. Cambridge University Press, New York USA. P178

[23] Strachan, Hew (2003) The First World War. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. London. P178

[24] Gordon, Andrew. (2005) The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command. John Murray Publishers. London. P495

[25] Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. “Geography, Technology, and British Naval Strategy in the Dreadnought Era” in Naval War College Review, Summer 2006, Volume 59 No.3. P93

[26] Bell, Christopher M. Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution Reconsidered: Winston Churchill at the Admiralty 1911-1914 in War in History, 18(3) 2011

[27] Lambert, Nicholas A (1999) Sir John Fisher’s naval revolution. University of South Carolina Press. South Carolina. P147

[28] Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. “Geography, Technology, and British Naval Strategy in the Dreadnought Era” in Naval War College Review, Summer 2006, Volume 59 No.3. P100

[29] Marder, Arthur J. (1961) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow Volume 1: The Road to War 1904- 1914. Seaforth Publishing. Barnsley.P43

[30] Friedman, Norman (2014) Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology. Naval Institute Press, Maryland, USA. P25

[31] Jellicoe, Admiral Viscount John (1919) The Grand Fleet 1914-1916. George H Doran Company. New York. P25

[32] Marder, Arthur J. (1970) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 5. Victory and Aftermath: 1918-1919. Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley. P309.

[33] Ibid. P311

[34] Marder, Arthur J. (1970) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 3. Jutland and After: May to December 1916. Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley. P226

[35] Marder, Arthur J. (1970) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 5. Victory and Aftermath: 1918-1919. Seaforth Publishing. Barnsley. P334

[36] Strachan, Hew (2003) The First World War. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. London. P196

[37] Friedman, Norman (2014) Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology. Naval Institute Press, Maryland, USA. P199

[38]Gordon, Andrew (1996) The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command. John Murray (Publishers). London. P422

[39] Lambert, Nicholas A. (2012) Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War. Harvard University Press. London.P125

[40] Ibid. P137

[41] Ibid. p187

[42] Ibid. p189

[43] Ibid p342

[44] Ibid p346

[45] Ibid p407

[46] Ibid. P355

[47] Ibid p355

[48]Ibid. p124

[49] Ibid p356

[50] Ibid P361

[51] Ibid, P441

[52] Friedman, Norman (2014) Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology. Naval Institute Press, Maryland, USA.P22

[53] Kelly, Patrick J. (2011) Tirpitz and the Imperial German Navy. Indiana University Press, Indiana, USA. P391

[54] Howard, N.P “The Social and Political Consequences of the Allied Food Blockade of Germany 1918-19” in German History, 04/1993, Volume 11 Issue 2. P162

[55] Ibid.. P166

[56] Ibid. P172

[57] Strachan, Hew (2003) The First World War. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. London. P221

[58] Marder, Arthur J. (1970) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 5. Victory and Aftermath: 1918-1919. Seaforth Publishing. Barnsley.P299

[59] Rubin, Louis B jnr, “The Continuing Argument over Jutland” in Virginia Quarterly Review. 2001, Volume 77, Issue 4. P586

[60] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning before 1914” in Historian Volume 77 issue 2, Summer 2015.P302

[61] Ferguson, Niall (1998) The Pity of War. Penguin Books. London. P283

[62] Marder, Arthur J (1978) From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow. Volume 3. Jutland and After: May to December 1916. Seaforth Publishing, Barnsley.P230

[63] Gordon, Andrew. (2005) The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command. John Murray Publishers. London. P569

[64] Herwig, Holger H. “Through the Looking Glass: German Strategic Planning before 1914” in Historian Volume 77, issue 2, Summer 2015. P311

[65] Ferguson, Niall (1998) The Pity of War. Penguin Books. London. P283

[66] Ibid. P563

[67] Lambert, Nicholas A. (2012) Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War. Harvard University Press. London. P498

[68] Ibid. P499

[69] Ferguson, Niall (1998) The Pity of War. Penguin Books. London. P282


Why Germany was not able to win the maritime war between 1914 - 1918

Why Germany was unable to win the maritime war between 1914 -1918 and failed in her ambition to overtake Great Britain as the World’s foremo...