The Sinking of the RMS Titanic and other ships.

[louisa]

Adam - I agree with all of what you say.

[Adam Went]

Fleetwood:

Yup, spot on, propaganda plays a big part.....and both sides had experts in it during the World Wars.

By the way, have you all seen a Nat Geo series called "Rebuilding Titanic" ? It's a fairly new series but they're repeating it again at the moment, where they use methods available in the early 1900's to rebuild certain parts of the Titanic as they were originally - it's doubly interesting because it's one of those docco's which have the flashbacks to Titanic's time as well as the modern version. Yesterday they showed an episode where they remade part of the bow section of the Titanic, and unveiled it in Belfast.

Definitely worth checking out if you get the chance.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mayerling]

What about the Battle of Jutland 1916.

The Germans knocked out 3 British battle cruisers in minutes. 3,000 men lost. Was unthinkable at the time when the British enjoyed dominance of the seas. Happened because British crews ignored saftey precuations in an attempt to fire off amunition as quickly as possible. Cutting corners meant the ships had a ship load of cordite just waiting to be set off, and it was on contact with an enemy hit.

On the plus side, the British fleet at Scapa Flow, the main body of the British fleet, was on the move and the German fleet had been sucked out of its base at Hamburg, and was promptly mauled before limping back to Germany where it stayed for the remainder of the war and was unable to prevent the British from bloackading Germany and her imports.

It's a strange thing with propaganda, mastered by the British. As soon as the Germans marched into Belguim, the British had the Americans believe they were murdering women and children; which they weren't. The Germans didn't think to inform the Americans (who by the way had a stronng anti-British presence in their country) that the British were deliberately starving their people, which of course was true.

Gotta be crafty in this game.

Hi Fleetwood,

Jutland remains one of my favorite naval battles, because both sides made so many blunders in it. The odd thing was that the British and German naval rivalry from the late 1890s to 1914 was one of the causes of the war between those two superpowers (the observation of Disraeli or Bismarck that an elephant can't attack a whate was forgotten by late Wilhelmine Germany). Jutland was the main battle between the two navys in World War I. There were several others (Heligoland Bight, Coronel - the first high sea defeat for Britain since Napoleon's day, Falkland Islands, Dogger Bank, and the Dardenelles) and several interesting naval incidents (escape of the Goeben and Breslau, Zeebrugge, the submariner's dream: the single sub's victory over Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy in 1914, the curises of Emden, Koeningsberg), to occupy us with. But Jutland should have been one of several mighty fleet collisions in the war and never was. Apparently Kaiser Wilhelm II loved his nice navy so much he did not want to risk. I think he could have done so with some profit.

The losses of Jutland, particularly the losses from Queen Mary, Indefatigable (that's a real tongue twister name - I don't think it is used anymore), and Invincible, coupled with losses of other ships in recent years (Titanic, Empress, Lusitania, Eastland, General Slocum) may have made the public blase about heavy casualty rates in ship losses. In 1917 the Frence troopship Provence sank with 3,300 men lost in the Mediterranean. Few recall it today (it is sort of like the Wilhelm Gustloff of World War I).

By the way, Sir John Jellicoe (British fleet commander in chief at Jutland) was a survivor of an earlier marine disaster. He made his way out of sick bay to the deck of HMS Victoria on June 22, 1893 and managed to swim from tha shp as it plunged down with Sir George Tryon and 322 other seaman.

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood:

Yup, spot on, propaganda plays a big part.....and both sides had experts in it during the World Wars.

I don't think the Germans have ever really grasped what it takes to fight a protracted war.

Yes, they made a concerted attempt to indoctrinate their own people - there's a fascinating musuem in Berlin dedicated to Russian/German relations complete with the most outlandish propaganda (on the part of both sides) that you could possibly imagine.

But, the Germans had no form for making an effort to get the right people on side.

To fight a war you need: financial strength, a good intelligence network, 'friends' who could make a difference and military proficiency. They never grasped that, or Sun Tzu's maxim that diplomacy is the better bet and war should be avoided unless you're guaranteed victory or you have no other option.

No one could say the Germans weren't game; during both wars they put themselves in a position where they weren't favourites; but they certainly didn't have the know-how to see it through to a winning conclusion.

Put it this way: a lot of Americans were convinced the Germans were murdering women and children in Belguim during WW1; you'd have to go a long way to find an American who knew that during the British retreat at Dunkirk, British soldiers rounded up civilians and murdered them on the grounds that they were spying for the Germans (which of course they weren't; British soldiers in a desperate situation, tired and paranoid, had lost control and discipline had broken down).

And that's something that has been known and understood in England since the days of John Locke: people are easily impressed with the packaging.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

Jutland remains one of my favorite naval battles, because both sides made so many blunders in it. The odd thing was that the British and German naval rivalry from the late 1890s to 1914 was one of the causes of the war between those two superpowers (the observation of Disraeli or Bismarck that an elephant can't attack a whate was forgotten by late Wilhelmine Germany). Jutland was the main battle between the two navys in World War I. There were several others (Heligoland Bight, Coronel - the first high sea defeat for Britain since Napoleon's day, Falkland Islands, Dogger Bank, and the Dardenelles) and several interesting naval incidents (escape of the Goeben and Breslau, Zeebrugge, the submariner's dream: the single sub's victory over Aboukir, Hogue, and Cressy in 1914, the curises of Emden, Koeningsberg), to occupy us with. But Jutland should have been one of several mighty fleet collisions in the war and never was. Apparently Kaiser Wilhelm II loved his nice navy so much he did not want to risk. I think he could have done so with some profit.

The losses of Jutland, particularly the losses from Queen Mary, Indefatigable (that's a real tongue twister name - I don't think it is used anymore), and Invincible, coupled with losses of other ships in recent years (Titanic, Empress, Lusitania, Eastland, General Slocum) may have made the public blase about heavy casualty rates in ship losses. In 1917 the Frence troopship Provence sank with 3,300 men lost in the Mediterranean. Few recall it today (it is sort of like the Wilhelm Gustloff of World War I).

By the way, Sir John Jellicoe (British fleet commander in chief at Jutland) was a survivor of an earlier marine disaster. He made his way out of sick bay to the deck of HMS Victoria on June 22, 1893 and managed to swim from tha shp as it plunged down with Sir George Tryon and 322 other seaman.

Jeff

Hi Mayerling,

For a country with an unrivalled history in intelligence, you would think that the full weight of these analytical skills would make for a decent system of doing things. But, we always seem to contrive to make things more difficult for ourselves than they should be.

From memory, it's been a long time, the signalling system didn't work so the first lot went off in one direction and the second lot in another direction, which gave the Germans a numerical advantage. Also, safety precuations were ignored. And, as per usual, those in the British Navy and British Army were given high ranking positions based on their social standing as opposed to their ability to wage war effectively.

Oh, and Mayerling, I would dispute 'one of your causes' for WW1.

The major issues were as follows:

1) Germany saw itself as the Land in the Middle. Trapped between France and Russia whose armies were growing at a rate outstripping the Germans. The Germans concluded it was now or never, and they felt they were fighting a defensive war. i.e. if they didn't get in there first then the French or Russians, possibly both, would attack them when the situation was even less favourable for Germany.

2) The British could not take the risk of Germany controlling the Northern coast of France as it would imact upon British trade.

The point you make about the Kaiser not wanting to risk his navy: it's a strange situation really, because the Germans had shown themselves to be risk seekers rather than being risk averse.

Plus, the British blockade of their ports made a massive difference to the war on the Western Front as the Germans lacked the amunition, and more importantly the food supplies, to make it an even contest. Similarly, the lack of food at home meant civilians lost their appetite for war. What's that saying about an army doesn't march on an empty stomach - and I think it was the German fella who concluded this.

The Germans had far more to gain than what they had to lose by giving it a go with the navy. It's amazing really, because in March 1918 the Germans gambeled everything on one offensive on the Western Front when they didn't need to (unaware that the French Army had had the fighting spirit knocked out of it). Yet, the navy sat there and allowed the British Navy to cripple the German war effort.

[jason_c]

I don't think the Germans have ever really grasped what it takes to fight a protracted war.

Yes, they made a concerted attempt to indoctrinate their own people - there's a fascinating musuem in Berlin dedicated to Russian/German relations complete with the most outlandish propaganda (on the part of both sides) that you could possibly imagine.

But, the Germans had no form for making an effort to get the right people on side.

To fight a war you need: financial strength, a good intelligence network, 'friends' who could make a difference and military proficiency. They never grasped that, or Sun Tzu's maxim that diplomacy is the better bet and war should be avoided unless you're guaranteed victory or you have no other option.

No one could say the Germans weren't game; during both wars they put themselves in a position where they weren't favourites; but they certainly didn't have the know-how to see it through to a winning conclusion.

Put it this way: a lot of Americans were convinced the Germans were murdering women and children in Belguim during WW1; you'd have to go a long way to find an American who knew that during the British retreat at Dunkirk, British soldiers rounded up civilians and murdered them on the grounds that they were spying for the Germans (which of course they weren't; British soldiers in a desperate situation, tired and paranoid, had lost control and discipline had broken down).

And that's something that has been known and understood in England since the days of John Locke: people are easily impressed with the packaging.

Your being slightly disingenuous by claiming the British were murdering civilians on the road to Dunkirk, but the Germans werent murdering Belgian and French civilians in WW1(they did).

As far as German intelligence and allie building goes they had mixed results. They somehow convinced themselves to ally with Mexico against the USA. However, they also pulled off a masterstroke by dropping (the equivalent of) a German agent behind Russian lines. This Russian agent subsequently took over the entire Russian Govt and sued for peace on very favourable terms for Germany. Almost a war winning operation on its own.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Your being slightly disingenuous by claiming the British were murdering civilians on the road to Dunkirk, but the Germans werent murdering Belgian and French civilians in WW1(they did).

Almost, Jason.

I said: "murdering women and children". The British painted the Germans as baby killers and it worked.

You are correct, though. The Germans did kill some Belgian male civilians, just as the British did at Dunkirk. So, I'll give you that.

The point is, though, the British broke their backs to let all and sundry believe the German Army was made up of animals. It didn't occur to the Germans that there was no particular reason why the Americans should support the British, and, with a large German presence in the US and an anti-British presence, they could have swung the Americans in their favour with a spot of well aimed propaganda. I'm sure the Americans would have been less than keen if the general public had known that the British were deliberately starving German citizens.

Well, ok, I suppose there was one big problem for the Germans in terms of American support: the Americans could not afford the British to lose that war for financial reasons. The general public didn't know that, however.

[jason_c]

Almost, Jason.

I said: "murdering women and children". The British painted the Germans as baby killers and it worked.

You are correct, though. The Germans did kill some Belgian male civilians, just as the British did at Dunkirk. So, I'll give you that.

The point is, though, the British broke their backs to let all and sundry believe the German Army was made up of animals. It didn't occur to the Germans that there was no particular reason why the Americans should support the British, and, with a large German presence in the US and an anti-British presence, they could have swung the Americans in their favour with a spot of well aimed propaganda. I'm sure the Americans would have been less than keen if the general public had known that the British were deliberately starving German citizens.

Well, ok, I suppose there was one big problem for the Germans in terms of American support: the Americans could not afford the British to lose that war for financial reasons. The general public didn't know that, however.

Fair enough. The English language probably gave us an edge in the propaganda department. And im unsure how much success we had in starving Germany for the Germans to propagandize it. Later in the war our blockade hurt Germany. Early and mid war would be a tougher sell.

[Mayerling]

Almost, Jason.

I said: "murdering women and children". The British painted the Germans as baby killers and it worked.

You are correct, though. The Germans did kill some Belgian male civilians, just as the British did at Dunkirk. So, I'll give you that.

The point is, though, the British broke their backs to let all and sundry believe the German Army was made up of animals. It didn't occur to the Germans that there was no particular reason why the Americans should support the British, and, with a large German presence in the US and an anti-British presence, they could have swung the Americans in their favour with a spot of well aimed propaganda. I'm sure the Americans would have been less than keen if the general public had known that the British were deliberately starving German citizens.

Well, ok, I suppose there was one big problem for the Germans in terms of American support: the Americans could not afford the British to lose that war for financial reasons. The general public didn't know that, however.

Hi Fleetwood,

When I studied the causes of World War I in high school and college the naval rivalry was always brought up (though I will grant you it was not as big a cause as the two you pointed out).

Funny thing was that in 1899 and 1901 Joseph Chamberlain tried to get an Anglo-German alliance. Holstein and his bosses in Berlin did not realize Chamberlain's efforts were out of a degree of admiration and friendship (and that recent colonial collision like Fashoda were with France). Rather the German's thought it was based on a sense of unease and weakness, and expected Chamberlain to offer territorial bribes to get the agreement. He didn't. So when Balfour (Chamberlain's rival) became Prime Minister he turned to France and got the agreement there. Later they got the still more incredible one with Russia, a nation that always was England's rival in central Asia. German diplomacy really had to be "good" to accomplish that one!

To me one of the great missed opportuniies of 1914 was the German Navy. They had widened the Kiel Canal for the dreadnoughts, and I can only suspect that Von Schlieffen had little thought about Tirpitz and his navy (there were no major German naval battles in their three "quickie" victorious wars of unification from 1863 to 1871; the ally Italy gave Austria it's only great victory in the Seven Weeks War when it lost it's flagship and the battle of Lissa to Tegethoff). I always thought that Schlieffen should have had the navy transport his men around the Low countries, and land in France, using the canal. If he had, Asquith, Grey, and Churchill would have had a weakened argument about siding with France and Russia in the war - no invasion of Belgium and no dismissal of "the scrap of paper."

Jeff

[Mayerling]

American neutrality and the war.

I forgot to add this before.

The U. S. population did have heavily anti-British sentiment in it from German-Americans, and other central European groups from Germany and Austria-Hungary, but many of the German immigrants and their like came to get away from the militarist traditions in the homelands. However, with powerful publishers like W. R. Hearst (a German-American) there was a degree of anti-Allied propaganda here already.

Wilson did declare our neutrality, but privately he liked England and the Allies (Russa is questionable) more than the Central Powers. Due to geography, we were more likely to deal with England (which was, after all, the mother country). Our banking (as you reported) was tied to them as well - except for the German-Jewish bank of Kuhn Loeb & Co. (Jacob Schiff, and the Warburgs' bank) which was second to J. P. Morgan in influence, and tended to try to be equal handed.

Germany just blew it. In both World Wars it viewed the U. S. as a bumptious and pretentious country (Hitler would later call us a "mongrel country" due to our multi-races and nationalities). It treated us the same way it treated England. Russia, and France - to stir up problems in Ireland it sent back arms and Roger Casement in 1916;to stir up Russia it sent Lenin from Switzerland to "the Finland Station"; to stir up problems in France's African colonies it used Bolo Pasha; and with the U.S and it's crazy problems with Carranza, Villa, and the Mexican Revolution, it sent the Zimmermann note.

Britain did a similar act to the Ottoman Empire using T. E. Lawrence and the Arab tribes, but I don't think they tried to revive Bavarian Nationalism or resume recogntion of the King's Hanovarian cousins on their former throne (the Hanovarian, by the way, supported the German point of view, and lost for several decades the right to the title Dukes of Cumberland).

An inbred arrogance that their leadership did not really deserve to have destroyed the German cause. Unlimited submarine warfare against any British vessel (yes, I know the "Lusy" was an auxiliary cruiser, but they knew it was carrying passengers, and Von Pohl's infamous advertisement did not clean the record for them). I think they lost the war when Gallieni won the first Marne with his taxicab army.

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

When I studied the causes of World War I in high school and college the naval rivalry was always brought up (though I will grant you it was not as big a cause as the two you pointed out).

Funny thing was that in 1899 and 1901 Joseph Chamberlain tried to get an Anglo-German alliance. Holstein and his bosses in Berlin did not realize Chamberlain's efforts were out of a degree of admiration and friendship (and that recent colonial collision like Fashoda were with France). Rather the German's thought it was based on a sense of unease and weakness, and expected Chamberlain to offer territorial bribes to get the agreement. He didn't. So when Balfour (Chamberlain's rival) became Prime Minister he turned to France and got the agreement there. Later they got the still more incredible one with Russia, a nation that always was England's rival in central Asia. German diplomacy really had to be "good" to accomplish that one!

To me one of the great missed opportuniies of 1914 was the German Navy. They had widened the Kiel Canal for the dreadnoughts, and I can only suspect that Von Schlieffen had little thought about Tirpitz and his navy (there were no major German naval battles in their three "quickie" victorious wars of unification from 1863 to 1871; the ally Italy gave Austria it's only great victory in the Seven Weeks War when it lost it's flagship and the battle of Lissa to Tegethoff). I always thought that Schlieffen should have had the navy transport his men around the Low countries, and land in France, using the canal. If he had, Asquith, Grey, and Churchill would have had a weakened argument about siding with France and Russia in the war - no invasion of Belgium and no dismissal of "the scrap of paper."

Jeff

I think you hit on a few things there, Jeff.

Not only were the Russians rivals, they were seen as barbarians here.

There was a great deal of respect for the Germans on the other hand for what they had achieved in areas such as science, philosophy, psychology, music etc.

It was unthinkable in many quarters that the British should fight with the Russians against the Germans.

And, we had a nice little set-up with the French which safeguarded our position.

It wasn't a foregone conclusion, though. Right up to the eve of the war the Liberal government was split on the question of whether or not we should enter the war, with some ministers resigning. It proved to be the most costly mistake in British history, and one which set the scene for the Americans and Russians coming to the fore (a scenario predicted by more than one German intellectual, by the way, in the event of a European war).

[Fleetwood Mac]

In both World Wars it viewed the U. S. as a bumptious and pretentious country (Hitler would later call us a "mongrel country" due to our multi-races and nationalities).

Ah yes, what the Germans liekd to call 'High Kultur'.

It came from German romanticism, and German conservatives looked upon both England and the US as commercial nations destroying the fabric of European civilisation. Which was true to some extent as England certainly was a commercial nation, but wide of the mark in the sense that the continental Europeans spent a lot of time fighting one another - not exactly civilised behaviour!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh, and Jeff, you're absolutely right about the Germans seriously misunderstanding that beneath the confident nation that was the US, lurked a serious nation that should have been treated with respect.

During the US's colonial adventures in the 1890s, the British gave ground to the Americans where they had competing interests. Like us the US was a commercial, industrious nation but with a vast numerical advantage in terms of population.

Nothing to be gained by antagonising the Americans.

And, I suppose this comes back to my earlier point about the art of diplomacy: do not piss off a group of people who can cause you serious problems further down the line.

[Errata]

Not only were the Russians rivals, they were seen as barbarians here.

Well, having to take the troops to the front lines in ox carts because the Russian railroad system had thinner tracks (and accordingly, train wheels) than the rest of the planet didn't really help that impression.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, having to take the troops to the front lines in ox carts because the Russian railroad system had thinner tracks (and accordingly, train wheels) than the rest of the planet didn't really help that impression.

Not to mention a lack of boots and guns. Bizarrely, many Russian soldiers were running around at the front with no guns or boots on their feet.

And it's illuminating that when Russian commanders asked their men why they were in this war, many of the Russian peasants had never heard of a country named Germany.

Then again, I suppose you could label the same at British soldiers singing a song about going to "bash the belgies". Although that was more a case of black humour.