Debatable Phases of the Great Naval Conflict Reviewed by
Eminent British Experts
By ADMIRAL SIR CYPRIAN BRIDGE, G. C. B.
_In the May number of_ CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE _appeared a general
review of the battle of Jutland by Mr. Thomas G. Frothingham,
with a footnote and diagrams by Professor Westcott of the United
States Naval Academy at Annapolis. The article was brought to the
attention of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, one of the most noted naval
experts of Great Britain, and was also sent to Mr. Arthur Pollen,
an internationally recognized naval writer in England, both of whom
contribute comments on the American writer's article. Since his review
appeared Mr. Frothingham has joined the National Army of the United
States as Captain._--EDITOR.
There is only one thing certain in naval history, and that is that
every great sea fight--as to the circumstances of which we have
detailed information--has been criticised as indecisive and as not
fought in the way which it should have been. Ex-President Theodore
Roosevelt, whose fairness and accuracy as a naval historian have been
generally recognized, has said: "Every historian ought to feel a sense
of the most lively gratitude toward Nelson; in his various encounters
he never left any possible room for dispute as to which side had come
out first best." Unfortunately, this is going rather too far, for the
merits of every one of Nelson's battles have been disputed, and his way
of fighting each has been adversely criticised. This fate he shares
with the great De Ruyter and with less important men. Rodney and Lord
Howe, as commanders in general actions, were fiercely criticised. Lord
Hawke did not receive the customary recognition of his services until
seventeen years after the great battle of Quiberon Bay. Roosevelt
tells us that: "In every one of De Ruyter's last six battles each side
claimed the victory." If we had minute accounts of the talk that went
on in the gardens and porches of ancient Athens we should, without
doubt, learn that Salamis was far from being decisive and that, anyhow,
it ought to have been fought in a different way. It is just as well to
remember this whenever we are discussing a naval battle, whether of old
date or recent. Land battles have not been treated in quite the same
fashion. Their results have not been disputed so often, nor has the
manner in which they were fought been so often adversely criticised.
Perhaps we may account for this difference in the treatment of
conflicts on the two elements by noting the fact that naval historians
and critics of naval operations have but rarely been men of naval
experience, while the historians and critics of military operations
have usually been soldiers. There has, of course, been some conflict
of opinion as to the results of fighting on shore, as we can see on
comparing the communiques of the contending sides in the present war.
Even after allowing for the unprecedented mendacity of the German
authorities and the unprecedented gullibility of the German public
there is still some sign of an honest difference of opinion. The
difference is not due to lay or unprofessional ignorance.
As regards naval operations in war--indeed, as regards naval affairs in
general--it has been shown times without number that it is impossible
for any one without naval experience to take a comprehensive or
accurate view of naval conditions. This is by no means to disparage
what shoregoing writers have done in naval history or in the discussion
of some subjects largely though not totally naval. As long as they
record facts they do very valuable work. It is when they express
opinions and draw inferences from very technical data that they are
almost certain to go astray. As a searcher in authoritative records
and a narrator of detailed occurrences James is distinctly superior to
Mahan; but who would give a fig for James's opinions? Whereas Mahan's
govern the naval thought of the world.