THE DARDANELLES
“UNTIL THIS DAY REMAINETH THE SAME VAIL UNTAKEN AWAY”
2 Corinthians, iii, 14.
I compared this morning early what I had formerly written on the
subject of Personalities with what I said to you yesterday on the same
subject in my peripatetic dictation--I can’t recognise what is in type
for the same as what I spoke.
This morning I get a letter from Lord Rosebery. Lord Rosebery is, I
think, in a way attached to me. In fact he must be, or I should not
have drunk so much of his splendid champagne! Now _you_ don’t call
me “frisky” when I walk up and down talking to you; and although he
reads the actual living words I say to you, yet when he sees the
beastly thing in print he calls me “frisky”! I keep on saying this _ad
nauseam_, to keep on hammering it not only into you but into the public
at large who happen to read these words--that no printed effusion
can ever represent what, when face to face, cannot help conveying
conviction to the hearer. And so we come to the same old story, that
the written word is an inanimate corpse. You want to have the Soul of
the Man pouring out to you his personality.
And here again, when I contrasted the notes which I spoke from with
what I said, again I find I don’t recognise them--Well! enough of that!
Now if anyone thinks that in this chapter they are going to see Sport
and that I am going to trounce Mr. Winston Churchill and abuse Mr.
Asquith and put it all upon poor Kitchener they are woefully mistaken.
It was a Miasma that brought about the Dardanelles Adventure. A Miasma
like the invisible, scentless, poisonous--_deadly_ poisonous--gas with
which my dear friend Brock, of imperishable memory and Victoria Cross
bravery, wickedly massacred at Zeebrugge, was going (in unison with a
plan I had) to polish off not alone every human soul in Heligoland and
its surrounding fleet sheltered under its guns from the Grand Fleet,
but every rabbit. It was much the same gas the German put into the
“Inflexible” (which I commanded), in 1882 to light the engine-room.
When it escaped it was scentless; instead of going up, as it ought
to have done, it went down, and permeated the double-bottom, and
we kept hauling up unconscious men like poisoned miners out of a
coalpit. Gas catastrophe--Yes! Brock was lost to us at the massacre
of Zeebrugge--lost uselessly; for no such folly was ever devised by
fools as such an operation as that of Zeebrugge divorced from military
co-operation on land. What were the bravest of the brave massacred for?
Was it glory? Is the British Navy a young Navy requiring glory? When 25
per cent. of our Officers were killed a few days since, sinking two
Bolshevik battleships, etc., and heroic on their own element, the sea,
we all thank God, as we should do, that Nelson, looking down on us in
Trafalgar Square, feels his spirit is still with us. But for sailors
to go on shore and attack forts, which Nelson said no sailor but a
lunatic would do, without those on shore of the military persuasion to
keep what you have stormed, is not only silly but it’s murder and it’s
criminal. Also by the time Zeebrugge was attacked, the German submarine
had got far beyond a fighting radius that required this base near the
English coast. As Dean Inge says: “We must hope that in the Paradise of
brave men the knowledge is mercifully hid from them that they died in
vain.”
Again, this is a digression--but such must be the nature of this book
when speaking _ore rotundo_ and from the fulness of a disgusted heart,
that such Lions should be led by such Asses. The book can’t convey my
feelings, however carefully my good friend the typewriter is taking it
down. All the quill drivers, the ink spillers, and the Junius-aping
journalists will jeer at you as the Editor, and say, “Why didn’t you
stop him? Where’s the argument? Where’s the lucid exposition? Where’s
the subtle dialectician who will talk a bird out of a tree? Where is
this wonderful personality I’m told of, who fooled King Edward, and
ravished virgins, and preached the Gospel (so he says)? Like Gaul, he
is divided into three parts; we don’t see one of them.”
We’ll get along with the Dardanelles now. All this will make pulp for
paper for the _National Review_.
“Imperial Cæsar dead and turned to clay
Now stops a hole to keep the wind away.”
Well, I left off at the “Miasma” that, imperceptibly to each of them
in the War Council, floated down on them with rare subtle dialectical
skill, and proved so incontestably to them that cutting off the enemy’s
big toe in the East was better than stabbing him to the heart in the
West; and that the Dardanelles was better than the Baltic, and that
Gallipoli knocked spots off the Kiel Canal, or a Russian Army landed by
the British Fleet on the Baltic shore of Schleswig-Holstein.
Without any doubt, the “beseechings” of the Grand Duke Nicholas in
the Caucasus on January 2nd, 1915,[7] addressed to Kitchener in such
soldierly terms, moved that great man’s heart; for say what you will,
Kitchener was a great man. But he was a great deception, all the same,
inasmuch as he couldn’t do what a lot of people thought he could do.
Like Moses, he was a great Commissariat Officer, but he was not a
Napoleon or a Moltke; he was a Carnot _in excelsis_, and he was the
facile dupe of his own failings. But “Speak well of those who treat
you well.” I went to him one evening at 5 p.m., with Mr. Churchill’s
knowledge, and said to him as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty that if
his myrmidons did not cease that same night from seducing men from the
private shipyards to become “Cannon-fodder” I was going to resign at
6 p.m. I explained to him the egregious folly of not pressing on our
shipbuilding to its utmost limits. He admitted the soft impeachment
as to the seduction; and there, while I waited, he wrote the telegram
calling off the seducers. If only that had been stuck to after I left
the Admiralty, we shouldn’t be rationed now in sugar nearly a year
after the Armistice, nor should we be bidding fair to become a second
Carthage. We left our element, the sea, to make ourselves into a
conscript nation fighting on the Continent with four million soldiers
out of a population of forty millions. More than all the other nations’
was our Army.
The last words of Mr. A. G. Gardiner’s article about him who is now
dictating are these: “He is fighting his last great battle. And his foe
is the veteran of the rival service. For in his struggle to establish
conscription Lord Roberts’s most formidable antagonist is the author of
the ‘Dreadnought.’”
Well, once more resuming the Dardanelles story. These side-lights
really illuminate the situation. These Armies we were raising incited
us to these wild-cat expeditions. I haven’t reckoned them up, but there
must have been a Baker’s Dozen of ’em going on. Now, do endeavour to
get this vital fact into your mind. We are an Island. Every soldier
that wants to go anywhere out of England--a sailor has got to carry him
there on his back.
Consequently, every soldier that you raise or enlist, or recruit, or
whatever the proper word is, unless he is absolutely part of a Lord
Lieutenant’s Army, never to go out of England and only recruited,
like the Militia--that splendid force!--to be called up only in case
of invasion--as I say, every soldier that is recruited on any other
basis means so much tonnage in shipping that has to be provided, not
only to take him to the Continent; but it’s got to be kept ready to
bring him back, in case of his being wounded, and all the time to take
him provisions, ammunition, stores. Those vessels again have to have
other vessels to carry out coal for those vessels, and those colliers
have again to be supplemented by other colliers to take the place of
those removed from the normal trade, and the coal mines themselves
necessitate more miners or the miners’ working beyond the hours of
fatigue to bring forth the extra coal; or else the commercial work of
the nation gets diminished and your economic resources get crippled,
and that of itself carried _in extremis_ means finishing the war. As
a matter of fact, it _has_ nearly finished the English Nation--the
crippling of our economic resources by endeavouring to swell ourselves
out like the Frog in Æsop’s Fables, and become a great continental
Power--forgetting the Heaven-sent gift of an incomparable Navy dating
from the time of Alfred the Great, and God’s providing a breakwater 600
miles long (the British Islands) in front of the German Coast to stop
the German access to the ocean, and thus by easy blockade killing him
from the sea as he was killed eventually. Alas! what happened? In the
House of Commons the British Navy is called a subsidiary Service. And
then Lord Rosebery doesn’t like my “frisking”; and cartoons represent
that I want a job; and fossil Admirals call me immodest!
Mr. Churchill was behind no one both in his enthusiasm for the Baltic
project, and also in his belief that the decisive theatre of the war
was beyond doubt in Northern waters; and both he and Mr. Lloyd George,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, magnificently responded to the idea of
constructing a great Armada of 612 vessels, to be rapidly built--mostly
in a few weeks and only a few extending over a few months--to carry
out the great purpose; and I prepared my own self with my own hands
alone, to preserve secrecy, all the arrangements for landing three
great armies at different places--two of them being feints that could
be turned into a reality. Also I made all the preparations, shortly
before these expeditions were to start, to practise them embarking at
Southampton and disembarking at Stokes Bay, so that those who were
going to work the Russian Armies would be practised in the art, having
seen the experiment conducted on a scale of twelve inches to the foot
with 50,000 men.
(We once embarked 8,000 soldiers on board the Mediterranean Fleet in
nineteen minutes, and the fleet steamed out and landed them at similar
speed. Old Abdul Hamid, the Sultan, heard of it, and he complimented me
on there being such a Navy. That was the occasion when a red-haired,
short, fat Major, livid with rage, complained to me on the beach that
a bluejacket had shoved him into the boat and said to him “Hurry up,
you bloody lobster, or I’ll be ’ung!” I explained to the Major that the
man _would_ have been hanged; he was responsible for getting the boat
filled and shoved off in so many seconds.)
I remember that at the War Council held on January 28th, 1915, at 11.30
a.m., Mr. Churchill announced that the real purpose of the Navy was to
obtain access to the Baltic, and he illustrated that there were three
naval phases. The first phase was the clearing of the outer seas; and
that had been accomplished. The second phase was the clearing of the
North Sea. And the third phase was the clearing of the Baltic. Mr.
Churchill laid stress on the importance of this latter operation,
because Germany always had been and still was very much afraid of being
attacked in the Baltic. For this purpose special vessels were needed
and the First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, had designed cruisers, etc., etc.,
meaning the Armada. Mr. Lloyd George said to me at another meeting of
the War Council, with all listening: “How many battleships shall we
lose in the Dardanelles?” “A dozen!” said I, “but I prefer to lose them
elsewhere.” In dictating this account I can’t represent his face when I
said this.
Here I insert a letter on the subject which I wrote to Lord Cromer in
October, 1916:--
36, BERKELEY SQUARE,
_October 11th, 1916_.
DEAR LORD CROMER,
To-day Sir F. Cawley asked me to reconcile Kitchener’s statement
of May 14th at the War Council that the Admiralty proposed the
Dardanelles enterprise with my assertion that he (Kitchener) did
it. Please see question No. 1119. Mr. Churchill is speaking, and
Lord Kitchener said to him “_could we not for instance make a
demonstration at the Dardanelles?_”
I repeat that before Kitchener’s letter of Jan. 2nd to Mr.
Churchill there was no Dardanelles! Mr. Churchill had been rightly
wrapped up in the splendid project of the British Army sweeping
along the sea in association with the British Fleet. See Mr.
Churchill at Question No. 1179.
“The advance of the (British) Army along the Coast was _an
attractive operation, but we could not get it settled_. Sir John
French wanted very much to do it, but it fell through.”
See Lord Fisher, _War Council of Jan. 13th_! Sir John French then
present--(_3 times he came over about it_)--“Lord Fisher demurred
to any attempt to attack Zeebrugge without the co-operation of the
British Army along the coast.”
As to the _Queen Elizabeth_, Mr. Churchill is right in saying there
was great tension between Kitchener and myself. He came over to the
Admiralty and when I said “_if the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ didn’t leave
the Dardanelles that night I should!_” he got up from the table
and he left! and wrote an unpleasant letter about me to the Prime
Minister! _Lucky she did leave!!_ The German submarine prowling
around for a fortnight looking for her (_and neglecting all the
other battleships_) blew up her duplicate wooden image.
Yours, etc.,
(Signed) FISHER.
Mr. Churchill is quite correct. I backed him up till I resigned. _I
would do the same again!_ He had courage and imagination! He was a
War Man!
If you doubt my dictum that the Cabinet Ministers only were
members of the War Council and the rest of us voice tubes to convey
information and advice, ask Hankey to come before you again and
state the status!
Otherwise the experts would be the Government! Kindly read what Mr.
Asquith said on Nov. 2nd, 1915, in Parliament. (See p. 70.)
(We had constructed a fleet of dummy battleships to draw off the German
submarines. This squadron appeared with effect in the Atlantic and much
confused the enemy.)
Mr. Asquith also was miasma-ed; and it’s not allowable to describe the
discussion that he, I, and Mr. Churchill had in the Prime Minister’s
private room, except so far as to observe that Mr. Churchill had been
strongly in favour of military co-operation with the fleet on the
Belgian Coast, and Sir John French, on three different visits to the
War Council, had assented to carrying out the operation, provided he
had another Division added to his Force. This project--so fruitful as
it would have been in its results at the early stage of the war--was,
I understand, prevented by three deterrents: (1) Lord Kitchener’s
disinclination; (2) The French didn’t want the British Army to get into
Belgium; (3) The Dardanelles came along.
I objected to any Naval action on the Belgian Coast without such
military co-operation. Those flat shores of the Belgian coast,
enfiladed by the guns of the accompanying British Fleet, rendered that
enterprise feasible, encouraging and, beyond doubt, deadly to the
enemy’s sea flank. Besides preventing Zeebrugge from being fortified
and the Belgian Coast being made use of as a jumping-off place for the
air raids on London and elsewhere, with guns capable of ranging such
an enormous distance as those mounted in the Monitors, we could have
enfiladed with great effect all attacks by the Germans.
When we got to the Council table--the members having been kept waiting
a considerable time--the Prime Minister gave the decision that the
Dardanelles project must proceed; and as I rose from the Council table
Kitchener followed me, and was so earnest and even emotional[8] that
I should return that I said to myself after some delay: “Well, we can
withdraw the ships at any moment, so long as the Military don’t land,”
and I succumbed. I was mad on that Armada of 612 vessels, so generously
fostered by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill and sustained by the
Prime Minister. They were of all sorts and sizes--but alas! as they
reached completion they began to be gradually perverted and diverted to
purposes for which they were unfitted and employed in waters to which
they were unsuited. Nevertheless they made (some of them) the Germans
flee for their lives, and with such a one as the gallant Arbuthnot
or the splendid Hood, who gave their lives for nothing at Jutland, we
might have had another Quiberon.
To resume: I gave Lord Cromer, the Chairman of the Dardanelles
Commission a précis of the Dardanelles case. It doesn’t appear in the
Report of the Dardanelles Commission. I forgive him that, because,
when in his prime, he did me a good deed. It is worth relating. I
entreated him to cut a channel into Alexandria Harbour deep enough for
a Dreadnought; and he did it, though it cost a million sterling, and
thus gave us a base of incalculable advantage in certain contingencies.
I will now shortly pass in review the Dardanelles statement that I gave
Lord Cromer. Those who will read this book won’t want to be fooled
with figures. I give a figurative synopsis. Of course, as I told the
Dardanelles Commission (Cromer thought it judicious to omit my comment,
I believe), the continuation of the Dardanelles adventure beyond the
first operations, confined solely to the ships of the fleet which could
be withdrawn at any moment and the matter ended--the continuation, I
explained to the Dardanelles Commission, was largely due to champion
liars. It must ever be so in these matters. I presume that’s how it
came about that two Cabinet Ministers--no doubt so fully fed up with
the voice tube, as it has been described--told the nation that we were
within a few yards of victory at the Dardanelles, and so justified
and encouraged a continuance of that deplorable massacre. However, no
politician regards truth from the same point of view as a gentleman.
He puts on the spectacles of his Party. The _suppressio veri_ and the
_suggestio falsi_ flourish in politics like the green baize tree.
Sworn to no Party--of no Sect am I:
I can’t be silent and I will not lie.
Before the insertion of the following narrative prepared by me at the
time of the Dardanelles Commission I wish to interject this remark:
When sailors get round a Council Board they are almost invariably mute.
The Politicians who are round that Board are not mute; they never would
have got there if they had been mute. That’s why for the life of me I
can’t understand what on earth made David say in the Psalms “A man full
of words shall not prosper on the Earth.” They are the very ones who do
prosper! It shows what a wonderful fellow St. Paul was; he was a bad
talker and yet he got on. He gives a bit of autobiography, and tells us
that his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible, though
his letters were weighty and powerful. However, in that case, another
Gospel was being preached, where the worldly wise were confounded by
the worldly foolish.
While my evidence was being taken before the Dardanelles Commission,
the Secretary (Mears) was splendid in his kindness to me, and my
everlasting gratitude is with the “Dauntless Three” who broke away
from their colleagues and made an independent report. They were Mr.
Fisher--formerly Prime Minister of Australia, (a fellow labourer), Sir
Thomas Mackenzie (High Commissioner for New Zealand), and Mr. Roch,
M.P. Their Report was my life-buoy; a précis of their Report, so far
as it affects me and which I consider unanswerable, establishes that
it is the duty of any Officer, however highly placed, to subordinate
his views to that of the Government, unless he considers such a course
so vitally antagonistic to his Country’s interests as to compel him
to resign. I know of no line of action so criminally outrageous and
subversive of all discipline as that of public wrangling between a
subordinate and his superior, or the Board of Admiralty and an Admiral
afloat, or the War Office and their Commander-in-Chief in the Field.
This Dardanelles Commission reminds me of another “cloudy and dark
day,” as Ezekiel would describe it, when five Cabinet Ministers, at the
instigation of an Admiral recently serving, held an enquiry absolutely
technical and professional on matters about which not one of them
could give an authoritative opinion but only an opinion which regarded
political opportunism--an enquiry neither more nor less than of my
professional capacity as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty. The trained
mind of Mr. McKenna only just succeeded in saving me from being thrown
to the wolves of the hustings. But it has inflicted a mortal wound on
the discipline of the Navy. Hereafter no mutinous Admiral need despair
(only provided he has political and social influence) of obtaining
countenance for an onslaught against his superiors; and we may yet lose
the decisive battle of the world in consequence.
The following is my narrative of my connexion with the Dardanelles
Operations.
“The position will not be clear and, indeed, will be incomprehensible,
if it be not first explained how very close an official intimacy
existed between Mr. Winston Churchill and Lord Fisher for very many
years previous to the Dardanelles episode, and how Lord Fisher thus
formed the conviction that Mr. Churchill’s audacity, courage, and
imagination specially fitted him to be a War Minister.
“When, in the autumn of 1911, Mr. Winston Churchill became First Lord
of the Admiralty, Lord Fisher had retired from the position of First
Sea Lord which he had occupied from October 21st, 1904, to January
25th, 1910, amidst great turmoil all the time. During Lord Fisher’s
tenure of office as First Lord, vast Naval reforms were carried out,
including the scrapping of some 160 ships of no fighting value, and
great naval economies were effected, and all this time (except for one
unhappy lapse when Mr. Churchill resisted the additional ‘Dreadnought’
building programme) Mr. Winston Churchill was in close association
with these drastic reforms, and gave Lord Fisher all his sympathy
when hostile criticism was both malignant and perilous. For this
reason, on Mr. Churchill’s advent as First Lord of the Admiralty in
the autumn of 1911, Lord Fisher most gladly complied with his request
to return home from Italy to help him to proceed with that great task
that had previously occupied Lord Fisher for six years as First Sea
Lord, namely, the preparation for a German War which Lord Fisher had
predicted in 1905 would certainly occur in August, 1914, in a written
memorandum, and afterwards also personally to Sir M. Hankey, the
Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, necessitating that
drastic revolution in all things Naval which brought 88 per cent. of
the British Fleet into close proximity with Germany and _made its
future battle ground in the North Sea its drill ground_, weeding out
of the Navy inefficiency in ships, officers, and men, and obtaining
absolute fighting sea supremacy by an unparalleled advance in types of
fighting vessels.
“Mr. Churchill then at Lord Fisher’s request did a fine thing in so
disposing his patronage as First Lord as to develop Sir John Jellicoe
into his Nelsonic position. So that when the day of war came Sir
John Jellicoe became admiralissimo in spite of great professional
opposition....
“This increased Lord Fisher’s regard for Mr. Churchill, and on July
30th, 1914, at his request, Lord Fisher spent hours with him on that
fifth day before war was declared and by his wish saw Mr. Balfour to
explain to him the Naval situation. This is just mentioned to show the
close official intimacy existing between Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher,
and when, on October 20th, 1914, Mr. Churchill asked Lord Fisher to
become First Sea Lord he gladly assented to co-operating with him in
using the great weapon Lord Fisher had helped to forge.
[Illustration:
[_By kind permission of “The Pall Mall Gazette._”
THE KINGFISHER.
“This bird has a somewhat long bill and is equipped with a
brilliant blue back and tail; the latter not of sufficient length
to be in the way. Its usual cry is much like the typical cry of the
family, but besides this it gives a low, hoarse croak from time to
time when seated in the shadows. Although exclusively a water bird,
it is not unfrequently found at some distance from any water. It is
very wary, keeping a good look-out, and defends its breeding place
with great courage and daring.”--_Zoological Studies._]
“Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher worked in absolute accord until it
came to the question of the Dardanelles, when Lord Fisher’s instinct
absolutely forbade him to give it any welcome. But finding himself the
one solitary person dissenting from the project in the War Council,
and knowing it to be of vital importance that he should personally see
to the completion of the great shipbuilding programme of 612 vessels
initiated on his recent advent to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, also
being confident that all these vessels could only be finished rapidly
if he remained, Lord Fisher allowed himself to be persuaded by Lord
Kitchener on January 28th, 1915, to continue as First Sea Lord. That
point now remains to be related in somewhat greater detail.
“To begin with:--When exactly 10 years previously Lord Fisher became
First Sea Lord, on October 20th, 1904, that very day occurred the
Dogger Bank incident with Russia, and the Prime Minister made a speech
at Southampton that seemed to make war with Russia a certainty; so Lord
Fisher, as First Sea Lord, immediately looked into the Forcing of the
Dardanelles in the event of Russia’s movements necessitating British
action in the Dardanelles. He then satisfied himself that, even with
military co-operation, it was mighty hazardous, and he so represented
it at that time. The proceedings of the Committee of Imperial Defence,
however, will furnish full details respecting the Dardanelles,
especially Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson’s remarks when Director of
Military Operations, and also those of Sir N. Lyttelton when Chief of
the General Staff.
“But Lord Fisher had had the great advantage of commanding a
battleship under Admiral Sir Geoffrey Phipps Hornby when, during the
Russo-Turkish War, that celebrated Flag Officer lay with the British
Fleet near Constantinople, and Lord Fisher listened at the feet of
that Naval Gamaliel when he supported Nelson’s dictum that no sailor
but a fool would ever attack a fort! Nevertheless, Nelson did attack
Copenhagen--was really beaten, but he bluffed the Danish Crown Prince
and came out ostensibly as victor. Nelson’s Commander-in-Chief, Sir
Hyde Parker, knew Nelson was beaten and signalled to him to retreat,
but Nelson disobeyed orders as he did at St. Vincent and the Nile, and
with equal judgment.
“We might have done the same bluff with the Turks, had promptitude and
decision directed us, but procrastination, indecision, and vacillation
dogged us instead. The 29th Division oscillated for weeks between
France and Turkey. (_See_ below my notes of the War Council Meetings of
February 19th and 24th.)
“_Note._--_See_ Mr. Churchill’s statement at the 19th Meeting of the
War Council on May 14th, 1915, that had it been known three months
previously that an English army of 100,000 men would have been
available for the attack on the Dardanelles, _the naval attack would
never have been undertaken_.
“The War Council met on May 14th, 1915, and certain steps proposed to
be taken by Mr. Churchill immediately afterwards, decided Lord Fisher
that he could no longer support the Dardanelles operations. He could
not go further in this project with Mr. Churchill, and was himself
convinced that we should seize that moment to give up the Dardanelles
operations. So Lord Fisher went.
“Lord Fisher’s parting with Mr. Churchill was pathetic, but it was
the only way out. When the Prime Minister read to Lord Fisher Lord
Kitchener’s letter to the Prime Minister attacking Lord Fisher for
withdrawing the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ from certain destruction at the
Dardanelles, Lord Fisher then realised how splendid had been Mr.
Churchill’s support of him as to her withdrawal. A few days afterwards
the German submarine that had been hovering round the British Fleet for
a fortnight blew up the wooden image of the super-Dreadnought we had
sent out there as a bait for the German submarines, showing how the
Germans realised the ‘Queen Elizabeth’s’ value in letting all the other
older battleships alone for about a fortnight till they thought they
really had the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ in this wooden prototype!
“It must be emphasised on Mr. Churchill’s behalf that he had the whole
Naval opinion at the Admiralty as well as the Naval opinion at the
Dardanelles with him--Lord Fisher was the only dissentient.
“It must be again repeated that though Lord Fisher was so decidedly
against the Dardanelles operations from the very first, yet he was very
largely influenced to remain because he was convinced it was of vital
importance to the nation to carry out the large building programme
initiated by him, which was to enable the Navy to deal such a decisive
blow in the decisive theatre (in Northern Waters) as would shorten the
war--by the great projects alluded to by Mr. Churchill at the 9th
meeting of the War Council on January 28th, 1915, when he described the
Three Naval phases of the War, leading to our occupation of the Baltic
as being the supreme end to be attained.
“Had Lord Fisher maintained his resignation on 28th January, 1915, the
Dardanelles enterprise would certainly still have gone on, because
it was considered a matter of vital political expediency (_see_ Mr.
Balfour’s memorandum of 24th February, 1915), but those 612 new vessels
would not have been built, or they would have been so delayed as to
be useless. As it was, by Lord Fisher’s leaving the Admiralty even so
late as May 22nd, 1915, there was great delay in the completion of the
five fast Battle Cruisers and in the laying down of further Destroyers
and Submarines, and, in fact, four large Monitors (some of which had
been advanced one thousand tons) that had been considerably advanced
were stopped altogether for a time and the further building of fast
Battle Cruisers was given up. Lord Fisher had prepared a design for
a very fast Battle Cruiser carrying six 20-inch guns, and the model
was completed. She was of exceptionally light draught of water and of
exceptionally high speed. He had arranged for the manufacture of these
20-inch guns.
“It has also to be emphasised that that programme of new vessels owed
its inception to a great plan, sketched out in secret memoranda, which
it can be confidently asserted would have produced such great military
results as would certainly have ended the war in 1915.
“These plans were in addition to that concurred in by Sir John French
in his three visits to the War Council in November, 1914, for joint
action of the British Army and the British Fleet on the Belgian Coast.
“_Note._--_See_ Note to 8th meeting of the War Council on January
13th, 1915, where Lord Fisher demurs to any Naval action without
the co-operation of the British Army along the coast.”
I quote here a report of the opinion of Mr. Andrew
Fisher, the High Commissioner of Australia, and
formerly Prime Minister of Australia; a member of the
Dardanelles Commission, on the duty of departmental
advisers:--
“I am of opinion it would seal the fate of responsible government
if servants of the State were to share the responsibility of
Ministers to Parliament and to the people on matters of public
policy. The Minister has command of the opinions and views of all
officers of the department he administers on matters of public
policy. Good stewardship demands from Ministers of the Crown frank,
fair, full statements of all opinions of trusted experienced
officials to colleagues when they have direct reference to matters
of high policy.” _I give prominence to this because Ministers, and
Ministers only, must be responsible to the democracy._
If they find themselves in conflict with their expert advisers
_they should sack the advisers or themselves resign_. An official,
whether a Sea Lord or a junior clerk--having been asked a question
by his immediate chief and given his answer and the chief acts
contrary to advice--should not be subjected to reprimand for not
stating to the board of directors that he disagrees with his chief
or that he has given a reluctant consent. _If there is blame it
rests with the Minister and not with his subordinates._
“_I dissent in the strongest terms,” says Mr. Fisher in his
Minority Report, “from any suggestion that the Departmental
Adviser of a Minister in his company at a Council meeting should
express any views at all other than to the Minister and through him
unless specifically invited to do so._”
Sir Thomas Mackenzie expresses exactly the same view.
Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons on November 2,
1915, said:--
“It is the duty of the Government--of any Government--to rely very
largely upon the advice of its military and naval counsellors; but
in the long run, a Government which is worthy of the name, which is
adequate in the discharge of the trust which the nation reposes in
it, must bring all these things into some kind of proportion one to
the other, and sometimes it is not only expedient, but necessary,
to run risks and to encounter dangers which pure naval or military
policy would warn you against.”
The Government and the War Council knew my opinion--as I told the
Dardanelles Commission, it was known to all. It was known even to the
charwomen at the Admiralty. It was my duty to acquiesce cheerfully and
do my best, but when the moment came that there was jeopardy to the
Nation I resigned.
Such is the stupidity of the General Public--and such was the stupidity
of Lord Cromer--that it was not realized there would be an end of
Parliamentary Government and of the People’s will, therefore, being
followed, if experts were able to override a Government Policy. Sea
Lords are the servants of the Government. Having given their advice,
then it’s their duty to carry out the commands of the political party
in power until the moment comes when they feel they can no longer
support a policy which they are convinced is disastrous.
Here follows a summary for the Chairman of the Dardanelles Commission
of my evidence (handed to Lord Cromer, but not circulated by him or
printed in the Report of the Commission):--
“Mr. Churchill and I worked in absolute accord at the Admiralty
until it came to the question of the Dardanelles.
“I was absolutely unable to give the Dardanelles proposal any
welcome, for there was the Nelsonic dictum that ‘any sailor who
attacked a fort was a fool.’
“My direct personal knowledge of the Dardanelles problem dates
back many years. I had had the great advantage of commanding a
battleship under Admiral Sir Geoffrey Phipps Hornby when, during
the Russo-Turkish War, that celebrated flag officer took the Fleet
through the Dardanelles.
“I had again knowledge of the subject as Commander-in-Chief of the
Mediterranean Fleet for three years during the Boer War, when for a
long period the Fleet under my command lay at Lemnos off the mouth
of the Dardanelles, thus affording me means of close study of the
feasibility of forcing the Straits.
“When I became First Sea Lord on October 20th, 1904, there arrived
that very day the news of the Dogger Bank incident with Russia.
“In my official capacity, in view of the possibility of a war with
Russia, I immediately examined the question of the forcing of the
Dardanelles, and I satisfied myself at that time that even with
military co-operation the operation was mighty hazardous.
“Basing myself on the experience gained over so many years, when
the project was mooted in the present War my opinion was that the
attempt to force the Dardanelles would not succeed.
“I was the only member of the War Council who dissented from
the project, but I did not carry my dissent to the point of
resignation because I understood that there were overwhelming
political reasons why the attempt at least should be made.
“Moreover, I felt it to be of vital importance that I should
personally see to the completion of the great shipbuilding
programme which was then under construction, which had been
initiated by me on my advent to the Admiralty, and which included
no less than 612 vessels.
“The change in my opinion as to the relative importance of the
probable failure in the Dardanelles began when the ever-increasing
drain upon the Fleet, as the result of the prosecution of the
Dardanelles undertaking, reached a point at which in my opinion it
destroyed the possibility of other naval operations which I had in
view, and even approached to jeopardising our naval supremacy in
the decisive theatre of the War.
“I may be pressed with the question why did I not carry my
objections to the point of resignation when the decision was first
reached to attack the Dardanelles with naval forces.
“In my judgment it is not the business of the chief technical
advisers of the Government to resign because their advice is not
accepted, unless they are of opinion that the operation proposed
must lead to disastrous results.
“The attempt to force the Dardanelles, though a failure, would
not have been disastrous so long as the ships employed could be
withdrawn at any moment, and only such vessels were engaged, as in
the beginning of the operations was in fact the case, as could be
spared without detriment to the general service of the Fleet.
“I may next be asked whether I made any protest at the War Council
when the First Lord proposed the Dardanelles enterprise, or at any
later date.
“Mr. Churchill knew my opinion. I did not think it would tend
towards good relations between the First Lord and myself nor to
the smooth working of the Board of Admiralty to raise objections
in the War Council’s discussions. My opinion being known to Mr.
Churchill in what I regarded as the proper constitutional way, I
preferred thereafter to remain silent.
“When the operation was undertaken my duty from that time onwards
was confined to seeing that the Government plan was carried out as
successfully as possible with the available means.
“I did everything I could to secure its success, and I only
resigned when the drain it was making on the resources of the Navy
became so great as to jeopardise the major operations of the Fleet.
“On May 14th, 1915, the War Council made it clear to me that the
great projects in Northern waters which I had in view in laying
down the Armada of new vessels were at an end, and the further
drain on our naval resources foreshadowed that evening convinced me
that I could no longer countenance the Dardanelles operations, and
the next day I resigned.
“It seemed to me that I was faced at last by a progressive
frustration of my main scheme of naval strategy.
“Gradually the crowning work of war construction was being diverted
and perverted from its original aim. The Monitors, for instance,
planned for the banks and shallows of Northern waters, were sent
off to the Mediterranean where they had never been meant to operate.
“I felt I was right in remaining in office until this situation,
never contemplated at first by anyone, was accepted by the War
Council. I felt right in resigning on this decision.
“My conduct and the interpretation of my responsibility I
respectfully submit to the judgment of the Committee. Perhaps I may
be allowed to say that as regards the opinion I held I was right.
FISHER, _October 7th, 1916_.”
This is a letter which I wrote to Colonel Sir Maurice
Hankey, Secretary of the War Council:--
_September 1st, 1916._
DEAR HANKEY,
In reply to your letter in which you propose to give only one
extract concerning my hostility to the Dardanelles enterprise, do
you not think that the following words in the official Print of
Proceedings of War Council should be inserted in your report in
justice to me?
“_19th Meeting of the War Council, May 14th, 1915._--Lord
Fisher reminded the War Council that he had been no party to
the Dardanelles operations. When the matter was first under
consideration he had stated his opinion to the Prime Minister at a
private interview.”
The reason I abstained from any further pronouncement was stated.
Yours, etc.,
(Signed) _Fisher_.
I note you will kindly testify to the accuracy of my statement
that I left the Council table with the intention of resigning, but
yielded to Kitchener’s entreaty to return.
Have you the letter I wrote on January 28th, 1915, to Mr. Asquith,
beginning:--
“I am giving this note to Colonel Hankey to hand to you ...,”
because in it occur these following words:--“At any moment the
great crisis may occur in the North Sea, for the German High Sea
Fleet may be driven to fight by the German Military Headquarters,
as part of some great German military operation.”
It looks as if Hindenburg might try such a coup now.
I heard from Jellicoe a few days since that the Zeppelins now made
the German submarines very formidable, and by way of example he
pointed out that the “Falmouth” was torpedoed even when at a speed
of 25 knots and zigzagging every five minutes.
* * * * *
In some notes compiled on this matter I find it recorded that I
was present at the meeting on the 13th January, when the plan was
first proposed and approved in principle, and was also present at
the meeting on the evening of the 28th January, when Mr. Churchill
announced that the Admiralty had decided to push on with the
project. On the morning of the 28th January I said that I had
understood that this question would not be raised to-day, and that
the Prime Minister was well aware of my own views in regard to it.
After the failure of the naval attack on the Narrows on the 18th
March, I remarked at the meeting on the 19th March that I had
always said that a loss of 12 battleships must be expected before
the Dardanelles could be forced by the Navy alone, and that I still
adhered to this view.
Also, at the meeting held on the 14th May, I reminded the War
Council that I had been no party to the Dardanelles operations.
When the matter was under consideration I had stated my opinion to
the Prime Minister at a private interview.
Some light is perhaps thrown on my general attitude towards naval
attacks by the following remark, made at the meeting held on the
13th January, which related, not to the Dardanelles project, but to
a proposed naval attack on Zeebrugge:--
I said that the Navy had only a limited number of battleships to
lose, and would probably sustain losses in an attack on Zeebrugge.
I demurred to any attempt to attack Zeebrugge _without the
co-operation of the Army along the coast_.
This note is here inserted because the Dardanelles operation
interfered with the project of certain action in the Decisive
Theatre of the War explained in a Memorandum given to the Prime
Minister on January 25th, 1915, but it has been decided to be too
secret for publication even now, so it is not included in these
papers.
A Memorandum was also submitted by me on General Naval Policy,
deprecating the use of Naval Force in Coast Operations unsupported
by Military Force and emphasising the supreme importance of
maintaining the unchallengeable strength of the Grand Fleet in the
Decisive Theatre.
LORD FISHER TO COLONEL SIR MAURICE HANKEY
_September 6th, 1916._
DEAR HANKEY,
I have only just this very moment received your letter, dated
September 4th, and its enclosure, for I had suddenly to leave the
address you wrote to on important official business....
The Prime Minister and Kitchener knew from me on January 7th or
January 8th that I objected to the Dardanelles enterprise, but
I admit this does not come under your official cognisance as
Secretary of the War Council, consequently I cannot press you in
the matter.
If I ever am allowed hereafter to see what you have prepared for
Lord Cromer’s Committee of Inquiry I shall be better able to judge
of its personal application to myself.
I was told yesterday by an influential Parliamentary friend that
the likelihood was that _all_ would emerge from the Dardanelles
Inquiry as free from blame, except one person only--Lord Fisher!
That really would be comic! considering that I was the only
sufferer by it, by loss of office and of an immense certainty in my
mind of Big Things in the North Sea and Baltic by the unparalleled
Armada we were building so marvellously quickly, _e.g._, submarines
in five months instead of 14, and destroyers in nine months instead
of 18! and immense fast Battle Cruisers with 18-inch and 15-inch
guns in 11 months instead of two years! _Why, it was the desolation
of my life to leave the Admiralty at that moment!_ Knowing that
once out I should never get back! The “wherefore” you know!
Yours, etc.,
(Signed) FISHER,
_6th September, 1916_.
LORD FISHER TO THE RIGHT HON. WINSTON CHURCHILL.
“_The Baltic a German Lake._”
MY DEAR WINSTON,
I am here for a few days longer before rejoining my “Wise men” at
Victory House--
“The World forgetting,
By the World forgot!”
but some Headlines in the newspapers have utterly upset me!
Terrible!!
“The German Fleet to assist the Land operations in the Baltic.”
“Landing the German Army South of Reval.”
We are five times stronger at Sea than our enemies and here is a
small Fleet that we could gobble up in a few minutes playing the
great vital Sea part of landing an Army in the enemies’ rear and
probably capturing the Russian Capital by Sea!
This is “Holding the ring” with a vengeance!
Are we really incapable of a big Enterprise?
I hear that a new order of Knighthood is on the tapis--O.M.G. (Oh!
My God!)--Shower it on the Admiralty!!
Yours,
FISHER.
9/9/17.
P.S.--In War, you want--“SURPRISE.”
To beget “SURPRISE” you want “IMAGINATION” to go to bed with
“AUDACITY.”
Admiral von Spee’s first words at the Falkland Islands when he saw
the British Battle Cruisers were
“Oh, what a surprise”!
And he went to the bottom with 3,000 men and 11 ships, and not one
man killed or wounded on board the “Invincible.”
LORD FISHER’S NOTES OF HIS OWN SPECIAL INTERVENTIONS AT WAR COUNCIL
MEETINGS
Notes.--_The first two meetings of the War Committee took place on
August 5th and August 6th, 1914._
_Lord Fisher was appointed First Sea Lord on October 30th, 1914._
_The third meeting of the War Council (being the first after Lord
Fisher’s appointment) took place on November 25th, 1914._
_3rd Meeting of the War Council, November 25th, 1914._
Lord Fisher asked whether Greece might not attack Gallipoli in
conjunction with Bulgaria.
It was pointed out Bulgaria blocked the way.
(_Note._--From his experience of three years as Commander-in-Chief
of the Mediterranean Fleet, Lord Fisher had formed the conviction
that Bulgaria was the key of the situation, and this he had
pointed out to Lord Kitchener personally at the War Office.)
_4th Meeting of War Council, December 1st, 1914._
Lord Fisher pressed for the adoption of the Offensive.
The Defensive attitude of the Fleet was bad for its morale, and was
no real protection from enemy submarines.
The suggestion of seizing an island off the German coast was
adjourned.
_7th Meeting of War Council, January 8th, 1915._
ZEEBRUGGE.
Asked whether the bombardment of Zeebrugge would materially lessen
the risks to transports and other ships in the English Channel,
Lord Fisher replied that he thought not. In his opinion the danger
involved in the operation (in loss of ships) would outweigh the
results.
_8th Meeting of War Council, January 13th, 1915._
ZEEBRUGGE.
Lord Fisher said that the Navy had not unlimited battleships
to lose, and there would probably be losses in any attack on
Zeebrugge. He objected to any attack on Zeebrugge _without the
co-operation of the Army along the coast_.
The Dardanelles was mentioned, Mr. Churchill stating that he had
exchanged telegrams with Admiral Carden as to the possibilities of
a naval attack on the Dardanelles. He had taken this step because
Lord Kitchener, in a letter to him, dated January 3rd, had urged
instant naval action at the Dardanelles to relieve the pressure on
the Grand Duke Nicholas in the Caucasus.
_9th Meeting of War Council, January 28th, 1915, 11.30 a.m._
(_Note._--Before this meeting the Prime Minister discussed with Mr.
Churchill and Lord Fisher the proposed Dardanelles operations and
decided in favour of considering the project in opposition to Lord
Fisher’s opinion.)
THE DARDANELLES.
Mr. Churchill asked if the War Council attached importance to the
proposed Dardanelles operations, which undoubtedly involved risks.
Lord Fisher said that he had understood that this question was not
to be raised at this meeting. The Prime Minister knew his (Lord
Fisher’s) views on the subject.
The Prime Minister said that, in view of what had already been
done, the question could not be left in abeyance.
(_Note._--Thereupon Lord Fisher left the Council table. He was
followed by Lord Kitchener, who asked him what he intended to do.
Lord Fisher replied to Lord Kitchener that he would not return
to the Council table, and would resign his office as First Sea
Lord. Lord Kitchener then pointed out to Lord Fisher that he
(Lord Fisher) was the only dissentient, and that the Dardanelles
operations had been decided upon by the Prime Minister; and he
urged on Lord Fisher that his duty to his country was to go on
carrying out the duties of First Sea Lord. After further talk Lord
Fisher reluctantly gave in to Lord Kitchener and went back to the
Council table.[9])
[Illustration: THE FIRST SEA LORD. By William Nicholson.]
Mr. Churchill stated _that the ultimate object of the Navy was to
obtain access to the Baltic_. There were, he said, three Naval
phases:--
1st phase.--The clearing of the outer seas (this had been
accomplished).
2nd phase.--The clearing of the North Sea.
_3rd phase.--The clearing of the Baltic._
_Mr. Churchill laid stress on the importance of the third phase and
said this latter operation was of great importance, as Germany always
had been, and still was, very nervous of an attack from the Baltic._
For this purpose special vessels were required, and the First Sea Lord
(Lord Fisher) had designed cruisers, &c., &c.[10] The meeting was
adjourned to 6.30 the same evening.
_10th Meeting of War Council (same day), January 28th, 1915, at 6.30
p.m._
The plan of a naval attack on Zeebrugge was abandoned and the
Dardanelles operations were decided upon.
_11th Meeting of War Council, February 9th, 1915._
Mr. Churchill reported that the Naval attack on the Dardanelles would
take place on February 15th. (This was afterwards postponed until
February 19th.)
_12th Meeting of War Council, February 16th, 1915._
Agreed that the 29th Division should be sent to the Dardanelles and
other arrangements made to support the Naval attack on the Dardanelles.
The Admiralty were authorised and pressed to build or obtain special
craft for landing 50,000 men wherever a landing might be required.
_13th Meeting of War Council, February 19th, 1915._
Transports ordered to be got ready:--
1. To convey troops from Egypt to the Dardanelles;
2. To convey the 29th Division from England to the Dardanelles,
_but no final decision to be taken as to 29th Division_.
_14th Meeting of War Council, February 24th, 1915._
General Birdwood selected to join Admiral Carden before the Dardanelles.
_The decision as to sending 29th Division postponed._
_15th Meeting of War Council, February 26th, 1915._
Mr. Churchill said he could not offer any assurance of success in the
Dardanelles attack.
_16th Meeting of War Council, March 3rd, 1915._
The future of Constantinople was discussed, and what should be the next
step after the Dardanelles. Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law, besides
Mr. Balfour, were present.
_17th Meeting of War Council, March 10th, 1915._
The War Office was directed to prepare a memorandum on the strategical
advantages of Alexandretta.
_18th Meeting of War Council, March 19th, 1915._
The sinking of the battleships “Irresistible,” “Ocean,” and “Bouvet,”
the running ashore of “Gaulois” and the disablement of “Inflexible,”
were discussed.
The continuance of naval operations against Dardanelles was authorised
if the Admiral at the Dardanelles agreed.
Lord Fisher said that it was impossible to explain away the sinking of
four battleships. _He had always said that a loss of 12 battleships
must be expected before the Dardanelles could be forced by the Navy
alone._ He still adhered to this view.
_Note._--There was no meeting of the War Council from March 19th to May
14th.
_19th Meeting of War Council, May 14th, 1915._
Mr. Churchill reported that one, or perhaps two, German submarines
had arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean, _and that the attack on the
Dardanelles had now become primarily a military rather than a naval
operation_. It had been decided to recall the “Queen Elizabeth.” Mr.
Churchill stated that if it had been known three months ago that an
army of from 80,000 to 100,000 men would now be available for the
attack on the Dardanelles the naval attack would never have been
undertaken.
_Lord Fisher reminded the War Council that he had been no party to the
Dardanelles operations. When the matter was first under consideration
he had stated his opinion to the Prime Minister at a private interview._
_Conclusion._--Lord Kitchener to send a telegram to Sir Ian Hamilton
asking what military force he would require in order to ensure success
at the Dardanelles.
_Note._--On the evening of this day Mr. Churchill drafted orders for
further naval reinforcements for the Dardanelles, a course to which
Lord Fisher could not assent.
(This led to Lord Fisher leaving the Admiralty.)
_A Note on the Dardanelles Operations._
Major-General Sir Chas. Caldwell, K.C.B., was Director of Military
Operations at the War Office during the whole period of the inception,
incubation and execution of the Dardanelles adventure, and in an
article in the “Nineteenth Century” for March, 1919, he completely
disposes of the criticisms of Mr. G. A. Schreiner in his book “From
Berlin to Bagdad,” and of those of Mr. H. Morgenthau, the late United
States Ambassador at Constantinople, in his recent book, “The Secrets
of the Bosphorus.” Both these works convey the impression that the
general attack by the Fleet upon the Defences of the Narrows on March
18th, 1915, very nearly succeeded. This verdict is not justified by the
facts as certified by Sir C. Caldwell. He proves incontestably that,
even in the very unlikely case of indirect bombardment really effecting
its object in putting the batteries out of action, there would still
be the movable armament of the Turks left to worry and defeat the
mine-sweepers, and there would still be the drifting mines and possibly
the torpedoes fired from the shore to imperil the battleships. When
peace did come it occupied the British Admiral a very long time to
sweep up the mines. The damaging effect of Naval Bombardment was
over-estimated--the extent to which the enemy’s movable armament would
interfere with mine-sweeping was not realised, and the extent and
efficiency of the minefields were unknown and unheeded. Sir Charles
Caldwell says:
“The whole thing was a mistake, quite apart from the disastrous
influence which the premature and unsuccessful operation exerted
over the subsequent land campaign.”
It is also most true what Sir C. Caldwell says that “the idea at
the back of the sailors’ minds (who so reluctantly assented to the
_political_ desire of getting possession of the Straits) was that
it was an experiment which could always be instantly stopped if the
undertaking were to be found too difficult.” But alas! “_the view
of the War Council came to be that they could not now abandon the
adventure._”
* * * * *
Marshal Liman von Sanders, who had charge of the defence of the
Dardanelles, said:
“The attack on the Straits by the Navy alone I don’t think could
ever have succeeded. I proposed to flood the Straits broadcast with
mines, and it was my view that these were the main defences of the
Dardanelles, and that the function of the guns of the forts was
simply to protect the minefields from interference.”
The evidence given by Captain (now Rear-Admiral Sir) William Reginald
Hall, R.N., Director of Naval Intelligence, at the Dardanelles Inquiry,
conflicts with the facts as afterwards made known to us; and no doubt
this led to such official speeches as were made of our being so near
victory at the Dardanelles--speeches which caused the further great
sacrifice of life which took place after General Sir Charles Munro, the
present Commander-in-Chief in India, had definitely and without any
equivocation officially reported that the Evacuation of the Gallipoli
Peninsula should immediately take place.
Field Marshal Lord Nicholson asked Captain Hall, R.N., how far the
Gallipoli Peninsula was under German control; and his answer was that
it was known that the defences had been inspected by a German and that
many Germans were arriving there, whereas it is a matter of fact stated
by General Liman von Sanders and confirmed from other sources that the
Germans were in complete control; and it took the British Admiral many
weeks after the Armistice, helped by the Turks, to clear a way through
the mines for his Flagship to take him to Constantinople. At question
4930 Captain Hall stated his spies made him convinced that he could
have pushed through with only the loss of one or more ships and got to
Constantinople on March 18th.
AN EPISODE OF THE WAR.
A friend asking me yesterday (this was written in 1917) about the
replacement of Tonnage destroyed by the German Submarines, and telling
me how quite ineffectual had been the course pursued up to the present
when really we are in measurable distance of starvation or else an
ignoble peace, I ventured to send him the enclosed account (_written
at the time_) of how 612 Vessels were hustled! As in all other War
matters, it is Personality that is required, even more than Brains!
STATEMENT OF NEW SHIPBUILDING INAUGURATED BY LORD FISHER.
_Note._--The following Memoranda are inserted as vital to the
explanation of Lord Fisher’s reluctance to resign on the Dardanelles
question. It will be seen that Mr. Churchill had given him sole charge
of the creation of this armada of new ships, _intended for great
projects in the Baltic and North Sea_.
_Tuesday, November 3rd, 1914._
(_Note._--Lord Fisher had joined the Admiralty as First Sea Lord four
days before this meeting.)
The First Sea Lord (Lord Fisher) presided at a Conference this day at
the Admiralty.
_Present:_
Second Sea Lord.
Third Sea Lord.
Additional Civil Lord.
Parliamentary and Financial Secretary.
Secretary.
Naval Secretary to First Lord.
Engineer-in-Chief.
Assistant Director of Torpedoes and another representative of the
Director of Naval Ordnance.
Commodore (S) and Assistant.
Naval Assistant to First Sea Lord.
Director of Naval Construction and an Assistant.
Superintendent of Contract Work.
Superintending Electrical Engineer.
Director of Dockyard Work.
Director of Naval Contracts and an Assistant.
Lord Fisher explained to those present that this Conference had been
summoned with the approval of Mr. Churchill, primarily with the object
of expediting the delivery of 20 submarines which were to be at once
commenced,
_but in the second place a big further building programme for a
special purpose had been decided on_.
The question of placing orders for submarines had been under
consideration for some time past. The First Lord, however, had assented
to the cancellation of all existing papers on this subject, _and a
fresh start was to be made immediately on the lines of a special war
routine_. All red-tape methods--very proper in time of peace--were
now to be abandoned, and _everything must be entirely subordinated to
rapidity of construction_. It was desired to impress upon all present
the necessity of avoiding “paper” work, and of proceeding in the manner
indicated in the secret memorandum which would be circulated next day
in regard to the matter. Arrangements would be made in due course to
obtain additional vessels of other types in a similar manner.
_Note._--After this, a meeting of all the shipbuilding firms of the
United Kingdom took place at the Admiralty under the presidency of Lord
Fisher, and the programme mentioned above in italics was parcelled out
there and then.
BUILDING PROGRAMME.
_Meeting on November 3rd, 1914, four days after Lord Fisher became
First Sea Lord._
5 Battle Cruisers of 33 knots speed of light draught.
2 Light Cruisers.
5 Flotilla Leaders.
56 Destroyers.
64 Submarines.
37 Monitors.
24 River Light Gunboats.
19 Whaling Steamers.
24 Submarine Destroyers.
50 Seagoing Patrol Boats.
200 Motor Barges, oil engines.
90 Smaller Barges.
36 Sloops.
---
612 Total.
---
MEMORANDUM BY LORD FISHER, DATED NOVEMBER 3RD, 1914, ON LAYING DOWN
FURTHER NUMBERS OF SUBMARINES.
There is no doubt that at this moment the supply of additional
submarine boats in the shortest time possible is a matter of
urgent national importance. They will not be obtained unless the
whole engineering and shipbuilding resources of the country are
enlisted in the effort, and the whole of the peace paraphernalia of
red-tape routine and consequent delay are brushed on one side. I
have carefully studied the submarine question during my retirement
and have had many opportunities of keeping in touch with the
present position and future possibilities, and am convinced that
20 submarines can be commenced at once, and that the first batch
of these should be delivered in nine months, and the remainder at
short intervals, completing the lot in 11 or 12 months.
NOTE.--_A dozen more were actually delivered in five months, and
made the voyage alone from America to the Dardanelles._
To do this, however, cheapness must be entirely subordinated to
rapidity of construction, and the technical departments must have a
free hand to take whatever steps are necessary to secure this end
without any paper work whatever. Apparently this matter has been
under consideration at the Admiralty already for a considerable
time, but
_nothing has yet been ordered_,
and the First Lord has concurred that a fresh start be made
independently of former papers,
_and the matter placed under my sole supervision, without any other
officers or departments intervening between me and the professional
officers_.
I will give instructions as to the work, and direct that
_if any difficulties are met with, they be brought to me instantly
to be overcome_.
The professional officers’ reports as to acceptances of tenders or
allocation of work must be immediately carried out by the branches.
Only in this way can we get the boats we require. To ensure the
completion of the 20 boats, steps to be immediately taken to order
the parts for the engines for 25 boats. We know from experience
that it is in the machinery parts that defects and failures occur
in manufacture of castings, forgings, etc., causing great delay.
The parts for the extra five sets of engines will be available
for these replacements, and eventually the five extra sets can be
fitted in five further hulls. I propose to review the progress
being made once a fortnight in the hope that it may be feasible to
order still further submarines beyond these 20 now to be commenced
at once.
_The training of sufficient officers and men for manning these
extra boats must obviously be proceeded with forthwith, and those
responsible must see to it that the officers and crews are ready._
FISHER.
_November 3rd, 1914._
_NOTE by Lord Fisher._--I gave personal orders on this day to the
Director of Mobilization to enter officers, men, and boys to the
utmost limit regardless of present or supposed prospective wants,
so when he left the Admiralty last week to be Captain of the
_Renown_ he wrote me we wanted for nothing in the way of personnel!
FISHER.
_August 15th, 1916._