• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Cultural effects of massive Royal Navy loss in WW1/late nineteenth century?

SenatorChickpea

The Most Kiwi Aussie of them all
Patreon supporter
Pronouns
he/him
There are plenty of threads at the other place about how Jutland could have gone differently, but they normally rely on what are doubtless fascinating and well-informed analyses of the various British and German ships.
This thread is for something different.

By the turn of the twentieth century the Royal Navy's cultural and political cachet was at an all time high; it was certainly far more prestigious than the British army, its great victory at Trafalgar was a minor holiday, and admirals like Charles Beresford were national celebrities despite having largely served in peace-time.
Britannia ruled the waves, and all that.
The mere threat of a German naval challenge saw a hugely expensive (and hugely popular) program of ship-building even at a time when the Liberal government desperately preferred to spend the money on social reforms instead. But the Navy simply mattered more- to the government, to Parliament and to large swathes of the public.
Now, in our timeline the Grand Fleet's confrontation with the Germans at Jutland was a strategic victory, but the tactical loss was enough to start a back and forth blame game. The British public did not want a strategic victory; they wanted Trafalgar.

But what if, instead, the Grand Fleet is crippled? Not the worse for wear, not beaten but retreating in good order- unarguably defeated on the day. Three or four battleships gone, even more battlecruisers sunk, many others wounded.
What I'm interested in is not the military or even political ramifications would be. In fact, let's assume that somehow the Germans still lose the war. Perhaps the Americans enter early, perhaps the High Seas Fleet doesn't follow up quickly enough or has to retreat to port itself. Hand wave this, okay?

What I'm interested in is the cultural ramifications upon the British Empire of a defeat like this? Let's also assume, to widen the trauma, that the battlecruisers paid for by the Dominions are among those that go to the bottom of the North Sea.

So, what happens? Do we see a subset of war poetry about coastal towns denuded of their youth, to be endlessly studied in high schools across the globe? An explosion of public anger? How are things like the cult of Nelson affected?

This is also why I want to focus on some kind of Entente victory- instead of general trauma from defeat, I want to specifically focus on what happens if this key part of the national identity takes a good kicking.
 
Last edited:
That... would make the Naval Treaties dead letters, to say the least, but the High Seas Fleet's mission was to weaken the Grand Fleet enough so they can sortie into the North Sea and defeat the (illegal) naval blockage which is made up mostly of Auxillary Cruisers.

If the Grand Fleet got its shit wrecked, then the High Seas Fleet would be able to sortie into the North Sea and defeat the blockade forces there, allowing the US to pour a lot of money and resources into Germany. Remember, the US until the Lusitania was very anti-British, and not just because of the Germans and Irish immigrants in the US either. The US and Britain didn't like each other at the time.

That means Britain and France would have to throw in the towel because Germany simply outclassed Britain and France in sheer economic power alone (remember, by 1916 Britain and France were financially tapped out). By WW1, it wasn't London that is the financial heart of Europe, but Berlin. Germany outclassed Britain in economic and industrial potential in 1900.
 
the High Seas Fleet's mission was to weaken the Grand Fleet enough so they can sortie into the North Sea and defeat the (illegal) naval blockage
Nope

Also Nope in bold

US to pour a lot of money and resources into Germany.

Financial and banking reality nope.

Remember, the US until the Lusitania was very anti-British, and not just because of the Germans and Irish immigrants in the US either. The US and Britain didn't like each other at the time.

US Policy was always to various degrees pro Allied. While there was a board but shallow level of Anti-, British sentiment outside of some Fenian sections the American people were always aware of the basic Democracy vs Autocracy leaning on Authoritarian nature of the war.

That means Britain and France would have to throw in the towel because Germany simply outclassed Britain and France in sheer economic power alone (remember, by 1916 Britain and France were financially tapped out). By WW1, it wasn't London that is the financial heart of Europe, but Berlin. Germany outclassed Britain in economic and industrial potential in 1900.

Economic fantasy nope especially in your bolding.

Look, I get that you're clearly a fan of the regime of the tin pot autocrat but most of what you're proposing has effectively no connection to the facts on the ground in the war. There are ways for Imperial Germany to win (sadly) but these aren't them.
 
@SenatorChickpea I think you're right in the nose long term about the idea of more depressing poems. The cult of Nelson actually probably gets longer because WWI becomes proof that the Royal Navy isn't some unstoppable force. I wouldn't be surprised to see naval history give more weight in response to Dutch victories and the Battle of the Capes as well, which counter intuitively still wind up boosting Trafalgar and The Nile.

In the UK I could see this translating into more of a focus on Air Power since the RAF goes into a second war or what have you with an undefeated record compared to the other two services.

And as a random little aside there's some weird science changes in the process too since future nobel prize winner Patrick Blackett was at Jutland on the HMS Barham so there goes an easy conduit of a figure for some critical research into Cosmic Rays and other things that someone like @Thande is far better qualified to explain.
 
Yes, Horatio could end up being the man who passed the baton to lesser leaders unworthy of his legacy and so forth.

The Sci-fi point is an interesting one. Apart from the specific figures affected by the battle, it would be interesting if Jutland rather than Midway (or the equivalents thereof) becomes the model for cinematic sci-fi space engagements. Instead of Luke in his X-wing you have more focus on small cruisers relying on their speed to avoid the vast, looming battleships.
 
US Policy was always to various degrees pro Allied. While there was a board but shallow level of Anti-, British sentiment outside of some Fenian sections the American people were always aware of the basic Democracy vs Autocracy leaning on Authoritarian nature of the war.

US policy was less Entente friendly and more money friendly, really. There were people with a preferred dog in the fight, but the fact of the matter was that Germany didn't really have the same position of "we can use this to fleece them blind" as a motivator the Entente did. It didn't hurt we had reasonably good relations with Russia and ongoing arms deals there prewar, either.

Remember, the US until the Lusitania was very anti-British, and not just because of the Germans and Irish immigrants in the US either. The US and Britain didn't like each other at the time.

Not true in large part. The main cultural feeling was apathy, with the portions that did feel on the topic of the war felt strongly. Things like Venezuela might have caused some souring of attitudes, but with a Dixie man in the hotseat there's not terribly much to do to get things to swing the other way.

Otto von Bismark remarked that the mist significant fact of the 20th Century would be "The fact that the North Americans speak English."

This is rather hilarious in hindsight because when Bismarck said those words, a full third of the country didn't treat English as a first language, and another third atop it was still bilingual or more. Regional language dialects and home language preference didn't really die out until the wake of the Spanish Flu and the standardization waves that followed.
 
This is rather hilarious in hindsight because when Bismarck said those words, a full third of the country didn't treat English as a first language, and another third atop it was still bilingual or more. Regional language dialects and home language preference didn't really die out until the wake of the Spanish Flu and the standardization waves that followed.

Apologies for ignoring, uhh, everything else you said, but as far I know the main movers and shakers did speak English as their primarily language. Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and the like weren't second generation Swedish or German Americans were they? Yes America was a very multilingual place at the time which is often unjustly forget. But it was led, or at least economically and politically dominated by, English speakers.
 
Apologies for ignoring, uhh, everything else you said, but as far I know the main movers and shakers did speak English as their primarily language. Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and the like weren't second generation Swedish or German Americans were they? Yes America was a very multilingual place at the time which is often unjustly forget. But it was led, or at least economically and politically dominated by, English speakers.

Wilson was, as previously mentioned, a damn Confederate born about thirty years too late to actually fight; Roosevelt might have still spoken Dutch at home depending on how strong the culture would have been in the portion of New York he was born in. English was very much the public language of the country, but it wasn't the primary language until the rather large hiccup that was the Spanish Flu increasing state and national participation in the school system.
 
The Roosevelts did not speak Dutch in their household. Only President who had that happen was Van Buren.

And while it contributes much to his status as an Asshole, Wilson's southern heritage doesn't change the point that he spoke English and that minority languages didn't really challenge English as the Political, Economic and Lingua Franca of America.
 
Back
Top