Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tirpitz - Just wanted a Navy
Tirpitz was an interesting military man. It seems that all he wanted was a navy and to be the Admiral of said navy. One could say that he saw the need for a navy but didn't want to ever use the navy. Now don't get me wrong. I see his reasoning for wanting a navy for Germany. First off, Germany was an expanding imperial power. They had obtained colonies around the world. A navy would have been a necessary thing needed to provide security for trading and supply lanes to those colonies. He also saw the power a strong navy could provide as a deterent to other great powers. As an Admiral, he was also a rather restrained military man. His plan only called for three new warships a year. At the rate a power like Britain built ships, this plan made perfect sense. A decent number of ships would be able to provide security at all times deemed necessary without undue stress on logistics. When one ship went in for repairs or overhauls, another would be available to take its place. Also, after five or so years, older ships would be considered obsolete and the new ships would be new designs meant to replace those obsolete ships. This plan is completely valid from a logistical and pragmatic standpoint. But as it turned out, Tirpitz caved in to the demands from the Naval league and upped the number of warships turned out per year from three to four. Another reason Tirpitz is considered unusual as a commander is his seeming lack of confidence in his beloved navy to fight. However, the point was made that he may have just been the most realistic one. He knew that Germany would never be able to match Britain on the sea. He was always pushing for more time to build up the navy, but in the end, I think that it wouldn't have mattered. For if you have five years to strengthen you navy, so does your enemy. It would have been better to attack when least expected and where least expected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
He reminds me of General George B. McClellan of the U.S Civil War. Like Tirpitz, McClellan wanted to build up his military force to be like other European armies. His Army of the Potomac was his pride and joy. However, like Tirpitz, McClellan did not want to see his army bloodied in battle. Tirpitz's "seeming lack of confidence in his beloved navy to fight" also seems to me as 1 and the same as the mentality McClellan had as well. I think the best way to sum up these men is that they were "dedicated yet squimish" when it came to combat.
ReplyDeleteI think Tirpitz approach is interesting and unconventional. I understand the enlargement of the navy would surely act as a deterrent against other country's attacks, but at the same time, a completely unproven navy that is continually gaining size could be a huge disadvantage because they might have the means to overcome other country's navies, but have not actually proved this. In order to keep from suspected destruction by their British counterparts, Tirpitz promoted the increase in warship production as a deterrent and defensive strategy as opposed to an offensive advantage.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tripitz is a very interesting military figure, but I have to wonder about his methods. I understand the fact that he wanted to build up the German Navy over a fixed period of time, but it seems backwards to desire them not to fight. If nothing else, he should have been wanting his ships to go into battle just for the combat experience. You can have the largest military in the world, but without ANY experience I'd think your chances would be greatly decreased. History is full of underdog stories where large groups are toppled by smaller forces. Tirpitz should have tried something to keep them from being floating Risk pieces.
ReplyDeleteI think Tirpitz had the right idea here. The way in which the navy was built up made sense and assured a growth in ships. Why does it not make sense to not use them? The idea of a military buildup to be used as leverage to thwart any aggresvie attempts by an enemy is a long held practice in military tactics. The US did it with nuclear arms. And do you commit your military resources to combat just for experience? I don not think so. Go Tirpitz!
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading about Tirpitz. I do believe that large a Navy could thwart a potential plot by another nation to invade or cause trouble. I feel like the push for more colonies goes hand in hand with a build up of a navy. I believe that during this time period with colonization occurring, many nations also realized that they must focus on their navy in order to protect those interests overseas.
ReplyDeleteThe post and the comments all adress interesting perspectives on the naval question. To me, the key issues seems to be two-fold: what role, if any, did the naval have in terms of rallying together popular interest at home in support of the government (coalition building around a broadly popular issue) and whether or not the benefits to be gained from the navy outweighed the costs of the decline in good relations with Britain. I'm not sure that I agree that Britain would not have fought had Germany not built up its navy but I also wonder if by not provoking the British through a policy of naval expansion, international relations might have been less tense...
ReplyDelete