home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
- From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
- Subject: Jutland
- Message-ID: <By4LBG.CED@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: Me? Organized?
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:18:52 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 35
-
-
- From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
-
- > From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
- >
- > >> Strategically, Jutland was a clear-cut British victory:
- >
- > I disagree, since basically, Jutland did not change the strategic
- > situation at all, it just managed to preserve the status quo. Coral
- > Sea was the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the South
- > Pacific, and they never tried again to get at Port Moresby. I've
- > never heard Coral Sea called a clear-cut US victory.
-
- True - Jutland didn't change the strategic situation - but what was
- that situation, and who stood to gain the most from the status quo?
-
- By 1916 the Allied blockade was beginning to hurt Germany. Many
- strategic materials had to be imported, and were in short supply.
-
- The British obviously stood to gain the most from a continued
- blockade, so unless the Germans were able to break the blockade any
- other outcome was a loss for them. For Germany to win they had to
- defeat the Grand Fleet. For Britain to win they had to retain the
- Grand Fleet - the British would have won Jutland even if no shots had
- been fired, as they would have been able to continue the blockade.
-
- As for Coral sea - if you lived in this part of the world, or in that
- other little island over there ---> a thousand or so miles, you might
- think differently about the value of that battle!!!
- --
- Mike Campbell,
- mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
- I am no longer surprised when my facts are seen by
- someone else as fiction
-
-