16th December 1914: German Navy attack Scarborough
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- 137 people died, and another 592 were injured as a result of the bombardment - most of whom were civilians.
The smaller German fleet always sought to avoid direct engagement with the British. Instead they focused on targeted attacks and, after an earlier fast raid on the seaside town of Yarmouth, sought to increase the use of such tactics. The hope was that this would draw out parts of the British fleet and German U-Boats could pick them off one by one.
The Germans had determined that an attack on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby would be possible after a U-17 returned from a reconnaissance mission. It was identified that there were few mines in the vicinity, and no coastal defences, which made the towns an easy target since they were within easy striking distance of Germany.
British Intelligence had already decoded messages that indicated the German battle fleet would be mounting the raid. However, British Admiral John Jellicoe opted to allow the raid to happen and then intercept the German ships on their return. This proved catastrophic, as the British underestimated the size of the German attack, which saw over a thousand shells being fired, and then failed to engage the enemy.
The British public was outraged firstly that the Germans had attacked civilians, and secondly that the Royal Navy had failed to stop them. However, ‘Remember Scarborough’ soon became a key message of the British propaganda campaign and vengeance was used as an incentive for recruitment.
They were firing at Scarborough Castle, a legitimate military target.
fuckin' fritz
Sorry, saying that 'The smaller German fleet always sought to avoid direct engagement with the British' is a very British way of looking at things.
And where was the RN?
Why didn't the RN enforce a close blockade of the German ports, instead of a long distance blockade which included 30,000,000 neutral Danes, Swedes, and Dutch? That way, the more powerful RN would have 'sought direct contact' with the Kaiser's fleet, which would have spared British civilians from attacks such as Scarborough.
A very one-sided view of things....
The Kaiser himself forbid his high seas fleet seeking a battle with the British at this stage in the war. His plan and official German naval strategy was to allow a major action when it was felt that the RN had suffered enough losses to bring the strengths of the opposing fleets to a largely equal level. Germany was expecting this relative equality in strength to be brought about by the RN adopting a close blockade policy along with the the grand fleet hanging around in waters close to Germany looking for a decisive fleet engagement almost as soon as the war started. Germany's plan for attrition was through the use of minefields and torpedo's. The admiralty realised these risks of close blockade and also had the sense to see that dozens of their warships constantly steaming enforcing the blockade far from home port causes considerable wear and tear on hulls and machinery, wear and tear that quickly requires lengthy overhauls in port which itself would further weaken the RN. Some of the leaders in the admiralty felt that the numerical advantage they held was not large enough to begin with and they did not wish to run the risk of reducing the advantage further by the close blockade of Germany.
So in short, the RN did not adopt policies that the Kaiser and German naval command anticipated and were largely counting on for their own strategy to work, and even if you can accept it or not, the Kaiser did not let his high seas fleet out to play.
That's why a close blockade was not initiated and the neutrals you mention were not really that neutral. The increase of imports from these 'neutral' countries between 1913 and the end of 1914 are staggering helped by the fact that imports from much further afield, the Americas etc, that were allowed through the English channel and North sea blockades in good faith by the british only to arrive at a 'neutral' port and then the goods sent on to Germany, whether it be by rail, river barge or simply by the ship the cargo originally arrived on.
Your comments to the effect that the inaction of the RN cost civilians is amusing and surprising given your disgust at the deliberate targeting of civilians elsewhere on you tube. The raids on Scarborough and Whitby were exactly this, yet you condemn the RN for its lack of action rather than the ships that were lobbing shells on towns for the civilians that lost their lives, strange logic that. The inaction or actions of the RN did not kill the civilians, German munitions did, why say it any other way. I am pretty sure that if the roles were reversed in this situation and it was the british shelling German civilians in peaceful German coastal towns you would be all over it.
My comment merely addressed the funny way of looking at things.
The maker of the video apparently criticizes how the German Navy failed to come out and engage the RN, yet he doesn't even realize the irony he creates here.
Why try to make fun of the Kaiser's navy staying in the relative safety of Wilhelmshafen, but not also make fun of the RN staying in the relative safety of Scapa Flow?
Furthermore, are you actually making excuses for the RN blockade of neutral nations? That was not covered by the Hague Convention.
The Hague Convention ONLY allowed contraband to be intercepted if it was carried by neutral ships with the destination of an enemy port.
For a nation so stuck on 'sticking to rules and laws' and always doing everything right, it should be a big 'no no' involving neutrals in one's wars :-)
The Scandinavian nations, and the Netherlands declared themselves neutral, and could trade with whomever they wanted.
If the Brits voluntarily declare war, and decide to involve itself in a continental matter, then it has no rights (note, international law) to dictate to other nations whom they are 'allowed to' carry on normal relations with, and whom not....
To me, victims are always victims, so 'yes', the citizens of Scarborough became victims of an illegal action..
We are simply discussing the results of actions.
In other words 'cause and effect' (causality).
Causality is cruel and indifferent, and pays no regards to justice or subjective opinions.
Causality has nothing to do with what 'the other side' does or did, or whether this was better or worse.
It is simply an action resulting in a reaction....
Therefore, the civilians in Scarborough died as an indirect result of Churchill's decision to let the RN carry out a morally questionable long distance blockade of neutral nations.
Ralph Bernhard Regarding the Hague convention and treaties regarding blockade and so called neutrals, the Germans (as usual) were the first to ignore and break them by mining in international waters in breach of the treaties on the 5th of August, before the British policy of distant blockade was implemented. Let's not get bogged down in raising the other broken promises, violation of neutrality and the ignoring of treaties by Germany before this date :-)
The mining of international waters before by Germany before the distant blockade was implemented played straight into British hands, they announced their Distant blockade policy to the world citing the mining of international waters by Germany as a reason.
Neutrality and international law meant nothing to Germany and the Brits were quick to realise that, so why should they play by the rules when others were not?
Of course 'victims are always victim's. Strange that you only mention that the civilians of Scarborough were 'victims of an illegal action's when I responded to your initial posted, you claim on many occasions that you abhor the incorrect treatment of civilians in war, but you only bang that drum for German civilians. Why is that?
Regarding cause and effect, the cause was the German navy wanting to bombard British towns, the effect was death in these towns, simple as that, regardless of the reasoning for the cause or subjective opinion before or after the event.
Your final paragraph that indirectly lays the blame for the casualties at Churchill's feet , nice bit of apologism. Can we not blame Churchill's mother and father too, after all, they were responsible for bringing churchill in to the world. Reality check time, it was German shells that did the killing here.
Why do you not apply and state for all to see your logic of blaming the leaders in other other threads regarding bomber commands operations?
You are quick to criticise the British leaders in your many posts in these threads yet I don't see too stating in them that Hitler can be blamed for the deaths of German civilians because of the decisions he did or did not make.
Same applies for laws, conventions, rules nd neutrality, you tend not to notice or raise the point when Germany ignores these and let's face it, looking at the facts in both world wars, Germany are generally the side that starts tearing up treaties and rule books and it seems that you are just like Germany, a lover of laws and treaties when it suits you and then use them as an excuse to knock the brits.
The blockading efforts by both sides make for interesting reading, the number of ships stopped by the British, the hugely increased tonnages arriving in Germany from 'neutrals' after the start of the war, the relatively low number of ships detained and released or kept by the British, the number of times Germany had to apologise to the US for sinking it's ships and killing it's citizens along with 'promises' that it won't happen again and so on, it really is a fascinating subject in itself but the fact remains, the British method of blockade merely inconvenienced the neutral crews, passengers and ships, the German method often killed the neutral crews and passengers and sunk the ships. That is a simple fact.
maybe threat of minefields ,,u boats and Torpedo boats .near to German ports,,the German coastline was probably better defended ,,theres a lot less of it the Britains