This video aims to be a short documentary looking at a fairly unknown/ misunderstood plan advocated by Sir John ‘Jackie’ Fisher, the British First Sea Lord. It involved using Britain’s greatest strategic asset, the Royal Navy, to severe German trade in the Baltic, specifically with Sweden. This would have brought about a collapse of the German economy, and a victory for Britain in the First World War, without the immense cost of the Western Front.
Sources:
Andrew Lambert: The British Way of War (Where most of the information in this video is sourced from. An excellent biography of Julian Corbett dealing with the principles of British Grand Strategy, highly recommended).
Margaret MacMillan, The War that Ended Peace
Barbara Tuchmann, The Guns of August (Details on British pre-war planning for the BEF).
#History, #RoyalNavy, #WW1
source
I hope you enjoy this short documentary looking at Jackie Fisher's plans to win the First World War. I'd recommend a talk by Andrew Lambert here on YT hosted by the Western Front Association, which goes into a lot more detail, if you would like to learn more.
As a side note, the incident regarding Submarine E13 I've based on Lambert's description, but have also seen sources that don't mention any Danish nationals killed in the incident.
Thank you for watching, any feedback is as always appreciated.
But would have france survived, and not overrun, without the BEF?
Galipoli really had no excuse – but without it, would the forces wasted had been enough?
British decline meant reliance on the French which dragged the Empire into war with Germany. Given this the greatest "what if "and regregret is the failure to develop a genuinely Corbettian grand strategy.
Seems latviešu common knowlage of Cherchil sucking as any commander ring true.
Fischer was a complete idiot. Filled with paranoia and German hostility. He acted knowingly against the will of Queen Victoria, who wanted the closest possible connection between Germany and England. Germany, as defender of British interests on the continent and the Royal Navy, as protector of the overseas empires of both nations, in close cooperation, both navies. Instead, cranks like Churchill and he rose to positions of power, waged a war against the German Empire that ruined England…
Good video but it does feel a bit one sided, I don't really buy the idea that this would have worked. The British navy had a very mixed effectiveness throughout the war, especially at the battle of Jutland, where the German strategy of heavier armor instead of speed proved much more effective in a large sea battle. The blockade against Germany only really succeeded because the British and French navy were just way bigger and the Germans simply couldn't break through.
I just cant believe a British fleet sailing in the German controlled Baltic sea would have gone well, feels like wishful thinking and really banking on German incompetence and your own supposed genius.
As for the anti-Churchill thing, didn't you say that Fisher didn't share the full extent of his plan with anyone? It would have been pretty stupid for Churchill to greenlight a plan that he knew virtually nothing about, and probably sounded shady as hell. Not that the Dardanelles plan wasn't stupid, but there can be two stupid plans in one room.
Your documentary shows why india suffered the way it suffered and it is not the fault of the British. If the British did not do what it did, india would suffer even more loss.
In WW2 the congress leaders of India tried to make a pact with Hitler to set india free from British. But they had no idea how Hitler would do after British lost, would the Nazi regard that indian race of brown skin a part of German race ??
The same congress party worker revolted in royal indian navy thinking that British will flee,but few of them actually know that their leaders have no experience of how to run a state and after independence they will fail india.
And now they call British crown and nation a thief or robber. British nation must protest and file defamation case.
It should always be assumed that a war is going to be fought by ordinary men under ordinary leadership. Any plan that relies on brilliance of individuals is bound to fail.
Really interesting. But as a French, I really doubt this plan would have been enough to defeat Germany. I mean, without the BEF, the front would have been difficult to hold or we would have bleed even more. Or it would only been positive for the British, not for the Allies.
i feel bad for nelson
all plans sound good until they are put into action…
The British are a bunch of pusscakes who can only fight on sea since they can't face an enemy directly on land, LIKE MEN. That's why they default defensive strategy consists of keeping a strong navy so they can hide in their island and then (the most important part) BEGGING the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend and owner) to please come fight for them and save them. This is what they did in the two past world wars.
I thing I would add (and someone else may have already said this) that Churchills focus on Galipolli over the development of a baltic strategy may have roots in British designs for the Arab world post Ottoman rule. Weakening the Ottomans would secure British territories and had the possibility for them to expand them. Churchill was trying to win more British global while Fisher was trying to secure more British continental power. Churchill wasnt playing the game of military strategy well (at all) but was instead thinking he could win a larger game (british domination of middle east)
Would have been a slaughter in a worse way than Gallipoli. The German army may not have been mobile in WWI, but they were an otherwise extremely modern and efficient fighting force by the late stages of the conflict. The same cannot be said of the BEF or British Army.
Sounds like you retrieved this propaganda straight from MI-6.
Bravo on your channel, succinctly conveying complex lesser-known subjects in a scope manageable for laymen, not just for authors of encyclopedic citations of archives, memoirs, eyewitnesses, etc. Great format, and well-executed.
But the video about Fisher’s Baltic project left me with a major question: What about the Imperial Russian Baltic Fleet? It wasn’t cited, but a little digging showed how that Fleet did, indeed, harass ships carrying crucial Swedish iron ore to Germany, esp. by using submarines and crews from Britain. Perhaps Fisher might have been wiser to focus on getting more British subs into the Baltic, rather than trying to get a whole new fleet of purpose-built capital ships built. Especially at a time when British industrial capacity already was strained with the war effort. Did Fisher ever consider coordinating such a strategy with the Russians?
Speaking of Russian contributions, we in the West tend to focus so intensely on ‘The Trenches’ when speaking about World War 1 that we don't consider the colossal – and horrific – Eastern Front of the War, from the Adriatic to the Baltic. Unlike the Western Front, that was far more fluid, spreading havoc over much larger areas. The bloodshed and destruction there deserves to be part of our collective memory also, and Eastern Europeans might, to this day, have reason to feel their suffering – in both World Wars – is somewhat overlooked by 'The West.'
Perhaps ‘Old Britannia’ could do an episode on that, focusing on British efforts to shore up their tottering Russian ally? Or to thwart the Bolsheviks who eventually replaced the Czar/Kerensky?
🙂 I really appreciated this video. Fisher doesn't get the recognition he deserves and it's hard to find sources that cover him well. One problem with his Baltic plan is that Sweden, which fears Russia (before, then, and now), genuinely favored Germany in WW1 and might not have remained idle if Denmark were violated. Unlike WW2, when Swedish trade with and accommodation of Hitler's Germany was an uncomfortable matter of survival at gunpoint, WW1 came much closer to being a clash of big empires than a war of at least relative good versus obvious evil and the trade was a willing choice that benefited both sides. A Baltic incursion with purpose built, necessarily undergunned ships might have aggravated Sweden and made the effort tough to sustain. Though a minor sea power, Sweden had some ability to defend its coasts and home waters. It's unlikely Britain could have prepared Sweden diplomatically to accept a Fisher plan, and trying to involve any Russian sea power in the effort (for whatever its worth would have been) only would have worsened the problem.
What eventually changed Sweden's trade posture was mounting food shortages, or Sweden starting to share Germany's privation. Could these have been caused earlier, to gain that leverage sooner? Maybe some unexplored avenues of commercial shipping leverage didn't incur the risk of a Baltic campaign. For example, in 1940 when Germany attacked Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, their large commercial shippers chose to stop serving Japan, which considerably damaged Japan's war machine as Japan could not itself make up the difference. Just thinking out loud here ~ this isn't a topic I know in depth, honestly.
Excellent documentary thanks fir this information.
Calling HMS QE obsolete is a interesting….
A daring plan, and as we know these always survive contact with the enemy.
The continental blockade didn't exactly work against Napoleonic France. Ultimately Napoleon had to be defeated on the ground. Why would it be any different with Germany in WW1?
I think a good way to set this plan off would be to start demising the Great Belt. It’s international waters so Britain wouldn’t be violating anyone’s sovereignty while offering a prospect of success even if the Germans don’t invade Denmark. Because if the Germans do nothing the British can just de-mine in peace and get its access to the Baltic anyway.
Jackie Fisher.a real Giant!!(despite short..).
“For the next ten years the Kaiser lived in abject fear of being “Copenhagened”.
Denmark out here catching strays in a video covering an era 100 years after the Napoleonic Wars.
The British only fought with bows and currently only fight on sea because they shit themselves at the prospect of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy consists of hiding their island, keeping a strong navy to prevent anyone from landing there so as to avoid having to fight anyone directly and, the most important part, BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend), to please come save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news. But the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories they've had have been by surprise attacks (such as the batte of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter two German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against three British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy", the Bismarck alone defeated the three British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck). That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk). Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies if it furthers its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark was not at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it just in case Napoleon conquered Denmark, or when the French surrendered in World War II and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrifyied that that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediatly forgot about their ertswhile "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir or when they betrayed the Portuguese (their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy those areas just so the Britsh could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediatly forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they fight others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants".
Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats:
Afghans
6–13 January 1842 – retreat from Kabul – entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA)
3 September 1879 – Kabul …again
27 July 1880 – Maiwand – 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed
By Mahdist
March 13, 1884 – January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum – 7,000 force lost to Mahdis
February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb
Chinese
4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon – defensive victory
June 24–26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts
Russians
Petropavlovsk – British landing repelled
Battle of the Great Redan – British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff
Balaclava – British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated.
Taganrog – failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog
Siege of Kars – Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars
Zulus
Isandlwanna – an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed
Intombe – supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead
Hlobane – No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed
Bulgarians
Battle of Kosturino 1915
Battle of Doiran 1916
Battle of Doiran 1917
Battle of Doiran 1918
Argentinians
2 April 1982 – Invasion of the Falklands – 100+ Marines and sailors captured
3 April 1982 – Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs
10 May 1982 – sinking of the HMS Sheffield
22 May 1982 – sinking of the HMS Ardent
23 May 1982 – Battle of Seal Cove
24 May 1982 – sinking of the HMS Antelope
25 May 1982 – SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians
25 May 1982 – HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft.
29 May 1982 – Mount Kent Battle – 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident.
6-7 June 1982 – British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes
8 June 1982 – Bluff Cove Air Attacks
10 June 1982 – Skirmish at Many Branch Point – capture of the SAS contingent.
Ghurka victories
January 1814 – Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi – British army kept at bay
January 1814 – Battle of Jitgadh – British attack repulsed with 300 KIA
Spring 1814 – Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi – British Indian army stymied.
November 1814 – Battle of Nalapani – British force decimated with 700+ casualties
December, 1814 – Battle of Jaithak – 53rd Div. defeated and repelled.
Dutch
16 August 1652 – Battle of Plymouth – De Ruyter's triumph
30 November 1652 – Battle of Dungeness – Dutch gain control of the English Channel
4 March 1653 – Battle of Leghorn – 5 ships captured or sunk
2 August 1665 – Battle of Vågen
1–4 June 1666 – Four Days' Battle – 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded
2-5 September 1666 – Burning of London
9–14 June 1667 – Raid on Medway – Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships
28 May 1672 – Battle of Solebay
7 -14 June 1673 – Battle of Schooneveld
August 21, 1673 – Battle of Texel
Others
– by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta),
– by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans),
– by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola),
– by the native Indians (at Monongahela),
– by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad)
– by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by
sea)
Among many, many, others.
A difficult question to answer is would France have held out alone if the BEF had not reinforced their Northern flank in France and Belgium, France had by far the larger army in WW1 of the allies but if Germany had broken them in 1914-15 then we would have faced the same problem we had when Germany did defeat France in WW2 in gifting Germany Atlantic ports. With Atlantic ports any 'bottle them up in the Baltic' strategy becomes pointless. A difficult counter-factual to debate.
Given we know how poorly British ships performed during Jutland, isn't there a danger that a small British fleet of battlecruisers would have been smashed in the Baltic?
This plan fills me with such Glee. The description that WWI was war essentially on German terms is accurate on Reflection and the British opted to use and Expand the BEF (along with all the social and political ramifications attached) one has to wonder what the world would look like if more pragmatic minds opted for the Baltic plan.
Excellent. Very interesting. Thank You. I like Churchill for many things but I never thought he was a great strategist.
if only the baltic plan had been put into action.
Instead we had the Churchillian disaster at Gallipoli and all the bloodbaths on the Western Front.
J.Arbuthnot Fisher. A brilliant plan,never even
"discussed"so to speak
I don't understand why,once an oil powered fleet was decided upon,some"one"did not propose a
class of ship super armored w/little else to
sweep mines by"racing"right into them. How
much boom,boom would a 15inch hardened
steel hull take,if same was all the heaviest
armor,the biggest engines&small,well
"protected"crew???
needa discussion w/Drachinifel. He's a"ship"guy
y'all could exchange&share details(please!)
Tbf on Churchill, wrestling control of the BEF away from the army would not only break the unified war council but make Britain seem like an unreliable ally if it will not send the BEF to France as negotiated by the politicians of the day. The Baltic strategy couldve worked but its not so much better than the Dardanelles plan as it will be dubious as how exactly the BEF is going to hold on to Denmark by themselves. If they cant win against the inferior and disorganized Ottoman Army, how will they fare against a Germany without France there to soften the blow?
Coming from the boer war video, it seems to me that Jackie Fisher was the last man that could’ve saved the British empire.
Who knows if his plans could’ve succeeded but an entente victory in 1916 without needing to finance a large conscription army would have had massive ripple effect on the post war period.
The British empire was an economic juggernaut but had vast responsibilities to garrison 35,000,000km2 and maintain the Royal Navy and still out produced the WW2 European axis powers in some sectors (like aircraft production) while still exhausted.
If there is a second war in this timeline, all of Britains rivals minus the USA will be exhausted after it and Britain would be just fine and be in an even better position than 1814, pax britannica for another hundred years essentially.
Yes, churchill who was an army major telling the best naval mind and admiral of the fleet how best to deploy the navy