Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T11:02:37.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RIGHTING THE SCHOLARSHIP: THE BATTLE-CRUISER IN HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

NICHOLAS A. LAMBERT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The provenance of the dreadnought battle-cruiser and its significance with respect to the Anglo-German naval rivalry has generated sharp scholarly disagreement. This article reviews the work of four historians who have wrestled with the battle-cruiser issue in order to evaluate their different approaches to the evidence and conflicting conclusions. It then identifies hitherto unnoticed connections between the battle cruiser, a redefinition of the two-Power standard, and the financing of the 1908 Old Age Pensions Act.

Type
Historiographical Reviews
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 275 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Austen Chamberlain, ‘The financial situation’, 28 Apr. 1904, The National Archives, London, Cabinet papers (CAB) 37/70/61.

2 Mitchell, B. R., Abstract of British historical statistics (Cambridge, 1971), p. 398Google Scholar.

3 Admiralty, ‘Designs Committee’, NL/15432, Admy 22 Dec. 1904, The National Archives, London, Admiralty papers (ADM), 1/7737.

4 Campbell-Bannerman, HC Deb 27 July 1906 vol. 162, c. 114.

5 The Invincible-class: authorized 1905 as ‘armoured-cruisers’, reclassified 1906 as ‘armoured vessels’, reclassified 1908 ‘battleship cruisers’, reclassified 1911 ‘battle-cruisers’: Lord Tweedmouth (First Lord, 1906–8), HL Deb 18 March 1908 vol. 186, c. 528; Thomas McNamara (parliamentary secretary, 1908–20), HC Deb 13 July 1908 vol. 192, c. 477.

6 Fisher to Selborne, 26 Sept. 1904, fos. 1–2, Bodleian Library, second Earl Selborne papers (Selborne MSS) 42; see also Fisher to Selborne, 2 Aug. 1904, and Fisher to Esher, 21 Aug. 1904, both in Marder, Arthur, ed., Fear god and dread nought: The correspondence of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher of Kilverstone (3 vols., London, 1952–9), i, pp. 321, 324–5Google Scholar. Hereafter FG.

7 Williams, Rhodri, Defending the Empire: the Conservative party and British defence policy, 1899–1915 (New Haven, CT, 1991), pp. 60–1Google Scholar; David French, The British way in warfare, 1688–2000 (London, 1990), pp. 155–7.

8 Friedberg, Aaron, The weary titan: Britain and the experience of relative decline, 1895–1905 (Princeton, NJ, 1988), pp. 90ffGoogle Scholar; Peden, G. C., The Treasury and British public policy, 1906–1959 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 30ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, Paul, The rise and fall of British naval mastery (London, 1976), pp. 245–57Google Scholar.

9 Chamberlain to Selborne, 10 May 1904, and Balfour to Selborne, 12 May 1904, fo. 155, Selborne MSS 39.

10 Selborne to Fisher, 17 Oct. 1904, fo. 3, Selborne MSS 42; for completion of the sketch estimates, see Fisher to Selborne, 27 Nov. 1904, fos. 27–30, Selborne MSS 42.

11 Selborne, ‘Memorandum’, 6 Dec. 1904, CAB.37/73/159.

12 Marder, Arthur J., The anatomy of British sea power: a history of British naval policy in the pre-Dreadnought era, 1880–1905 (New York, NY, 1964), pp. 489–93, 496Google Scholar. Hereafter ABS.

13 Kennedy, Naval mastery, pp. 248–59; Friedberg, Weary titan, pp. 190–4.

14 Selborne, ‘Memorandum’, 6 Dec. 1904, CAB.37/73/159.

15 Selborne, HL Deb 21 Mar. 1905 vol. 143, c. 618.

16 Lambert, Nicholas A., Sir John Fisher's naval revolution (Columbia, SC, 1999), pp. 21–34Google Scholar. Hereafter FNR.

17 The principal work of Arthur J. Marder include two monographs: ABS (see n. 12 above) and From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow (5 vols., Oxford, 1961–70). Hereafter FDSF.

18 For examples, see Williamson, Samuel, The politics of grand strategy: Britain and France prepare for war, 1904–1914 (Cambridge, MA, 1969), pp. 15–18, 43–69, 103–9Google Scholar, passim; Kennedy, Paul, The rise of the Anglo-German antagonism, 1860–1914 (London, 1980), pp. 251–60, 272, 279, 444, 451–2Google Scholar.

19 ABS, p. 535.

20 Ibid.

21 Reginald Bacon, ‘Some facts about Fisher and his warships’, US Naval Institute ‘Proceedings’, 66 (445), Mar. 1940, pp. 392–400.

22 FDSF, i, p. 91.

23 ABS, p. 534.

24 Ibid., n. 39; also FG, ii, p. 26.

25 ABS, pp. 515–45.

26 FDSF, i, pp. 44–5.

27 FG, ii, p. 26.

28 FDSF, i, p. 45.

29 ABS, p. 465.

30 ABS, pp. 460–7, 472, but note pp. 494–5.

31 FDSF, i, pp. vii, 40–3.

32 FDSF, i, p. viii.

33 FG, ii, p. 15.

34 FDSF, i, pp. 6–11.

35 FG, ii, pp. 19, 24–5, 30; FDSF, i, pp. 26, 87.

36 FDSF, i, pp. 367–95.

37 FDSF, i, p. vii.

38 ABS, p. 543; FG, ii, p. 26.

39 ABS, pp. 516, 521–33.

40 ABS, pp. 515–16, FDSF, i, pp. 56–66, 69–70.

41 ABS, pp. 516, 538–9; FDSF, i, pp. 57, 69; FG, ii, pp. 18–20, 24; FDSF, i, p. 57.

42 FDSF, i, pp. vii, 57, 69, but see p. 67.

43 FDSF, i, p. vii.

44 FDSF, i, p. 57; ABS, pp. 538–40; FG, ii, pp. 29–30.

45 Woodward, E. L., Great Britain and the German Navy (Oxford, 1935)Google Scholar; Langer, William L., European alliances and alignments, 1871–1890 (New York, NY, 1931)Google Scholar; idem, The diplomacy of imperialism, 1890–1902 (New York, NY, 1935)Google Scholar.

46 John Horsfield, ‘Marder, Arthur Jacob (1910–1980)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography; Williamson, Samuel and May, Ernest, ‘An identity of opinion: historians and July 1914’, Journal of Modern History, 79 (June 2007), p. 342CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gough, Barry, Historical Dreadnoughts: Arthur Marder, Stephen Roskill and battles for naval history (Barnsley, 2010), pp. 8–14Google Scholar.

47 Keegan, John, The face of battle (London, 1978), p. 27Google Scholar.

48 Marder to Underwood, 23 Aug. 38, M4576/38, ADM.178/207. Barry Gough cites these files (p. 322 n. 12) but apparently did not scrutinize them.

49 Admiralty to Marder, 2 Sept. 1938; minutes (20 May 1941 and 26 Nov. 1945) Mr H. H. Ellmers (head of record office) (dockets 1941 and 1945), ibid.

50 ABS, pp. v–vii; FDSF, i, p. vii; for examples of official unhappiness with Marder, see: minutes (19 and 21 Mar. 1946) by Richard R. Powell (deputy secretary, head of M.II), on M.2023/46, ‘Request for access to Admiralty records for the period 1905–1919’, ADM.1/28267; minutes (27 Feb. 1950) by David Bonner-Smith (Admiralty librarian) and (24 Apr. 1950) R. R. Powell, ‘Publication of historical books concerning Royal Navy, by US citizen, Professor A. J. Marder’, ibid.

51 Mackay, Ruddock F., Fisher of Kilverstone (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar. Hereafter KIL; also idem, ‘The Admiralty, the German Navy and the redistribution of the British fleet, 1904–1905’, Mariner's Mirror, 56 (1970), pp. 341–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 KIL, p. 230.

53 KIL, pp. 263–70, 313–14, 315, 316–21.

54 KIL, pp. 314–16, 321–2.

55 KIL, pp. 212, 213, 269–71, 312.

56 KIL, pp. 270–1, 323–6.

57 KIL, p. 325.

58 KIL, p. 324; see also pp. 270–1, 323, 325, 326.

59 KIL, pp. 323–5.

60 Sumida, Jon, In defence of naval supremacy: financial limitation, technological innovation and British naval policy, 1889–1914 (London, 1989; p/back 1992; reprinted Annapolis, MD, 2014)Google Scholar. Hereafter IDNS.

61 IDNS, pp. 38–46.

62 Fisher to Admiralty, 25 June 1901, Admy 29 May 1901, ADM.1/7521.

63 IDNS, p. 41.

64 Kerr to Selborne, 25 July 1904, fo. 219, Selborne MSS 41.

65 Friedman, Norman, British cruisers of the Victorian era (Annapolis, MD, 2012), pp. 239–40, 264–7Google Scholar.

66 Selborne to Chamberlain, 30 Sept. 1903, fo. 247, Selborne MSS 37.

67 Selborne to Barry and reply, 20 Sept. 1904, fo. 108, Selborne MSS 44; Kerr to Selborne, 1 Aug. 1903 and reply 3 Oct. 1903, fo. 23, Selborne MSS 136.

68 IDNS, pp. 43–46.

69 IDNS, p. 53.

70 Selborne to Balfour, 23 Aug. 1905, fo. 88, BL, Arthur Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49707.

71 IDNS, pp. 58–61, 114–15, 158–62; for additional evidence, see Lambert, Nicholas A., ‘Admiral Sir John Fisher and the concept of flotilla defense, 1904–10’, Journal of Military History, 59 (Oct. 1995), pp. 639–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Economy or empire: the quest for collective security in the Pacific 1909–14’, in Neilson, Keith and Kennedy, Greg, eds., Far flung lines: studies in imperial defence in honour of Donald Mackenzie Schurman (London, 1997)Google Scholar.

72 Seligmann, Mathew S., The Royal Navy and the German threat, 1901–1914: Admiralty plans to protect British trade in a war against Germany (Oxford, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. References to page numbers in this book appear in the text in parentheses.

73 For examples of documents discussing relative threats, see Charles L. Ottley, ‘The protection of ocean trade in war time’, 30 Mar. 1905, fos. 103–24, ADM.116/866B; Admiralty, ‘The building programme of the British navy’, dated 15 Feb. 1906 in file Admy 18 Jan. 1907, ADM.1/7933.

74 Friedman, Cruisers, pp. 118, 132, 147, 221, 226–33.

75 From Bacon, Reginald, The life of Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, Admiral of the Fleet (2 vols., London, 1929), ii, pp. 255–6Google Scholar.

76 From Reginald Bacon, From 1900 onwards (London, 1940), p. 100. I have omitted the four last lines from Seligmann's block quote.

77 ‘Report of the Committee on Designs 1905’ (hereafter COD), Selborne MSS 160/8. Terms of Reference, item 4, pp. 3, 24–33.

78 COD, preliminary statement, first meeting, pp. 24–5, 32–3.

79 COD, pp. 32–3.

80 Fisher to Selborne 3 Dec. 1904, fos. 43–50, and 4 Dec. 1904, fo. 51, enclosing memorandum by Fisher ‘Committee on Designs’ plus marginalia (n.d. but probably 3 Dec. 1904) by Selborne, fos. 52–8, Selborne MSS 42.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.; for proof of Fisher's receipt of these notes see Fisher to Selborne, 4 Dec. 1904, fo. 51, Selborne MSS 42.

83 Selborne, ‘Memorandum’, 6 Dec. 1904, CAB.37/73/159; see also memorandum by Fisher ‘Committee on Designs’ plus marginalia by Selborne, fos. 52–8, Selborne MSS 42.

84 For evidence that Beresford was consulted, see ‘Ship Design’, comments by Beresford (19 Dec. 1904), Churchill College Cambridge, Admiral Lord Fisher papers (FISR), 5/11, FP.4218.

85 Fisher to Selborne, 4 Dec. 1904, fo. 51, Selborne MSS 42.

86 COD, pp. 24–5; for prior circulation of this document, see Lord Kelvin to Fisher, 3 Jan. 1905, FISR, 1/4, FP.144.

87 Selborne to Vincent Baddeley, June 1905, fo. 200, Selborne MSS 46.

88 IDNS, pp. 256–8.

89 Bacon, Reginald, ‘The battleship of the future’, Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, 52 (16 Mar. 1910), pp. 1–21Google Scholar, at p. 10.

90 Jellicoe to Tupper, 24 Jan. 1906, Portsmouth, Naval Historical Branch, Admiral Sir Reginald Tupper papers, The Resistance experiments actually took place in Aug. 1886.

91 Tupper, Reginald, Reminiscences (London, 1929), pp. 143–6Google Scholar.

92 The phrase may be found in memorandum of meeting, ‘Sunday, 2nd December 1905’, p. 22, Portsmouth, Naval Historical Branch, Captain Thomas Crease papers (Crease MSS); Battenberg makes exactly the same point in his 1903 memorandum ‘Mercantile auxiliaries’, p. 8, enclosed in printed memorandum ‘Subsidies’, fos. 88–91, Selborne MSS 146.

93 See n. 108 below. Familiarity with the development history of the geared turbine is critical here.

94 Fisher to Selborne, 19 Oct. 1904, FG, i, pp. 330–2.

95 Lambert, Nicholas A., Planning Armageddon: British economic warfare and the First World War (Cambridge, MA, 2012), pp. 33, 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the date when Ottley was formally offered the post see: Ottley to Selborne, 16 Nov. 1904, fo. 60, Selborne MSS 46.

96 Selborne to Curzon, 19 Apr. 1901, in Boyce, D. G., The crisis of British power: the imperial and naval papers of the second earl of Selborne (London, 1990), p. 113Google Scholar; Battenberg to Selborne, 5 Mar. 1905, fo. 56, Selborne MSS 46.

97 Marginalia (3 Dec. 1904) by Selborne on ‘Committee on Designs’, fo. 52, Selborne MSS 42.

98 Battenberg to Selborne, 6 Apr. 1904, fo. 15, Selborne MSS 44.

99 For instance: minute (6 Apr. 1903) by Battenberg, Admy 14 May 1903, ADM 1/7658; Selborne to Chamberlain, 30 Sept. 1903, fo. 247, Birmingham University Library, Austen Chamberlain papers, AC.44/4/5.

100 FNR, pp. 108–9.

101 Battenberg, ‘Mercantile auxiliaries’, 19 Mar. 1903, fos. 88–91, Selborne MSS 146.

102 Battenberg to Lee, 1 Dec. 1906, London, Courtauld Institute, Arthur Lee papers.

103 For more on this story, see Selborne, ‘Memorandum on the position created by the Atlantic Shipping Combine’, 16 May 1902, fo. 33, Selborne MSS 148; Admiralty, ‘History of shipping subsidies subsequent to Board minute of 21st May, 1903’, pp. 3–5, and Admiralty to Post Office, 9 June 1904, pp. 5–7, in ‘Shipping subsidies’, ADM.137/2819; minute (27 Apr. 1903) by Kerr, fo. 86, Selborne MSS 146.

104 [C. L. Ottley] ‘The strategic aspect of our building programme’, p. 19, enclosed in ‘Report of the Naval Estimates Committee’, 16 Nov. 1905; ‘Report of the Naval Estimates Committee 1906–1907’, 10 Jan. 1906; and C. L. Ottley, ‘The building programme of the British navy’, 15 Feb. 1906, pp. 3–4, all in box 2, Crease MSS; memorandum ‘List of Russian war vessels under construction or projected’, 27 Oct. 1904, fo. 50, Selborne MSS 44.

105 IDNS, pp. 59–61.

106 Earl Cawdor (First Lord of the Admiralty, 1905–6), ‘A statement of Admiralty policy’, Great Britain, selected Parliamentary Papers (1905), vol. 11, cc. 2759–92.

107 The archive box (ADM.116/119043B) contains three copies of ‘Précis of war game’ at (a) fo. 97; (b) fo. 361; (c) fo. 472.

108 Ibid.

109 C. L. Ottley, ‘The strategic aspects of our building programme, 1907’, box 3, Crease MSS, copy dated 7 Jan. 1907 located in ADM.1/7933.

110 Ibid., p. 25.

111 Williams, Defending, pp. 120–37, 156–61.

112 H. H. Asquith, A. J. Balfour, HC Deb 10 Mar. 1908, vol. 185, c. 1337.

113 FNR, pp. 129–39.

114 Lord Cawdor, HL Deb 18 Mar. 1908, vol. 186, cc. 495–543.

115 This was Edmund Robertson, Liberal parliamentary secretary to the Admiralty, 1905–8.

116 A. J. Balfour, HC Deb 9 Mar. 1908 vol. 185, cc. 1179–80.

117 Arthur Lee, HC Deb 13 July 1908 vol. 192, c. 429.

118 H. H. Asquith, HC Deb 12 Nov. 1908 vol. 196, c. 560; reconfirmed HC Deb 23 Nov. 1908 vol. 196, cc. 1768–9.