Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts

Monday, October 23, 2017

A Brief Word on Titles

Today we are quite used to titles being sort of honorary and nothing more, particularly, I think, in the English-speaking world but, certainly after the French Revolution, in most of the west as well. The British monarchs, for example, became fond of awarding titles to victorious generals which reflected their success such as Viscount Allenby of Megiddo (a place in the Middle East) or Baron Napier of Magdala (a place in Ethiopia) in addition to some actual location in the U.K. but while they may have had some traditional privileges associated with the place in the U.K. mentioned in their title, it certainly was not their own to rule as they pleased. In the old days, more so the farther back prior to the French Revolution one chooses to go, this was not the case. A title more often meant that the holder of that title actually controlled and ruled the land in question. William the Conqueror, for example, was the Duke of Normandy and he ruled Normandy. So, in the past, a title could mean there were actual lands and people and those lands that the holder of the title actually controlled, sometimes, even then, it was more in name than in fact.

Coronation of Otto the Great of Germany
One area that often causes confusion is the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation”. You will, for the sake of being easily understood, see the ruler of this entity be referred to as the ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ but his actual imperial title was “Emperor of the Romans”. His primary subsidiary titles were “King of the Germans” or “King of Germany” (the one which mattered the most), “King of Italy” and later “King of Burgundy”. Usually the Emperor held these titles prior to or upon becoming “Emperor of the Romans” but this was not always the case. Usually, whoever became King of Germany was confirmed by the Pope and could then be crowned Emperor of the Romans though not many actually were. Eventually, papal-imperial relations became such a touchy subject that this stopped being done which is why every emperor after Charles V were technically only entitled to be called “Emperor-elect” as they did not officially become “Emperor of the Romans” until crowned by the pope and no emperor after Charles V ever was.

This issue of titles can be very confusing but it is rather important in understanding why certain historical events were so important when, on the surface, it may seem as though there should have been no difficulty about them. Even the title at the very top, “Emperor of the Romans” was rather complicated. Technically, a Roman was and is simply a native of the city of Rome, however the title could be seen, and was, to refer to “Romans” in the broader sense of basically all Europeans or at least all Christian Europeans which, eventually, they all were. Maps might show the actual city of Rome as being part of the Holy Roman Empire but the emperors did not usually rule Rome but rather the popes ruled the city of Rome and part of the reason why there was so much ‘storm and stress’ between the popes and the emperors was because, originally, the popes were supposed to be superior to the emperor in their spiritual capacity but subjects of the emperors in the temporal sphere. It did not usually work out this way in practice though as neither wished to be overruled by the other on any issue.

Emperor Romulus surrenders his crown
Similarly, the title of “King of Italy”, falsely regarded by many as an innovation of the Nineteenth Century, was a title which had been in use consistently ever since the fall of the Western Roman Empire when Emperor Romulus Augustus was deposed by Odoacer who was then proclaimed “King of Italy”. You then had the Ostrogoth kings of Italy, then the Lombard kings of Italy and finally it was the German emperors who came to hold the title and would often be crowned King of Italy, after being crowned King of Germany, while on their way from Germany to Rome to be crowned Emperor of the Romans. However, because the Holy Roman Empire was more like a collection of small countries than one, united, powerful country, this did not mean that the emperors, as kings of Italy, actually ruled Italy.

In the first place, relatively soon after Odoacer became King of Italy, the Eastern Roman Empire invaded and recaptured the southern half of the peninsula and later other conquerors did as well so that different political entities were established there and the King of Italy only actually held even nominal rule over the northern half of the peninsula. Yet, even then, the German emperor who was King of Italy did not usually rule even northern Italy himself because of the nature of the empire. Northern Italy was ruled by people like the Doge of Venice, the Duke of Milan, the Duke of Savoy and so on who may or may not have been loyal to the German emperor and their nominal king depending on the situation. Quite often, to prevent the emperors from ruling Italy, the pope would form a coalition of the rulers of the northern Italian states to band together in opposition to the emperors. Sometimes they succeeded, such as under Pope Alexander III, and sometimes they did not, such as under Pope Clement VII. His defeat, by the way, is what resulted in the victorious Charles V being the last Emperor to be crowned by the Pope himself.

Crown of Prussia
Most of the time, the most significant title of the emperors was their position as King of the Germans as that is where they held the most actual power, though most still had to negotiate with the princes and nobles under them in order to accomplish anything. However, this is why there were supposed to be no other kings within the empire other than the Emperor himself who was King of Germany as that would conflict with his title. This is why it was significant when the Elector of Brandenburg demanded to be ‘upgraded’ to King of Prussia as it was seen as being a challenge to the authority of the Emperor who was King of the Germans. Eventually, because the Prussian heartland was outside the borders of the empire, and the Emperor really needed the help of the Prussians, it was decided to allow the Elector of Brandenburg to be called “King in Prussia” but not “King of Prussia”. Later, under Frederick the Great, all pretense would be dropped and he simply adopted the title “King of Prussia” anyway and there was nothing the Emperor could really do about it.

At the very end of the life of the Holy Roman Empire, this ban on more than one king was thrown completely out the window as the victorious Napoleon Bonaparte began to redraw the map of central Europe as he negotiated a new continental order centered around France. This is when, in addition to the King of Prussia, you suddenly had a King of Saxony, a King of Bavaria and a King of Wurttemberg within the historic lands of Germany and different imperial electors than there had been before. Ultimately, however, none of that really mattered as by then the Empire had become so nominal as to be practically nonexistent anyway. Even before the time of Napoleon, when one spoke of the “Emperor” they actually meant the ruler of Austria as he clearly did not rule the whole of the German nation. In 1804 the Emperor Francis II, wishing to end the charade as well as preventing Napoleon himself from being elected, abolished the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans and declared himself Emperor Francis I of Austria, which later became the “Dual-Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary under Francis Joseph.

Emp. Ferdinand wearing the Crown of Italy
Nonetheless, once someone has a title, they usually want to keep it. As such, those German princes who had been elevated to royal status by Napoleon, were allowed to keep their titles as part of the means of encouraging them to turn against Napoleon and join the Allies. So, after that whole affair, there was no longer a King of Germany but instead kings of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Wurttemberg as well as the Emperor of Austria who was also a king several times over in his own empire. The Kingdom of Burgundy had been broken up centuries before any of this so that left only the Kingdom of Italy. Napoleon had revived the Kingdom of Italy and actually made it a reality, intending it to be his secondary title after Emperor of the French, taking a great interest in it and naming his step-son viceroy. However, after his downfall, the Kingdom of Italy was no more as most of the territory was handed over to the Austrian Empire rather than being restored to its previous rulers. The Crown of Italy was also held by the Habsburgs but they created a new title to use with it, “King of Lombardy-Venetia”. The title King of Italy would not be revived until 1860 with the accomplishment of Italian independence and unification.

The subject can be much more complicated if one chooses to go into all of the details and all of the changes over time but, I hope this little summary will at least give those unfamiliar a better grasp of the titles associated with the Holy Roman Empire and perhaps make certain past (and future) articles easier to understand.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

The Eclipse of Empires at Sedan

It was on this day in 1870 that the Battle of Sedan, between the forces of the French Emperor Napoleon III and the German forces led by the King of Prussia, ended in a decisive defeat for France. It was a day in history which saw one empire come to an end and another marching on to be born. For France, the battle would mark the end of their Second Empire while for Prussia and her allies it would mark the beginning of the Second German Reich. The French would not forget this humiliation and it would drive them to plunging headlong into the First World War in August of 1914, vowing to avenge Sedan and to recover Alsace-Lorraine, the provinces they would lose in the final peace agreement. For the Prussians, particularly Bismarck, it was the final step in his methodical plan to demonstrate that the Kingdom of Prussia had mastered her traditional rivals; Austria and France, showing the other German states that their fates would be bound to that of Prussia, making German unity a reality. Yes, quite a lot was determined by this two-day battle in the Ardennes.

Bismarck, Roon and Moltke
For quite some time, the Kingdom of Prussia had been a power that could not be ignored but one which was considered no more than a regional power. The stunning victories of Frederick the Great were far in the past and while the battles against the first Napoleon were a proud memory and ones that had revived German nationalism, it was lost on no one that they had been won in cooperation with several other, stronger, allied nations. Furthermore, many discounted the military expertise of the Prussians, rightly judging their most famous commander, Bluecher, as a great leader but certainly no great strategist. They failed to take notice of the more brilliant but less inspiring staff officers of the Prussian army at that time. King Wilhelm I may not have been another Frederick but his most eminent subjects; Bismarck, Graf von Roon and Graf von Moltke made up for the difference. Although he does not always receive the recognition he deserves, Graf von Moltke was undoubtedly one of the greatest military geniuses the German people would ever produce. Their victory over the Austrians in 1866 had been so swift and so overwhelming that many attributed the outcome more to the deficiency of Austria than the strength of Prussia.

Nonetheless, the Prussians, with recent victories over Denmark and Austria behind them, definitely had the momentum going forward into 1870. The French Second Empire was, contrarily, certainly not at its best but still was subject to higher expectations. Not that long before, Napoleon III had seemed to have done the impossible. Not only had he brought about the restoration of the Bonaparte house to power and revived the Napoleonic French Empire but he had also managed to make a Bonaparte emperor acceptable to the crowned heads of Europe. He had ended the traditional antagonism between France and Britain, his armies won laurels for their hard fought victories against mighty Russia, secured control of southern Vietnam and made Cambodia a French protectorate. They won battles in China, Africa and, though it was a hard fought and bloody affair, had seen the Austrians removed from Lombardy. Armies around the world copied French fashions and while the royalists refused to accept him, he still managed to make even the Pope in Rome his dependent. It was a high point for French influence around the world.

Napoleon III at Sedan
However, the war against Austria in Italy had not been the total victory that was hoped for and both parties were left rather unsatisfied. The age old rivalry over the Italian peninsula would ultimately prevent either from the cooperation both could have benefited from in the face of the rising power of Prussia. A new effort at Franco-Austrian cooperation came when French armies succeeded in placing a Habsburg on the throne of Mexico, the first step in what Napoleon III envisioned as a new era of monarchical expansion in the Americas. However, while French troops dominated the battlefields, Mexico became a drain on resources, money and manpower with the republicans resorting to low-level banditry. When the American Civil War ended with the defeat of the Confederacy, the United States was able to send all necessary support to her republican lackeys south of the border and order the French to clear out. French prestige was lowered by this withdrawal at the command of another power and, particularly in light of the noble, tragic death of the Habsburg Emperor of Mexico, Napoleon III himself came out looking like a man who lacked commitment and whose word could not be relied upon.

Because of this downturn in French fortunes, it was all the easier for Bismarck, cunning character that he was, to provoke Louis Napoleon into instigating a war with Prussia. The French were not prepared, taking far too much for granted, while the Prussians were not. To use a not-so-technical term, France was basically curb-stomped by the Germans and the defeat at Sedan was the climax, though certainly not the end as France still had the ignominious end of the Paris Commune to look forward to. Neither army matched their traditional stereotype in this conflict. The French were slow, stuck rigidly to their plans and showed little initiative. The Germans, on the other hand, kept flexible, took risks and, as the old saying  goes, ‘marched toward the sound of the guns’. Napoleon III himself, rather like his famous uncle at Waterloo, was not at his best on this occasion. Whether the King of Prussia was or not hardly mattered, Graf von Moltke was and that is all that ultimately mattered.

Wilhelm I takes Napoleon's sword
At Sedan, by the second day, the French had been totally outmaneuvered and were trapped. The French Emperor, practically surrounded and outnumbered, ordered a succession of desperate attacks in an attempt to break out. None were successful and his army, which had hoped to relieve the siege of Metz, was itself finally forced to surrender. Napoleon handed over his army and his sword to King Wilhelm of Prussia and within only a couple of days the French Empire collapsed. Napoleon III would live out the rest of his life in exile while the Prussians went on to deal with the Paris Commune and then, at the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles, to have the assembled German princes proclaim the King of Prussia, “German Emperor”. All of this was a little too innovative for the very conservative Hohenzollern monarch, having an Austrian Kaiser and a German Kaiser seemed rather excessive and he refused to have “Sedan Day” made a national holiday in the new German Reich, though it was widely celebrated nonetheless, every year until the end of the First World War which was also the end of the Second Reich. All the same, Sedan had secured the unity of the German nation.

Monarchists played a major part in all of the events surrounding this momentous moment of European history. The war between France and Prussia was set off by the search for a new King of Spain after the overthrow in 1868 of Queen Isabella II who, having been unacceptable to the Carlists from birth, became unacceptable to the constitutional monarchists as well for being too conservative. Napoleon’s effort to find an ally to aid him against the Germans was also thwarted by monarchist opposition on two fronts, both regarding Italy as well as an at least perceived threat to the monarchy in Austria. The most important ally France could have had against Prussia was the Austrians. However, the Austrians were engaged in placating the Hungarians by implementing the “dualism” that would result in the Austrian Empire becoming Austria-Hungary which rather kept them busy. Austria also feared that if they became engaged in a war with Prussia, alongside France, the Italians might take advantage of the situation and go to war against them, so if Austria was to come on side, they wanted the Italians on side as well (where they could keep their eye on them).

Proclaiming the King of Prussia "German Kaiser"
However, this proved impossible for the same reason that Napoleon was unable to secure the new Kingdom of Italy as an ally against the Prussians. That reason, of course, was the presence of a French army in Rome propping up the rule of Pope Pius IX. While King Victor Emmanuel II was sympathetic to France, the Italians would have none of it so long as French troops remained on Italian soil and Napoleon dared not risk the wrath of the French royalists by withdrawing his army which was the only thing keeping the Pope in power in Rome. The result was that the French Empire was isolated with no other European power willing to take their side while Prussia, having already dealt with the Austrians, had the south German states ready to realign themselves to Berlin rather than Vienna.

Finally, there was also the issue of the royalists in France itself. Napoleon III had, throughout his reign, repeatedly taken action in the utterly futile cause of winning over the French royalists but, while many would fight for France, none would fight for him. Patrice de MacMahon, the commander of his army at Sedan, would fill the void left by Napoleon III with royalist support after suppressing the Paris Commune. The resulting national assembly had a monarchist majority, MacMahon was open to a restoration and the feuding French royalists had even managed to work out an acceptable compromise over who should take the throne. However, the designated heir, the Comte de Chambord, famously refused as he was told that the French tricolor would not be replaced with the Bourbon white as the national flag. That rather ended the discussion and while royalists thought that they could wait until the passing of Chambord for the next-in-line to the throne to bring about a restoration, Chambord lived longer than anyone expected and by the time he did go, the Third French Republic had taken root. The matter decided by the Battle of Sedan thus, ultimately, affected the House of Bourbon as well as the Houses of Bonaparte and Hohenzollern.

Monday, April 3, 2017

The Livonian Brethren of the Sword

Outside of Europe in particular, it is often not realized the extent to which the crusades and the military religious orders that fought in them were largely national affairs. This may be partly because many people ignore the crusades that were not aimed at retaking the Holy Land as those were probably the most ‘inter-national’ of the crusades, yet, still more than I think most people realize, largely French. The Knights Templar, which is most famous for fighting in the crusades in the Holy Land, had a multinational membership but were, likewise, predominately French. The crusade to retake the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims was, on the other hand, an almost entirely Spanish and Portuguese affair. The military religious orders that sprang up to fight in that crusade, the longest war in history, were likewise Spanish. Perhaps the least talked about is the largely German-driven crusade against the pagans of northeastern Europe on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Those who do know about this arduous and bitterly fought struggle will likely recall the Order of the Teutonic Knights (ancestor of the later Kingdom of Prussia and originator of the oldest families of the Prussian nobility, more about them here) but less well known was another German military religious order known the Livonian Brethren of the Sword. They should not be forgotten.

Unlike their fellow Germans of the Teutonic Knights, the Livonian Brethren of the Sword were not founded in the Holy Land but right on the spot in Livonia, specifically in Riga, the capital city of what is now Latvia. The order was founded by the Bishop of Riga, also known as the Prince-Bishop of Livonia, in 1202 and gained official recognition from Pope Innocent III in 1204. Their initial aim was to convert and or conquer the pagan tribes of the region and defend the Christian community from their attacks. The groups most often engaged by the Brethren of the Sword were the Latgalians, Selonians and Livonians in the area around Riga and more broadly the coastal region of what is today Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, a region referred to at the time as Courland. As such, the order was known by several different variants of their official name. Their official name in Latin was Fratres Militiae Christi Livoniae but they were also known the Sword Brethren, The Militia of Christ of Livonia, the Livonian Brothers of the Sword, the Courland Brethren of the Sword, Christ Knights or the Order of the Porte-Glaive Knights (“Glaive” in this case likely referring back to the French for gladius or sword). Their symbol was a cross pattée over a sword, pointing down.

The knights were based at Fellin, which is today Viljandi in Estonia and they established other castles in the surrounding area with the commanders of these castles acting as the entourage of the Grand Master of the Sword Brethren. Officially, they were subject to the Catholic bishops, beginning with their founder Bishop Albert of Riga, however the Sword Brethren were an extremely hard fighting and strong-willed group of warriors so it soon became the case that their submission to the bishops was rather nominal as they often acted on their own. In the course of the Livonian Crusade, they quickly gained quite a reputation for ferocity and reckless courage as well as being rather unruly and difficult to control. They would also, at times, make agreements with neighboring monarchies as the situation dictated such as in 1218 when Bishop Albert called on King Valdemar II of Denmark for assistance, though in the end this amounted to little more than the Danes conquering northern Estonia for themselves. In 1232 Pope Gregory IX called on the Sword Brethren to aid in the defense of Finland from attacks by the Republic of Novgorod though no accounts of their activities on this front have survived. Ultimately this would result in a Swedish-led crusade that would see Finland united with the Kingdom of Sweden for the first time.

Over time, the many hard fought battles of the Sword Brethren saw threats from the east decreased and their focus moved toward the south and the Lithuanians and Semigallians (aka the Samogitians). This resulted in what was, in many ways, the Waterloo of the Sword Brethren with the Battle of Saule on September 22, 1236. Grand Master Volkwin led between 50 to 60 knights along with other troops amounting to 3,000 men against 5,000 pagan Samogitians led by their Duke Vykintas. The Christian forces were defeated and lost almost their entire army, some estimates putting losses at 2,700. Grand Master Volkwin died in battle and the Sword Brethren were wiped out as an effective, independent fighting force. Likewise, in the aftermath, other groups, previously conquered by the Brethren, saw their chance and rose up in rebellion. Latvia and Lithuania still mark the anniversary of this battle as a national holiday, not long ago jointly declaring it the ‘Day of Baltic Unity’.

This was, practically speaking, the end of the Livonian Brethren of the Sword. They would never be an independent military religious order again. However, those who survived the ordeal carried on, faithful to their vows, and were absorbed into the Teutonic Knights, retaining their traditions and leaders. As a branch of the Teutonic Knights they were known as the Livonian Order and still had their own Master though he was subject to the Teutonic Grand Master. Thirty years of fighting by the Sword Brethren had been brought to ruin by their defeat at Saule, however, as the autonomous Livonian Order within the Teutonic Knights, they reconquered Courland, Livonia and Semigallia, eventually buying the Duchy of Estonia from King Valdemar IV of Denmark after a devastating loss north of Riga at the hands of the Lithuanians, including, again, the death of their Master Bruno in 1298. As a result, two groups emerged and, due to their autonomy, they survived the secularization of the Teutonic Knights by Albert of Brandenburg fallowing his adoption of Lutheranism in 1525.

The Livonian Order was pushed farther back towards Estonia, where their comrades were based, and in 1453 joined together in the Livonian Confederation. This gave the Catholic remnant in the region some measure of unity and hope for self-defense but their enemies were many and increasing. The pagans may have been gone but Lutherans to the south and the Russian Orthodox to the east were constant threats. In 1560 they were again almost wiped out by a massive attack by Muscovite Russia, yet some still remained and, determined as ever, they still tried to carry on, seeking out and ultimately obtaining the patronage of Sigismund II Augustus, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. However, not long after, the Livonian Order went the way of the Teutonic Knights when their Master, Gotthard Kettler, converted to Lutheranism and thereafter secularized the order. That proved the final end of the last remnants of what had once been the Brethren of the Sword. The lands they retained were quickly taken over by neighboring states and the order ceased to exist.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

The Archduke and the Failed Reich

The history of the Germans has been one of a disparate people organized into small states interspersed by relatively short periods of three major empires or, as the Germans would call them, the First Reich, Second Reich and, the most short-lived of all, the Third Reich. Each were quite different though the first and second obviously had more in common with each other than the third. Prior to the First Reich the Germans had been a primitive, though fierce, collection of warring tribes. A taste of Roman civilization and conversion to Christianity culminated in the establishment of the First German Empire, officially known as the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Peoples”. This represented the longest period of time that all the German people were at least nominally united under one Crown. However, it was, in a way, an intermittent empire. For most of its history it was more of a confederacy of loosely associated autonomous states that generally went their own way. It was only occasionally, under such monarchs as Otto the Great, Frederick Barbarossa or Frederick II a united and powerful empire.

The First Reich
The Second Reich was that established in 1871 dominated by the Kingdom of Prussia and excluding the many German-speaking people of the Austrian Empire. It too was a collection of states but one more solidly united by the central government and it lasted until 1918, doomed by the German defeat in World War I. However, in between these two was an attempt at another German Empire which tried to bring about the unification, or reunification, of the German people earlier than it actually happened. The effort was unsuccessful and so it receives relatively little attention in history but it is still quite significant in understanding why the actual Second Reich was formed in the way that it was, how it was established and who it would include and who it would not. This was the German Empire of 1848-49, established by the vote of the Frankfurt Parliament, regarded by historians as the first freely elected Parliament representing all Germans. Born out of a revolutionary movement, it was nonetheless intended to be a hereditary monarchy though it would ultimately be a Reich without a Kaiser (emperor). The most lofty leader it could manage was an Imperial Regent which was Archduke Johann of Austria.

Born in 1782 in Florence, Italy, the thirteenth child of the very prolific Habsburg Grand Duke of Tuscany, later the Emperor Leopold II, Archduke Johann was given command of the Austrian Imperial Army at the start of the wars with Napoleon. He did not think he was up to the job and was ultimately proven correct. Though personally brave and intelligent, he was no great commander and his forces were soundly beaten. Afterwards, he was put in charge of overseeing military fortifications and later the military academy which were jobs more suited to his particular skill-set. Called back into service by the outbreak of the War of the Third Coalition, he proved much more capable as a defensive commander in the mountainous Tyrol region, fighting the French and their Bavarian allies. When the Austrian Emperor was forced to cede this territory, Archduke Johann supported the resistance of the Austrian population in the Tyrol led by the famous Tyrolean hero Andreas Hofer. In the War of the Fifth Coalition, he was once again given command of an army and did have some success but was ultimately defeated by the Franco-Italian army of Napoleon’s stepson Eugene, Viceroy of the Kingdom of Italy.

When the Austrian statesman Metternich determined to make peace with Napoleonic France, Archduke Johann was shoved aside because of his continued support for resistance and encouraging irregular warfare in the Austrian territory ceded to the French allied states. He left the military and devoted himself to intellectual pursuits, becoming very popular with the Styrians, founded a number of institutions of higher learning, climbed mountains and got married in 1829. As it was an unequal marriage, his brother Emperor Francis I excluded him from the Habsburg succession. This, naturally, caused some tension at court and, his wife being from a rather upper-middle class background, his promotion of modernization in Styria, all probably came together to give Archduke Johann a reputation for being more liberal than he really was.

Doubtless though it was that very reputation which was at least somewhat responsible for him becoming Imperial Regent of the short-lived German Empire of 1848. At the height of the March Revolution of that year, which in the German-speaking lands had started in Austria and quickly spread to Baden, the Palatinate, Prussia, Saxony, the Rhineland and Bavaria, leading German revolutionary nationalists got together in Heidelberg and organized an elected pan-German parliament that met in May in Frankfurt. All the German states had agreed to this elected assembly and all sent representatives. This National Assembly, known as the Frankfurt Assembly today, tried to come to a consensus for the creation of a new pan-German Reich that would include all German-speaking peoples. The first question was what form it would take. The most liberal proposed a federal republic similar to that of the United States of America but they lost to the more moderate majority that favored a constitutional monarchy.

The president of this assembly was Baron Heinrich von Gagern but they needed someone to occupy the position of Head of State, at least temporarily while this new German Reich established itself. So it was that the position of regent, or officially, “Imperial Vicar” was established and given to Archduke Johann of Austria. Baron von Gagern pushed for his election but this itself was something that was argued over. For many, the idea of a German Reich with a Habsburg in the highest position of leadership was only natural given how the Austrian Imperial Family had become, effectively, the Imperial Family of the First German Reich (the elections having long become a mere formality). However, there were those who thought that the Austrian lands, united with so many non-Germans such as Slavs and Hungarians, should be excluded from the new Reich whereas the adherents of the “Greater Germany” ideal, argued for their inclusion.

Germania
Archduke Johann actually had little to do since so much was still being debated and the situation in the various German states was changing so rapidly. He signed bills into law passed by the Assembly and appointed chosen officials to their post, such as Prince Carl von Leiningen (half-brother of Britain’s Queen Victoria) as head of government. However, while the Austrian sympathizers had history on their side, the wave of German nationalism sparked by the war against Napoleonic France had been largely focused on the Kingdom of Prussia and the Archduke was not so enthusiastic about the direction the Frankfurt Assembly seemed to be heading in with such a heavy emphasis on Prussia. Still, some actions taken were to linger for quite some time. It designated as its flag, and that of the German Confederation of which the head of the House of Habsburg was hereditary president, the black-red-gold tricolor that is the German flag today, the black and gold colors of Habsburg Austria overlaid with a red stripe to represent the Hanseatic states of the north. They could also claim descent from the colors of the arms of the First German Reich, a black eagle with red beak and talons on a gold field. The Imperial Fleet, established by the Assembly, was to outlive it by a number of years, continuing on until 1852. The pan-German colors would go on being used by the German Confederation until it was replaced by the Prussian-dominated North German Confederation after the Austro-Prussian War.

King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia
However, the greatest problem for these assembled revolutionary nationalists was that there were people in the streets putting events into motion while these delegates debated and voted in Frankfurt. When the Austrian Imperial Army put down the disorder in the streets, a representative of the Assembly was arrested and executed, taking Austria out of the picture and putting to rest the arguments in favor of a “Greater Germany” in a rather dramatic way. In other states, the various German princes began to put down the liberal unrest and ignored the Frankfurt Assembly which carried on for a time, seemingly oblivious to what was going on around them. When they finally decided on a constitution, Archduke Johann had no hand in it but signed it into law. It established the new German Reich as a constitutional hereditary monarchy with the crown and title of “Emperor of the Germans” going to the King of Prussia and his heirs and successors. However, the Prussians were likewise busy suppressing revolutionaries and in 1849 when a delegation arrived to formally offer King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia the title of “Kaiser” he firmly refused, famously saying that he would not accept, “a crown from the gutter” but only one offered by the traditional German Prince-Electors of the old First Reich. The King was a very conservative minded, staunchly Lutheran man who very much believed in the Divine Right of Kings and did not want a crown he would owe to an elected assembly, no matter how lofty it might seem.

The King of Prussia further undercut the liberal nationalist movement by enacting his own constitution for Prussia, one that would keep power in the hands he trusted most. For the Imperial Vicar, Archduke Johann, he took this in stride, asserting that he could carry on exercising executive authority, however, with the Austrians removing themselves from the movement and the Prussians also rejecting it, the refusal of the King of Prussia really spelled the end for the whole concept. Some states enacted liberal changes, others did not but the Revolutionary movement ultimately ground to a halt and rendered the Frankfurt Assembly powerless, ignored by all. Archduke Johann officially resigned his position on December 20, 1849 and the effort at a new German Reich came to an end with the German Confederation remaining the only pan-German government organization. He later became the only member of the Imperial Family to ever be elected mayor. The Archduke died ten years later in 1859.

Reichsflotte / Imperial Fleet
Archduke Johann of Austria had taken up the cause of a new pan-German Reich with enthusiasm. However, he was never quite so liberal as many of the others engaged in the same enterprise. His personal life and disagreements with Metternich tended to make him seem more “radical” than he really was. This perception, however, won him the support of the liberals whereas the monarchists and the “Greater Germany” proponents favored him because he was a Habsburg Archduke of Austria. He wanted greater unity among the German peoples, more academic freedom, less censorship and greater scientific and technical advancements such as he had seen in England. However, a revolutionary or ideologue he was not. This was the same man, after all, who had organized the Landwehr in Inner Austria and Tyrol, who had supported the resistance fighter Andreas Hofer and who, in fact, was banned from the Tyrol for years by his brother for fear that he would instigate trouble with Napoleonic France after the Austrian Empire had made peace with them. As it was though, that effort at German unity proved unsuccessful and the world would have to wait for the official Second German Reich, arranged by Otto von Bismarck, which would be very different indeed from that envisioned by the Frankfurt Assembly and Archduke Johann of Austria.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

The Crisis in Germany

That Germany is in the midst of a crisis is beyond dispute. The same could be said for most of western Europe but Germany would seem to be "ground zero" for this particular disaster. What is going on is absolutely astounding. Mass attacks on women, child rape, repeated terrorist attacks and yet the government of the Bundesrepublik remains committed to the lie that nothing is wrong, nothing must be changed, just carry on 'business as usual'. Only, if you are a woman, you might not want to go out alone if its late and you might want to dress more conservatively. Don't do anything that might offend the new arrivals, don't send the wrong message and certainly do not do anything to make them mad because while at the same time the government assures everyone that these people are perfectly innocent and peaceful, they also want everyone to walk around on eggshells for fear that the slightest offense could prompt them to an act of mass murder. Again, it's just astounding. And it is astounding that *anyone* in Germany is willing to tolerate this situation. There are those who do not of course, but they are still overpowered by those who do or, at least, those who are too afraid not to. Is there a solution to this crisis? Can anything be done?

As I wrote several years ago in The Case for Monarchy: Germany, the restoration of the monarchy would be at least a big part of the answer. Now, I realize many will (as they have done before) accuse me of being a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, but I really can come up with no other option that would save the German people from the demographic drowning their republican leaders have subjected them to. The Germans must, absolutely *must* get out from under the shadow of Nazi Germany and World War II. That is positively never going to happen in the current system because the current republic only exists because of Nazi Germany. Let me be perfectly blunt about this: the Federal Republic of Germany is not a government or a country or a nation, it is essentially a political apology. It exists only to serve as a vehicle for guilt, shame and to continuously milk the German people like they were no more than cattle in order to give money and resources to non-Germans. Patriotism is considered evil, national pride is evil, even considering the German people worthy of survival is now being considered evil. You shouldn't have to know as many mental health experts as I have to know this is not a healthy mindset for a people and is, in fact, quite dangerous. If you don't care about the suicide of the German nation, you should, because sometimes suicides take others with them when they go.

What do I mean by that? I mean that people are being pushed into a corner where they are going to wonder who, who in all of Germany's existence, ever put the Germans first, and they're going to see nothing but the scowling face of Hitler looking back at them. It isn't true of course, but it certainly seems that way due to the unnatural fascination with the man. He haunts Germany and he won't go away because his memory is far too useful as a way of shaming people into submission. And, of course, his handful of modern-day admirers don't mind at all either for it makes them seem to be the only alternative, as if modern Germany is simply seething with National Socialism just below the surface. When a regime that is in the process of destroying its own population says that Hitler is still 'Public Enemy #1' that can only help Hitler's public perception. Moreover, the Federal Republic is repeating almost all of the mistakes of the Weimar Republic that led to the Nazis taking power. Communists can agitate all they like but Nazis are arrested. Speak out against any group you like, except for the Jews, that can land you in jail. Celebrate perversity, ruin the traditional family, there are so many things Germany is doing today that it did in the 1920's that it is almost frightening. And, on top of it all, as long as Hitler remains the ultimate bogeyman, the elites are, in so many words, constantly telling the people that their only choice is them or the Nazis and when "them" means no more Germans in Germany, the Nazi's won't seem so bad.

This circular pattern must be broken! Another alternative must be put forward and that can only happen by the Germans being reconnected with their traditional, pre-1918 past. Not a past of guilt and shame but a past they can take pride in, a past that is pro-German and not anti-anyone else. There is plenty there to work with and would not require anything all that radical to accomplish. Again, I am not trying to be so partisan about this, but I see no other solution. The Weimar Republic existed as a vehicle for reparations for World War I and was doomed to fail. That failure manifested itself with the rise of National Socialism as a reaction to this and the same thing will happen again in reaction to the vehicle for the World War II guilt cudgel that is the current republic. A healthy national pride can only be achieved by embracing the totality of German history, the organic development of Germany as manifested in the First German Empire, the German Confederation that replaced it at the Congress of Vienna and finally the Second German Empire. That second empire, as we know, came together through the German princes which would be extremely difficult at this point but the example of the German Confederation would be a workable model that could, I think, be easily modified for current circumstances.

A possibility?
The symbolism is at hand already. The black-red-gold flag was, originally, the flag of the German Confederation, basically by taking the black and gold colors of Imperial Austria and adding a red stripe as a nod to Brandenburg, the electorate held by the kings of Prussia. A new confederation of German states for German people is something that could be done without princely leadership as the German princes are understandably gun-shy about having anything at all to do with politics, other than the Hapsburgs who I am not sure would be on-board with such a notion anyway. However, while I would be happy to see Austria included, I would also be just as pleased to see Austria take the lead in their own direction and work on a revival of the model of Blessed Emperor Charles for a "United States of Greater Austria" across the old Hapsburg lands. A place for every people and every people in their place. Either way, turning away from the current system is no longer only preferable but vital for the survival of the Germans as a people.

All of this can be accomplished if the Germans can get back in touch with their ancient roots. The Germans have a long and glorious history of great kings, great thinkers, great saints and great artists. It only serves the interests of those in power now to pretend as though nothing of German history can be seen beyond the concentration camps. I am certain that every German today, whether they like it or not, knows who Adolf Hitler is. I doubt every German today knows who Otto the Great or Friedrich Barbarossa was -and that is scandalous. That is intentional. That must change and change quickly or the Germans will not survive. And for those whose mindless hatred might make them think that would be no great loss, be forewarned that the death throes of the German people could leave quite a lot of devastation behind. Western European nations have displayed something of a habit of this, be it the French in regards to the British or the British in regards to the Germans themselves, that once their blood is thoroughly up they will willingly rush headlong into ruin so long as they can take their enemy down with them. That wouldn't be pretty and no rational person should ever want such a thing to happen. Let us take care that it does not.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

The Weapon That Almost Won the Kaiser the War

When most think of German submarine achievements, they think of World War II with the Battle of the Atlantic, the great “aces” like Kretschmer, Topp, Schepke, Prien and so on and the famous words of Winston Churchill who said that the u-boat menace was the only thing that made him worry Britain might lose the war. However, while the German submarine fleet of World War II was larger and faced a more experienced foe, it was the u-boats of the Imperial German Navy in World War I that set most of the records, that developed the first weapons which the most successful of World War II were built upon, where the tricks of the trade were first developed and the Kaiser’s u-boats actually came much closer than most people realize to winning the First World War all on their own. This is all the more remarkable considering that, at the outset of World War I, not many people saw the submarine as possessing much potential. The leadership of the German High Seas Fleet tended to look down on submarines as being of little practical value and at the start of the war Germany actually possessed far fewer submarines than the British did. The Germans had never shown much interest in submarines compared to the Americans, French, British or Italians. However, it was the Kaiser’s submarines who would show the world, for the first time, what submarines were capable of.

Otto Hersing
At the start of the war, doubts about the viability of the u-boats seemed to be confirmed. The early models were all small, coastal boats which handled poorly and were driven by kerosene-powered engines that produced a telltale column of smoke that made them easy to spot. The first boats to be equipped with diesel engines were also so innovative that they were initially fairly unreliable as they were still working the bugs out. Their first war patrols were a complete failure, some being forced to return to port with engine trouble, one being sunk and none having any success against the British. The naysayers, which included Grand Admiral Tirpitz, seemed to have been proven right. However, they soon had reason to doubt that assumption when, on September 5, 1914, U-21 under the command of Oberleutnant zur See Otto Hersing became the first submariner to sink an enemy warship with a free-swimming torpedo when he successfully attacked the British cruiser HMS Pathfinder, sending her to the bottom with a single torpedo that hit near the magazine causing a massive explosion that quickly sent the ship plunging beneath the waves. This got some attention but many could still dismiss it as a lucky shot.

However, the next victory for the u-boats would be so spectacular that everyone, in Britain and Germany, had to start taking them more seriously. That same month, on September 22, Oberleutnant zur See Otto Weddigen in the elderly, kerosene-powered U-9, encountered three British cruisers off the Dutch coast. He had spent the night on the bottom, to give his men a break from the heavy seas and his batteries were not fully recharged when he encountered the enemy but he submerged his boat and prepared for an underwater attack. After moving in to a hair-raisingly close range of 500 meters U-9 hit HMS Aboukir with a single torpedo, sending her to the bottom. The British all assumed the ship had hit a mine and stopped to pick up survivors. Weddigen then targeted HMS Hogue and soon hit her with two torpedoes, sending her to the bottom. However, the sub briefly broke the surface and was spotted by the remaining cruiser, HMS Cressy, which opened fire on the u-boat. However, Weddigen turned his boat around and fired the two torpedoes from his stern tubes. These were spotted by the British, but U-9 was so close that there was no time to avoid them and HMS Cressy was mortally wounded. Weddigen then brought his boat around to finish off the enemy cruiser with his remaining torpedo after which he returned to port to reload. He and his crew of the U-9 had sunk three British cruisers in less than an hour!

Captain & crew of the U-9
Upon returning to Germany, the men of the U-9 were bona fide war heroes. The Kaiser was thrilled and every member of the crew was decorated with the Iron Cross, Second Class and Weddigen additionally received the Iron Cross First Class. The U-9 itself was given the honor of displaying the Iron Cross on its conning tower. In the second month of the war the submarine had just proven itself in a major way and no one would be quite so dismissive of them again. In addition, more success was on the way and both Hersing and Weddigen were well on their way to becoming two of the most celebrated submarine commanders of the war. And, although anti-submarine warfare was necessarily in its infancy, they faced a powerful enemy with the largest fleet in the world and in these early days of the war it was the Royal Navy that was the primary target of the German submarines rather than the merchant fleet. In October of 1914 the U-26 under Kapitanleutnant von Berckheim sank a Russian cruiser, the Pallada, followed, a few days later, by Otto Weddigen taking out yet another British cruiser, HMS Hawke.

Johannes Feldkirchener
The British, having denied the problem as long as possible, were suddenly thrown into a panic, sending out new orders, rerouting ships and even moving the home fleet from their anchorage in Scapa Flow until it could be fortified against submarine attack. On October 18, 1914 Kapitanleutnant Wegener in U-27 became the first submariner to sink an enemy submarine when he took out the British boat E-3. Two days later U-17 became the first sub to sink an enemy merchant ship when the freighter Glitra was stopped, inspected, had her crew off-loaded and was then sent to the bottom. November was less successful for the u-boats with more being lost but as the year ended the submarine had more than proven its worth and more Germans began to believe that it could be the key to defeating the Royal Navy. The sinking of the Glitra was also a pivotal event. With the British enforcing an ever tighter blockade of the entire North Sea, the Germans began to think of changing their strategy of submarine warfare to target merchant ships bound for the British Isles rather than Royal Navy warships.

U-24
Still, British overconfidence allowed the Germans to score some stunning victories. At the start of January, 1915 HMS Formidable, sailing with no escort destroyers, was sunk by U-24. The British responded with more patrol ships, wider use of anti-submarine nets and by laying more mines in areas u-boats had to cross through. At the time, there was little more they could do as this was before the use of underwater search gear or weapons such as the depth charge. For a British surface vessel, if you spotted a sub on the surface you shot at it of course and if you spotted a periscope you charged it, ramming the submarine and ripping it in half. Ships were also ordered to sail in a zigzag pattern and to show extra caution when traveling near waters where u-boats were most likely to be on the prowl. These measures were actually fairly effective and of all the German u-boats lost in action in World War I the majority were victims of mines and the Royal Navy did their best to lay belts of mines across the English Channel as well as the northern entrance to the North Sea, from Scotland to Norway, to bottle-up the u-boat menace.

Kaiser Wilhelm II
February of 1915, however, saw the German submarines adopting the new strategy of targeting the British merchant fleet rather than the Royal Navy. Kaiser Wilhelm II declared all the waters around the British Isles to be a war zone, effectively declaring a counter-blockade to match the British blockade of the North Sea. The Germans were also able to make use of ports in Belgium for their submarine fleet. During the war the Imperial German Navy maintained five u-boat and one u-cruiser flotillas in Germany itself, two u-boat flotillas in Flanders operating from Belgian ports, two u-boat flotillas in the Mediterranean operating from Austrian ports and one half-flotilla in Turkish waters operating out of Constantinople. As the German subs embarked on their first campaign against merchant shipping they also had several new, larger and more powerful sub types to work with. In February 1915, eight merchant ships were sunk, five by U-8 alone. In March there were 29 sunk, in April 33 and in May 53 with several warships being sunk as well during that time. The Germans also began their own mine laying operations with the UC-type submarines, particularly in the waters around France.

Walther Schwieger
However, there were also problems. In May of 1915 the U-20 under Kapitanleutnant Walter Schwieger torpedoes the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania off the coast of Ireland. 1,201 passengers were killed, including 128 Americans which caused an uproar in the United States against Germany, something the British took full advantage of in their propaganda even though the ship had been carrying war materials and was thus a legitimate target. The German high command was forced by political pressure to order submarines not to attack neutral ships or passenger ships even if they were under the flag of a country at war with Germany. Nonetheless, the u-boats still proved highly effective and in the next four months 365 merchant ships were lost to submarine attacks. If u-boat successes of that scale continued they would soon be sinking ships faster than the British could replace them and Britain would be forced to sue for peace or face starvation of both her populace and her war industries. However, in due time two more passenger liners were sunk, one of which again had American passengers and another which was sunk by Walter Schwieger, making him quite a hated figure among the Allies and their sympathizers. The outcry from the United States forced the German high command to pull back and order all u-boats to operate strictly in accordance with the rules which stated that a ship had to be stopped, inspected and the crew offloaded before being sunk.

Germans sang the praises of the submarine
This, of course, deprived the submarine of the element of surprise and forced them to surface where they were most vulnerable. Even an unarmed freighter could ram and sink a u-boat and the British also began using “Q-ships” which were disguised as harmless merchant vessels but carried hidden guns. When a u-boat surfaced to stop the ship and inspect the cargo for war materials, the guns would be revealed and open fire on the vulnerable submarine. As a result, when these rules were in place, the German u-boats were forced to, effectively, fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Nonetheless, 1915 also saw the expansion of the submarine campaign into the Mediterranean where French, Austrian, Italian and British submarines also operated. Germany was to obtain some of her greatest submarine successes in this theater of the naval war. Yet, as 1915 came to a close and 1916 opened, the naval situation was becoming increasingly critical for Germany.

Erich von Falkenhayn
The British blockade of the North Sea was stopping at least three times as much shipping to Germany as the German submarine cordon was stopping from reaching Britain. The people were beginning to suffer greatly and more and more important figures in the German military high command were urging the Kaiser to throw off the shackles and resume unrestricted submarine warfare with a ‘sink on sight’ policy regardless of the objections of neutral powers (especially the United States). The German army Chief of Staff, Colonel General Erich von Falkenhayn, urged for such a campaign to coincide with his massive offensive aimed at Verdun in the hope that, together, they could crush the Allied will to continue the struggle and force them to make peace on German terms. The politicians, however, warned the Kaiser that such a move could bring the United States into the conflict and with such overwhelming might arrayed against them, Germany would surely be doomed. As a result, the Kaiser approved the Verdun offensive but refused to remove all of the restrictions for the submarine campaign. Admiral Tirpitz, the man who had once said Germany had no need of submarines, was so upset by the decision that he resigned in protest.

on the hunt
Still, the German u-boats started their 1916 campaign with some success, both with coastal boats and mine-laying subs. However, after a passenger ship was mistaken for a troop carrier and sunk on March 24, 1916 by the coastal sub UB-29 there was such an outcry, with U.S. President Wilson threatening to break off diplomatic relations with Germany (usually a precursor to war) that the Kaiser was forced to cancel even the limited leeway he had allowed his submarine commanders and order them to strictly follow the traditional prize rules. This was all the more infuriating given that the British were steadily improving their anti-submarine tactics and their “Q-ships” had already sent a number of u-boats to a watery grave. One such vessel, the Barralong, even hunted down and massacred all the surviving sailors of one such hapless u-boat on the grounds that if the Germans were allowed to live they would report the incident to their superiors and the British deception would be revealed. German losses mounted with one boat, UC-5, even being captured intact after running aground. Still, the u-boats managed to sink over 150 ships in 1916 before Admiral Scheer ordered them all to return to base on April 25.

UB-148
The following month a new plan was approved that would see the u-boats return to taking on their original enemy; British warships. The idea was for a portion of the German High Seas Fleet to lure out their British counterparts into a death trap of mines and waiting submarines. It seemed like a good plan but delays and mechanical trouble foiled the first attempt to put the plan into effect and the second attempt, in August, likewise did not go as planned and resulted in the Battle of Jutland, the only major clash of the British and German main fleets during the war. The only contribution by the German submarines was the sinking of two light cruisers. These frustrations, combined with the increasing privation of the German people caused by the British blockade put pressure on the Kaiser to authorize a return to unrestricted submarine warfare for a renewed campaign against British merchant shipping in an effort to starve them into submission.

However, the threat of American intervention proved too great so that, while another submarine campaign against merchant shipping was authorized, it would have to be done under the restrictions of the traditional prize rules. It was a disappointment but still, there were victories to be had as within four months 290 merchant ships were lost to u-boat attacks. The Germans also had an increasingly diverse arsenal of boats at their disposal with small, coastal submarines to hunt in waters closer to home (such as the Channel), medium-sized boats that could prowl all around the British Isles and even larger submarines that could hunt as far away as the U.S. coast. U-41, for example, sent five ships to the bottom off the American coast during this campaign. The type-UBIII proved the most successful and would be the forerunner of the type-VII that would be the backbone of the German u-boat fleet in World War II.

Lothar von Arnauld
Along with the Atlantic and British coastal waters, the Mediterranean also proved to be a fertile hunting ground. It was there that the most successful submarine commander of all time, Kapitanleutnant Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, achieved his greatest victories. In one cruise, lasting three weeks, he sank more than fifty ships, mostly with his deck gun (he expended only four torpedoes during the voyage) as he very gallantly followed all the prize rules even when he was not obliged to. Before the war ended, Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere would sink almost half a million tons of Allied shipping. They also had an impact on the land war as, in 1915, Kptlt. Otto Hersing in U-21 sank two British battleships, under extremely difficult conditions, which were shelling Turkish positions during the Gallipoli campaign. This stunning loss forced the Royal Navy to withdraw most warships from the area, robbing the Allied troops of valuable fire support in their offensive. Ten German subs were lost during the 1916 campaign but they managed to sink 768 ships with a further 178 being badly damaged. This, along with the worsening situation on the home front and the rejection by the Allies of an offer to talk peace, added urgency to calls for resuming unrestricted submarine warfare. After all, if they could accomplish this with the restrictions on their boats, surely without them they could swiftly force Britain to capitulate.

Max Valentiner
With the war situation becoming more and more critical, Kaiser Wilhelm II finally felt he had no other choice but to re-authorize unrestricted submarine warfare in February of 1917. Everyone knew it would likely provoke the United States to enter the war but with Germany rapidly running out of manpower and the public approaching widespread death by starvation, that was a risk that would simply have to be taken. Once the “grey wolves” were unleashed, the results were dramatic and immediate. Before the month of February 1917 was out German submarines had sunk over 250 ships, in March over 300 were sunk and April saw 413 ships sent to the bottom. British imports had been reduced by 75% of what they had been in 1916, shipyards were swamped and many neutrals refused to risk entering British waters. British ports were likewise clogged with merchant ships that refused to put back out to sea for fear of being sunk by German u-boats. The Kaiser’s naval experts had predicted that their campaign would bring Britain to her knees within six months, by the halfway mark, it looked like they were well on their way to doing just that. German u-boat production was also increasing so that they were more than able to make up their own losses. However, as feared, this campaign had consequences and April of 1917 also saw the United States declare war on Germany after an ill-advised German effort was uncovered to induce Mexico to make war on America.

Walther Forstmann
It would be some time, of course, before American strength would be felt on the battlefield but the British were getting better at anti-submarine warfare against the Germans, with ever more effective minefields, increased use of naval aviation and, most importantly, moving merchant ships in convoys protected by destroyers that forced u-boats to attack on the surface at night. Still, the number of Germans subs lost to enemy action remained well within the capacity of Germany to replace them. Nonetheless, British countermeasures were improving. The Germans also had a slight disadvantage just in terms of bad timing. They had developed large, long-range “u-cruisers” that carried heavy deck guns for surface combat and these became available just when unrestricted submarine warfare was revived and thus there was no great need for resorting to surface action or for the extra personnel these boats carried as prize crews for captured ships. The German submariners were also only improving with time, becoming masters of their craft and from May to July of 1917 some 795 merchant ships were lost to them compared to only minor losses of their own. For comparison, the Germans sank about 50 ships for every one of their u-boats lost to enemy action.

Otto Weddigen
The u-boats were tantalizingly close to their goal and yet that goal was slipping away from them, particularly as the industrial output of the United States was thrown into the balance against them with all of the ships of the American merchant marine and their immense capacity for building more. In desperation, the Germans drastically increased the construction of new submarines, funneling as much of their dwindling resources as possible into the project with 95 new boats on order. Hunting also shifted from the Atlantic to coastal waters but this also coincided with increasing losses as the British massively increased their use of naval mines and were making better mines than ever before. These weapons took the heaviest toll of all on the German u-boat fleet. As 1917 gave way to 1918 these trends continued and soon submarine construction was barely able to keep up with the rate of attrition. The Allies had managed to gain the upper hand and were to keep it until the end of the war came in November. From January to November of 1918 shipping losses to German u-boats fell from 123 to 15.

running on top
In spite of this downward trend, German successes had cemented the submarine as the most feared weapon in the minds of the Allies and when the Germans first approached the Americans about ending hostilities (the terms proposed by America being much more lenient compared to those of the British or French) the first condition the Americans imposed was that submarine attacks must cease immediately before any talks could be held. As a result, on October 20, 1918 the German high command ordered all u-boats to return to port. The German navy planned, instead, on a final battle with their surface ships, planning to go down in a blaze of glory rather than surrender their ships to the Allies. However, this never happened as the German sailors, some of them infected by communist propaganda from Russia, mutinied, the first act of what would grow to be the German Revolution that brought down the Second Reich and all its subsidiary monarchies. It is worth noting, however, that the German u-boat crews remained loyal to their Kaiser to the bitter end and were even ordered to fire on any German ship flying the revolutionary flag, such was their reliability.

U-35
When World War I finally came to an end, Germany still possessed quite a large number of submarines. They had, after all, never been defeated outright on their own and over 170 u-boats remained ready for action when hostilities ended. Which is not to say they did not suffer losses of course. Of the 350 submarines Imperial Germany produced during the war, about 180 were lost in action and of the 13,000 sailors who served on the u-boats 5,354 were killed in action. Nonetheless, they had given incredible service and deserve to be recognized for it even as their World War II counterparts tend to receive more attention. In fact, of the top ten German submarine commanders of all time, six were sub captains of the Imperial Navy in World War I including the top three most successful sub commanders in the entire history of naval warfare; Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, Kptlt. Walther Forstmann and Kptlt. Max Valentiner. Overall, the Kaiser’s submarines had destroyed more than 11 million tons of Allied shipping during the war and damaged a further 7.5 million tons, an incredible achievement if ever there was one.

cheering U-Boat crew in 1916
Yet, even given that the Imperial German u-boats had done so much damage, even though the Imperial German submarine commanders outperformed all others (in the world), many still do not know just how close they came to winning the war for Germany. While historians tend to focus on things like the First Battle of the Marne or Operation Michel (and the Second Battle of the Marne) and so on, the German u-boats were the key element that came closer to winning the war than any of them. To understand this, one need only look at the situation in April of 1917, just after America entered the war when the German unrestricted u-boat campaign was at its height. Admiral William S. Sims of the U.S. Navy traveled to London to meet with First Lord of the Admiralty Sir John Jellicoe to begin working out the Anglo-American naval relationship and he was shocked to learn just how bad things were for the British. Sims was informed that, at that point, the British had only enough food stocks on hand to last another six weeks!

UB-4, coastal submarine
When German submarine strategists predicted that they could crush Britain with an unrestricted u-boat campaign within six months, that is how close they came to success with Britain a mere six weeks from ruin. Now, keeping that in mind, also consider that for long periods during the war the German submarines were restricted by the prize rules and at times were not hunting merchant ships at all but were focused on engaging the Royal Navy and one can clearly see how the German submarine clearly held the potential to have won the war for the Central Powers practically single-handed. With a total of more than 11 million tons of Allied ships destroyed, think what they could have accomplished if they had focused entirely on merchant shipping from day one and if they had waged unrestricted submarine warfare from the very beginning. The only conclusion is that they would almost certainly have won a swift and stunning victory. Clearly, of all the innovative weapons that emerged from the First World War, none of them came so close to truly changing the course of world history as did the submarine.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...