After the exhausting efforts required in WWI the United States and Great Britain were war weary. This war weariness affected the political climate and manifested through extreme budget reductions in military expenditures. Military institutions of both countries continued training and sought to prepare for the Second World War. The contrast between the preparation of the navies of the United States and Great Britain represent a remarkable dichotomy of the interwar period; with the US a model of innovation and Great Britain remarkably complacent. The reasons why can be explained in how the two countries saw the threat after World War One, their assessment where the potential naval conflict would arise and what capabilities their own navy would need to be successful in the next war. During the Interwar period between WWI and WWII Britain and US took separate paths to prepare their navies for future conflicts. The British were complacent and the US was keen to prepare. Initial causes came from how the two countries evaluated the threat after World War One. Great Britain saw no single nation’s navy as their rival in contrast to the United States who assessed that Japan would be their foe in the next war. At the end of WWI Germany had scuttled its active ships. The Treaty of Versailles had further restricted Germany’s ability to build more ships and man them to such an extent the characterization at the time was that Germany had been destroyed as a sea power. British Naval planners saw the threat posed by the Germany Navy to be relegated to a coastal defense navy, which would not be able to challenge the supremacy of British Navy on the high seas. The Treaty of Versailles and later the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 gave Great Britai... ... middle of paper ... ...d serves as an example of what not to do and what to do. The British seemed to rest on their laurels of being the best navy at the end of world war one. Without an assessed adversary, an understanding of where the next naval conflict would take place and what capabilities the navy would need to be successful, innovation languished and the navy was unprepared when war began again in 1939. The United States however was able to identify who the possible threat was, were the navy would have to fight and was able to develop the capabilities to engage and defeat the threat. Works Cited Kuehn, John T. Perspectives from Great Britain, Japan, and Germany H204RA Millett, Allan R. “Patterns of Military Innovation.” Military Innovation in the Interwar Period Murray, Williamson R. (1998-08-13). Military Innovation in the Interwar Period (p. 242). Cambridge University Press
Rather he focuses on the logistics of warfare through the innovations in gunfire, cannon manufacturing and operation, and defensive warfare. Moreover, Parker does not attempt to use his position and research to criticise other scholars position on the military revolution. He simply agrees with Michael Roberts definition and attempts to contribute his principles of innovation as a means to strengthen Roberts
One of the main causes of the war was Great Britains's continued practice of impressment. The ocean was a common and affective way to transport good in order to trade with other nations. Every country has the right to use the ocean; but because Britain was causing America's rights to be restricted by capturing American ships and enslaving their seamen, it caused many problems between the two countries. Document 1 is a congressional report that describes Britain's violations of our right " to use the ocean, which is the common and scknowledged highway of nations, for the purposes of transporting, in their own vessels , the products of their own soil and the acquisitions of their own industry." The report calls Britain's impressment and seizure of ships is a
The Early Modern Era saw great change in the field of naval technology. Exploration and the desire to expand trade fueled the development of new, more effective naval vessels. These vessels, in turn, contributed to the growth of worldwide trade and interconnection that marked the period.
...hought it was interesting learning the various ways people had fought out in the sea, including the ways the young officers would eventually end up becoming the only Five-Star Fleet Admirals. In the book The Admirals the officers (Nimetz, King, Halsey, Leahy) prove that men should not be ranked on their skills or technology alone, but on both areas in a synchronized manner to overcome obstacles and rise above all other elements that stand in the way. The ships that the men grew fond of had become an inspiration to keep moving forward and succeed when it came to the battlefield. This thought would later become the thought that America has adopted to move forward when it comes to technology and build upon what has been learned. Anything from the structure of sea vessels to the artillery it carried did not only aid in war, but it aided in a country that could progress.
The Modern Era saw great change in naval technology and warfare. The period saw the creation of explosive shells, iron-clad ships, steam-powered vessels, and more. Dramatic advances like these created considerable shifts in global political and economic power.
"Science & Technology in World War I." Shmoop: Study Guides & Teacher Resources. Web. 04 Feb. 2010. .
In World War II America played a major role in the Allies naval production. America is responsible for combatant ships of all types. This includes battleships, aircraft carriers, escort carriers, submarines, destroyers, and supply and auxiliary ships. The United States was able to build its naval force due to its economy and its neutrality in the early years of the war. After deploying a majority of their ships into battle, the production line already had twice the amount ready to be shipped
After 1871, the war atmosphere engendered by the secret alliances led to an armaments race among the powers. The race was particularly serious between 1900 and 1914, as the international situation became much worse than before. There was a significant rise in the army and naval estimates of the European powers in these years. All the Continental European powers had adopted the conscription system since 1870. Austria-Hungary had conscription since 1868 and Germany since 1870. Only Britain did not have conscription. After 1890, the deteriorating diplomatic relations among the powers accelerated their military expansion programme. Britain did not introduce conscription but had prepared her armed forces for both European expedition and for home defense. In general, all the powers increased their stocks of arms, produced more modern weapons of war and built more strategic railways. Britain and Germany were the chief rivals at sea. In the meantime, Britain produced her first Dreadnought. Dreadnoughts were large, fast and heavily armed battleships. They set a new standard in naval armaments and rendered all previous battleships obsolete. The naval race became intense. For centuries the powers of Europe had clashed over their competing interests around the globe. Du...
Immediately, the Battle of the Atlantic began when “the British announced a naval blockage of Germany” on September 3, 1939(“World War II” 391). Eight days later the Germans ordered a “counter-blockage” of the Allies(“World War II” 391). The Germans hoped to stop the shipments of war supplies and food to the countries of France and Britain. After only four months into the war, German U-boats, mines, airplanes, and surface raiders had destroyed more than 215 merchant ships and two of Britain’s largest warships. Over 1,500 people had been killed in this short time. “It was clear that despite the lull on land, a long war lay ahead on the world’s water” (Pitt 8).
Introduction With the ongoing battles between England and France in the early 19th century, the newly formed United States found itself thrust in the middle of this struggle. In the early part of the century Napoleon was on a mission to once again establish a mighty French empire of early years. But with the build up of the royal British Navy the English were trying fiercely to hold Napoleon in check. The United States was determined to stay neutral and continue its trading with both nations. However several mandates passed by both France and England made this very difficult. With England’s naval blockade and the repeated search and seizure of American trade vessels, the United States, led by an aggressive group of leaders in congress known as the Young War Hawks, took a very aggressive approach to Britain and its royal navy. However, the War Hawks and President Madison also had plans of expansion in mind, to extend its boarders to the North Pole, home to royal colonies of the now hated Great Britain. With this plan and the negative feeling toward Britain, the war was just around the corner. And in June of 1812, a full-fledged war was upon them. The war, which lasted approximately two years, was a very bloody and costly battle to both the United States and Britain. Systematic Analysis To begin to look at this war we must take a look at the system the world was in at the time. The world was dominated by a bi-polar system, with France and England being the two poles.
Science fiction never ceases to amaze me as I take great enjoyment in exploring these creative universes. I have always had a great interest in military science fiction for its take on technological innovation and critical analysis. Military science fiction in general is very speculative about future of technology and warfare. The military science fiction genre also serves as a critique of contemporary politics as it deals with many of the same issues that go on today. This has made military science fiction one if the most well respected genres of science fiction for it ability to indirectly criticize modern society. My Integrated Project explores the relationship between how technology that has arisen from war has been some of the most innovative and why war has become an unshakeable aspect of human existence.
Britain had to preserve its lines of commerce and supply in the Atlantic Ocean in order to survive the war. Germany recognized that disrupting Britain’s lifeline of ship convoys would provide an immediate and distinct advantage in the war. In just the first three months of 1941, Hitler’s surface naval fleet sunk or captured 37 British ships totaling 187,662 tons. The German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau together sunk twenty-two ships and 115,622 tons of ships and cargo while operating in the Atlantic. These numbers proved the effectiveness of the German strategy and led the British to disperse their battle fleet. In order to completely cripple Britain and achieve dominance in the Atlantic, Germany employed the one of the largest and deadliest battleship in history, the Bismarck. It was 823 feet in length, over 50,000 tons in weight, and could travel at a speed of 30.8 knots. Great engineering went into her underwater protectio...
This paper will explore the reasons behind Great Britain’s decision to turn against its ally France during the early years of World War II. More specifically, this paper will look deeper into why British Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided the best option for Great Britain, at the time, was to attack the French fleet located at Mers-el-Kébir on July 3, 1940. It will describe how Churchill’s decision to attack the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was detrimental to prevent Germany from completely turning the tide of the war in its favor. The attack of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was truly devastating to France; however, this attack gave Great Britain the leverage it needed to stand its ground and to keep fighting in the war. This paper argues that Churchill ordered the attack
The late nineteenth century was an age of military rivalry, mainly amongst the main European supremacies. The strategy of building a bigger military was tried relative to neighbours, creating an ethos of suspicion that strengthened the search for alliances. It was fed by the social acceptance that war was good for countries. The Germans looked to expand its navy. However, the “naval race” was never a real competition – the British always sustained naval dominance.
Leigh-Pippard, H. (1995) Congress and US Military Aid to Britain: Interdependence and Dependence, 1949-56. 1st Edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.