Having a strong interest in military history yet being (I hope) a compassionate person, I am often struck by the plight of those injured in the service of their country. When November comes round, I give to the Royal British Legion poppy fund, but this year I wanted to make sure St Dunstan’s wasn’t overlooked in favour of the more well-known charities.

This month I pledge to donate to St Dunstan’s my Triond earnings from all my articles related to the First World War. And I’ve set myself a challenge: a target of £50 ($80 at the current exchange rate).

For those who aren’t familiar with how Triond works, the site pays authors a (very, very) small sum based on the number of people who view each article (we’re talking several hundred views to make a single dollar). Triond’s income comes from the advertising they place around the articles (which can be a little intrusive, but they pay for the site). You don’t have to click on any of the adverts (frankly, they are a right mixed bag), just opening each article is enough – though I do hope you’ll read at least some right through.

Earning £50 this way will be a stretch for me, as even on my best month so far on Triond I have barely made this much from all my articles combined (and many months have made much less), let alone just the ones on the First World War. So I’m going to shamelessly plug these articles. Click on them and help me give to this worthy charity. Oh, and you might just find yourself enjoying the articles too!

I aim to publish quite a few more articles on the First World War this month, and those will count towards my charitable giving too. I’ll update this article with the earnings earmarked for St Dunstan’s approximately weekly.

Here are links to my articles so far that I’m counting towards this challenge:

A Visit to the WW1 Fortifications at Verdun, parts one, two, three, four, five, six and note on sources

24 Hours in the Trenches – Notes from a Lecture, parts one and two

The Indian Army memorial at Neuve Chapelle, France, parts one, two, three, four, five and six

Scottish Memorials on the First World War Western Front, parts one, two, three, four, five and six

A review of the book ‘The British Expeditionary Force 1914-15′

A review of the book ‘Pill Boxes of the Western Front’

A review of the book ‘The Fortifications of Verdun 1874-1914’

A review of the book ‘Walking Verdun – a Guide to the Battlefield’

A review of the book ‘Scottish Divisions in the World Wars’

Thank you for reading this far, and I hope to be able to report a decent-sized donation from this challenge at the start of December.

UPDATE: as of 16th November the total earnings earmarked for St Dunstan’s stands at $7.97. Half way into the month and only one tenth the way to my target, which is disappointing but there is still hope if I write and post some more articles.

UPDATE 2: today, 10th December, I received my November statement from Triond which showed these 27 articles have earned a total of $28.98, or £18.57 converted in UK currency. I have therefore donated that amount to St Dunstans through their online donations page.

Because that sum is well short of the £50 I set myself as a target, I’m extending the challenge so that income from these articles through December, as well as that from any other new First World War articles I post, will also be earmarked for the charity.

UPDATE 3: on 12th January I received my December statement from Triond which showed that my First World War articles had earned $22.96, or £14.99 converted into UK currency. I will therefore be donating that amount to St Dunstans through their website, bringing the total I’ve passed on to them to £33.56.

I’m still short of the £50 target I set for myself, so I’ll continue earmarking the earnings from my First World War articles towards St Dunstans until further notice.

Thank you very much, readers, for reading my articles and thus aiding this worthy charity.

This is page six of a six-page article. Links to previous pages are here: page one, page two, page three, page four, page five.

Most Commonwealth War Grave Commission cemeteries and monuments have a Cross of Sacrifice – a tall stone cross with a bronze sword. At the Indian Army Monument the place of this is taken by a tall column topped with a lotus flower and a crown, designed to recall the pillars of Ashoka, from India’s classical age in the 3rd century BC. The column is flanked by two lions and bears the inscription “God is One, His is the Victory” in English, Arabic, Hindi and Gurmukhi.

Plate 10: the column, viewed from across the Stone of Remembrance (photograph by author)

After viewing this from the inside, I went outside to view the column and plinth from the front. I was surprised to see severe pitting but later learned that it was bullet and shrapnel damage from fighting in the area in 1940, in the Second World War. I understand the decision to leave the damage rather than repair it, in recognisance of those who fought near here over twenty years later.

Plate 11: front base of the column with battle damage (photograph by author)

That concluded my visit to what is an unusual and evocative monument. My long weekend in France was over and it was time to head for the ferry and the UK. I would thoroughly recommend a stop at this site, though, to anyone touring the First World War battlefields of France, or even if you are on a journey that just takes you near. The contribution of the Indian Army troops on the Western Front is too often forgotten.

This is page five of a six-page article. Links to previous pages are here: page one, page two, page three, page four.

Like all units, the Indian Army battalions suffered some men captured by the enemy in the confused to-and-fro fighting of the Western Front, and some of those died during their captivity. In the case of the Indian Army, those were buried in a cemetery in eastern Germany which after the Second World War fell within communist East Germany and was no longer accessible. To provide a new focal point for their remembrance, a bronze plaque was added inside the pavilion on the far side of the monument from the entrance listing their names.

Plate 8: plaque to those who died in captivity in Germany (photograph by author)

Continuing around to the right from the plaque to those who died in captivity, the solid outer wall is replaced with a pierced stone lattice, giving this side of the monument a lighter feel. In two places on the junctions of the lattice-work are a series of roundels. I would really like to know what these signify: are they emblems of units, of provinces in India, or just more abstract designs with an Indian theme but no particular significance? My researches have failed to come up with the answer. Maybe an Indian reader of this article could suggest the answer?

Plate 9: roundels – does anyone know what these signify? (photograph by author)

Continued on page six

This is page four of a six-page article. Links to previous pages are here: page one, page two, page three.

On the opposite side of the monument from this alcove is a pillar which I will describe later. For now, its base is of interest because it lists the battles on the Western Front in which the Indian Army took part: La Bassee 1914, Ypres 1914-15, Givenchy 1914, Aubers, Bazentin, Morval, Messines 1914, Gheluvelt, Neuve Chapelle, Loos, Delville Wood, Armentieres 1914, Festubert 1914-15, St Julien, Somme 1916, Flers-Courcelette and Cambrai 1917 (the memorial gives dates when more than one battle was fought in a location in different years).

Plate 7: base of the column listing battle honours of the Indian Corps on the Western Front (photograph by the author)

Most of these actions are in 1914 and 1915, before the bulk of the Indian Army infantry were transferred to the Middle East, but the two Indian Army cavalry divisions remained right up to March 1918 and saw action on the Somme, where the Deccan Horse probed the area between High Wood and Delville wood in one of the few mounted actions, and at Cambrai.

The battle listed in the centre of the centre column of battle honours is Neuve Chapelle, the site of the monument itself. The Indian Army played a large part in that battle. On 10th March 1915 several battalions of the Meerut Division were committed to the attack, storming German trenches. At the roundabout where the monument stands (then a crossroads) the 1/39th Garhwal Rifles went ‘over the top’ but unfortunately veered to the right, attacking a section of the German front line which had not been softened up by the preliminary artillery bombardment, and they suffered very heavy casualties – three-quarters of their strength killed or wounded (including most of their officers and all six of the British officers). It is because of the Indian Army’s heavy losses at the battle of Neuve Chapelle (one-fifth of their strength) and of the 1/39th Garhwal Rifles in particular that the monument to the Indian Army on the Western Front is sited here.

Continued on page five

This is page three of a six-page article. Links to previous pages are here: page one, page two.

Those listed in on the wall plaques are the men presumed dead but with no known grave. In the First World War many of the dead were lost in the mud or recovered but not identifiable. Sometimes a man was buried in a temporary battlefield grave which was then disturbed or destroyed by later fighting in the same area. Some men who were close to a shell or mine blast would simply have been blown apart.

It was good to see the dead of the transport and labour units commemorated on the plaques alongside those of combat units. The Indian Labour Corps was key in keeping the supply roads passable, repairing damage from rain and heavy use and shelling to ensure food and ammunition could continue to reach the fighting units, as well as other labouring duties.

Plate 5: section of plaque to the missing dead of the transport and labour corps (photograph by author)

Half way along the left wall, splitting the ranks of wall plaques in two is an alcove bearing the inscription “TO THE HONOUR OF THE ARMY OF INDIA WHICH FOUGHT IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM 1914 – 1918 AND IN PERPETUAL REMEMBRANCE TO THOSE OF THEIR DEAD WHOSE NAMES ARE HERE RECORDED AND WHO HAVE NO KNOWN GRAVE.”

Plate 6: inscribed alcove (photograph by author)

Continued on page four

This is page two of a six-page article. For page one click here.

On the left as one enters the monument, the outer wall bears large plaques with the names of over 5,000 soldiers of the Indian Army killed and with no known grave. Going over to read the plaques I was struck by the exotic names of the units listed, adding to the sense that one was in a different era and on a different continent. Regiments such as the Garhwal Rifles and the Ghurkha Rifles seemed more reminiscent of the dust and heat of the Northwest Frontier rather than the mud and rain of the trenches of the Western Front.

But there was in fact a large Indian Army contingent on the Western Front, at least until the winter of 1915/1916 when most battalions were withdrawn to serve in the Middle East against the Turks. By the end of 1914 two complete divisions (the Lahore Division and the Meerut Division, totalling around 24,000 men) had been shipped to France to make up the shortfall in British units until the mass of volunteers who had joined up in the first months of the war could be trained and equipped.

Each division was made up of twelve infantry battalions – nine Indian Army battalions of native troops and three British Army battalions seconded to the Indian Army. Furthermore, the Indian battalions were commanded by a British colonel and had a smattering of British officers amongst the Indian ones. This mixture had been instituted in the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny in the mid 19th century and continued as a precaution, even though Indian units had performed sterling service since then and continued to do so through the First World War.

In addition to the infantry, two divisions of Indian Army cavalry also served on the Western Front.

Plate 4: section of plaque to the missing dead of the 8th Ghurkha Rifles (photograph by author)

The photograph above shows the start of the listing of the missing dead of the 8th Ghurkha Rifles. Each unit is listed on the wall plaques in order of seniority of the unit within the Army lists and within each unit then men are grouped by rank and then in alphabetical order. Rather than the familiar ranks of lieutenant, sergeant, corporal and private, the Indian Army equivalents of jemadar, havildar, naik and sepoy can be seen.

Continued on page three

It was a dull and drizzly Sunday morning in Northern France, on the way back to Calais and the ferry to the UK, but the moment we stepped inside the circular wall of the Indian Army Memorial at Neuve Chapelle it was as if we were transported to warmer climes and another era – to the heyday of British India, to units with exotic names like the Garhwal Rifles and havildars rather than sergeants, naiks rather than corporals. The architecture fitted the eastern mood too: domed chhatris (pavilions), shaped arches and pierced stone panels.

Plate 1: the entrance pavilion (photograph by the author)

Coming into the monument by the entrance pavilion, a path leads straight across the centre, lined by beds of red roses, to a second pavilion. In the centre, the path widens to split around the Stone of Remembrance on its plinth. This is a feature of all but the smallest British and Commonwealth war cemeteries – a simple white stone block bearing the inscription “THEIR NAME LIVETH FOR EVERMORE.”

Plate 2: the path across the centre from the entrance pavilion (photograph by the author)

Plate 3: the Stone of Remembrance (photograph by the author)

Continued on page two

The Assassination

On 28thJune, 1914, Franz Ferdinand Este, the heir presumptive of the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated along with his wife in Sarajevo, the capital of Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovania, by Gavrilo Princip, a member of Black Hand, A Serbian nationalistic organization formed with a objective to reunite and liberate Serbian territories from the Austro-Hungarian empire by violent means. Austria-Hungary responded by issuing a July Ultimatum to Serbia, whom it blamed for the assassination. The ultimatum contained ten demands, out of which Serbia was able to meet only eight. Not satisfied, or, as many argue, intent on using this opportunity to invade Serbia, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28th July, 1914.

The Chain of Events it precipitated

Bound by its treaty to Serbia, Russia was obliged to intervene, by announcing that it would mobilise its forces in support of Serbia. On the contrary, Germany was bound by its treaty to Austria-Hungary, and keen to limit the Russian influence, it responded by declaring a war on Russia on 1st August. The treaty of France to Russia dragged it into war with Germany, which declared war on France on 3rd August and invaded neutral Belgium with the intention of attacking France on its own soil. On 4th August, Belgian King made a plea to Britain referring to a 75 year old treaty that obliged Britain to come to the aid of Belgium. Britain responded by declaring war on Germany.

The entry of Britain to the war extended the conflict to Asia, Africa, North Africa and Australia. It involved all of the British colonies, especially Australia, Canada, India and South Africa, all of which played an important part in the war. Japan, which had a treaty with Britain, also joined soon thereafter, by declaring war on Germany on 23rd August, 1914. During the same month a secret alliance was signed between Germany and the Ottoman empire, after which the Ottoman army attacked British communication lines through Suez Canal on one hand and attacked the Caucasian territories of Russia on the other.

Italy and United States stayed away for a while, but were gradually dragged into it. Italy was bound by treaties to Germany and Austria-Hungary, but instead chose to join the ‘Allied Forces’ consisting of Britain, France, Japan and all their allies, in 1915. America resisted becoming a part of this war till 1917, when it had to finally enter the fray, after German naval attacks on its merchant ships. Bulgaria chose to side with Austria-Hungary, Germany and the Ottoman Empire, together known as ‘Central powers’. All these events resulted in an immense war that spread throughout the world, known as the ‘Great War’ at that point of time and later on, began to be referred to as ‘World War One’ or ‘WWI’.  This war, which involved 42 million armed soldiers on the side of Allied forces against 25 million soldiers of Central Forces, resulted in total casualties of over 38 million people, including nearly 10 million dead. It finally ended with ceasefire by Germany on 11th November, 1918, known as the ‘Armistice Day’. However, by the end that happened, the world had changed for all times to come.

Historical Consequences

The chain of events that began with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand Este, not only lead to the Great War of 1914-17, it also changed the power balance of the world in ways that redefined the history of mankind, in a way that no one could have envisaged at that fateful day of 28th June, 1941. Notably, it is not only the destruction of the war that makes this event so critical, but also the change in long term trajectories that the empires, nations and civilizations underwent as a result of the chain of events precipitated by an assassination. These long term changes were brought about by a combination of severe and widespread destruction of man and material, inflation of nationalism across the world, a permanent change in balance of power and change of political boundaries in and around Europe.

Break-up of Austro-Hungarian Empire

The Great War (WWI) was particular damaging to two great empires, which largely disintegrated by the end of this war.  The Austro-Hungarian Empire was broken into separate nations by the treaties of Saint-Germaine and Trianon, creating new states of Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Parts of its territories were annexed by Allied powers, particularly Romania.

Breakup of the Ottoman Empire

The most radical consequences of the war were faced by the Middle East, many of which continue to haunt the mankind till date. As a result of the war, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. It all began with the attack by Enver Pasha, the supreme commander of Ottoman forces, attacking Russia in December, 1914. Just like Napoleon before  him and Hitler a couple of decades later, the Russian misadventure cost him 86% of his 100,000 armed men in the battle of Sarikamish, severely weakening its might. Its final defeats though, came at the hand of British in the Middle East, losing Jerusalem in December, 1917 and finally defeat in the Battle of Megiddo in September, 1918 and the occupation of Istanbul by Allied forces in November, 1918.

Radical Reformation of the Middle East

This chain of events had many important long term consequences on the future of the Middle East. First, the occupation and division of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire by Allied powers, particularly Britain and France led to a series of confrontations that finally resulted in  several small states like Armenia, Turkey (Anatolia), Iraq (Mesopotamia), Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Arab states, Cyprus, Syria and Lebanon. Second, it resulted in the ascendancy of the Arabs in the Middle East, which had been under the control of Mongols for several centuries till then. Third, it created a nexus between Arab states and Allied forces that in one or the other has continued till now. Last, and most important of all was the persecution and expulsion of religious minorities across the Middle East and adjoining areas that virtually changed the identity, culture and demography of the region for ever. The worst sufferers were the Christian Armenians and Assyrians who were seen as a threat by the Ottomans. The Armenians were deported en-masse from Anatolia to Syria between 1915-17, leading to massive loss of lives, the estimates of which vary from one to five million. The Assyrians had an even worse fate, as two third of their population was massacred by Ottoman forces, causing 500,000 to 750,000 deaths during 1915-17. During the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22, massive population exchange took place between the two warring states, with Greeks living in Turkey getting exchanged for Turks living in Greece. It would not be wrong to say that World War One and its consequent events led to severe ethnic cleansing of the Middle East and changed it from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural region to an ethnocentric Muslim dominated region. In short, the Middle East was never the same again. 

Rise of Pan-Islamism

The break-up of Ottoman Empire was an event that led to very severe resentment among the religious scholars of the region, who saw it as a defeat of Islam at the hands of Anglo-Saxon-Zionist forces. Much of the subsequent rise of Pan-Islamic aspirations had their root in it. The ascendancy of Arab world allowed the Wahaabi school of Islam to dominate the, while the ethnic cleansing and the psychological scars of the war further resulted in the society being led to a conservative social philosophy that even today, finds it difficult to adopt modern values of secularism, democracy and individual rights. In short, much of what we observe in the Middle East today is a result of what happened on the fateful 28th June, 1914 in Sarajevo.

The Russian Revolution

Another great consequence that resulted from the assassination of Ferdinand and the Great War was the Russian Revolution. The War of 1914-17 led to its by its various impacts of Russian society. As the war progressed, Russia suffered huge loss of manpower. By the end of October, 1916, it had lost around 1.8 million soldiers who were dead. In addition, another two million had been taken as prisoners of war and another one million were missing, taking the total to nearly five million. Such widespread losses, including some humiliating defeats at the hand of Germany led to severe criticism and resentment of the Tzar Nicholas II, the ruler of Russia. However, the economic effects of war were even more important. To finance its war effort, the Government decided to print money, a great blunder that led to sever inflation, with prices increase by four times between 1914 and 1917. Unfortunately, while the prices were rising in the markets, the peasants were not the major beneficiaries, as most of the profit was cornered by the middlemen.  Labor also did not get corresponding raise of wages, leading to severe financial distress. Lastly, after a few debacles, the Tzar Nicholas II decided to commander the army himself and left for the front leaving the administration in the hands of the Empress Alexandra, whose rule was deeply resented because of poor governance, her German origins and her closeness with a unsavoury mystique named Rasputin. Many historians also claim that the clandestine support extended by Germany to the revolutionaries may have also played an important role. Together, their overall consequence was the overthrowing of Tzar and a period of Civil War that ultimately led to creation of Communist Soviet. Europe and the world were never the same again.

Treaty of Versailles & rise of German Nationalism & Hitler

Another important consequence of the war that began with assassination of Franz Ferdinand, was the humiliation of Germany at the end of the war along with the imposition of ‘Treaty of Versailles’ with Germany on 28 June 1919, which held Germany and its allies responsible for all loss and damage suffered by the Allies and imposed reparations of 132 billion gold marks on Germany. The economic impact created by this reparation is cited as one of the major factors that led to the German nationalism and fascist Hitler, culminating in another great war two decades later. The world had changed forever.

League of Nations & Great Depression

The war that began on that fateful day of 28th June, 1914 led to several other consequences too, each of which deserves a claim as a historical milestone in its own right. One of them was the formation of the League of Nations, as part of the Treaty of Versailles signed between Allied forces and Germany on 28 June 1919. This became the precursor of what is known today as the United Nations. Another impact, for which there is lesser consensus and greater division of views, is the role of First World War in leading to the Great Depression that began just after the war. The huge destruction of man and machine throughout the globe by the Great War of 1915-17 can be cited as one of the reasons of it.

The world was never the same again

What happened on28th June, 1914 was not just an act of terrorist nationalism. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand Este by the Serbian nationalistic organisation actually led to a series of events that resulted in over 36 million casualties during the World War One. More importantly, it set into motion certain changes that redefined the political boundaries, especially in the Middle East, gave rise to Pan-Islamic nationalism, and began the Communist experiment, with the end of Tzar Nicholas II and his Russian empire. The repercussions of the events of war paved the way for the World War II and sowed the seeds of United Nations.

It would not be wrong to claim that 28th June, 1914 was the first great turning point in the history of twentieth century. It changed our lives forever!

To an extent, some of these sources could be used to support the view that Haig was uncaring, but there are also some sources that seem to suggest otherwise.

There are many historians who believe that Haig was an uncaring General; source F for example is an extract from historian John Laffin’s book British Butchers and Bunglers of World War. In it he suggests that Haig was ‘as unthinking as a donkey’ and that the Somme was ‘criminal negligence’. This would support the general view that Haig thought little for the lives of his men. In source A Haig himself warned that ‘the nation must be prepared for heavy losses.’ This would support Laffin in his argument that Haig cared little, as he seems determined that lives will be lost during the battle, although he certainly was worried about the possible loss of life and cared enough to warn the nation;  it could also be argued that he was simply being realistic.

Source B shows Haig writing about the success on the first day of the Somme, he says that the men are in ‘splendid spirit’ and mentions that ‘the battle is going well’. This openly supports Haig and the success of  the  Battle of the Somme, and;  considering that the letter was a communication with Lloyd George, one can only presume that it is not a lie. Haig may not have been knowingly  lying in Source B but there is evidence to show that he could have received false information from his intelligence officer John Charteris. If he was lying then this would indeed suggest that he cared little for what really happened to his men;  but in later life Haig worked tirelessly in support of injured veterans, raising money to assist them and building ‘Haig Homes’ for soldiers and their families. Hardly the actions of an uncaring general.  Source C on the other hand contradicts Haigs view of the Battle of the Somme as a successful action this; Haig says that ‘the wire has never been so well cut’ but in source C Coppard (a private who served at the Somme) says that the wire was ‘so thick that daylight could barely be seen through it’. Coppard  was an author, and may have been prone to exaggeration, however, he did actually fight at the front so would have firsthand experience. His account also represents conditions at only a small portion of the front, this source clearly is against Haig.

We can also see through source E that it was the opinion of a large number of people, those who read Punch (the educated), that the Generals in world war one were far too detached from the actual fighting and the hardships that their soldiers went through, including Haig. The cartoons shows a General questioning a soldier on the mechanics of war, when asked what the difference between practice and real war, the soldier replies; ‘The absence of the General.’ Although it is a fact that far more British officers died on the frontline than any French or German ones. 78 British and Dominion officers of the rank of Brigadier General and above died on active service in the WWI while a further 146 were wounded. These figures alone show that British Generals frequently went close enough to the battle zone to place themselves in considerable danger and this suggest that the opinion in Source E is in fact unfounded.  Source E is based on anecdotal stories from the frontline, and whilst it may well reflect a truth about Haig, it is not necessarily substantiated fact.

Even if Haig did care little for his men, and we do not know that it was a complete waste of life, there is evidence to show that the Battle at Somme, and the sacrifice made was not altogether pointless. Source G, an extract from a 1930s German history book states that the Somme’s; ‘consequences were nevertheless great’ admitting that the Battle was a victory to Britain. Although many men did die during the Battle, the survivors gained invaluable experiences and the British army became a fast and efficient war machine, having perfected the combined use of Infantry, Tank and Artillery during the Somme. 

In contradiction to John Laffin , the British General that writes source H (one who served in both world wars) thinks that Haig was the best of Generals; ‘Haig was one of the main architects of the Allied victory’, how could this be true if Haig was truly a ‘donkey’. As an experienced soldier and commander one would believe that the writer of the source would be a reliable man, or at least one who has enough knowledge of war to judge that fine between Hero and Villain. It is furthermore, probably true that an officer has a broader and more accurate overview of a military action than a historian who did not even serve in of the battle such as Laffin.

Source H may imply that Haig won the war but in Source J Lloyd George says quite the opposite stating that our victory was down to the Americans not Haig, even though we had already begun to push the Germans back. In source J Lloyd George says how he questioned Haig’s strategy, but in Source I he is shown to congratulate Haig of his success, this slight contradiction makes the reliability of Lloyd Georges claims, questionable. Although it could have been that the information that Lloyd George received was also false so he reacted differently to how he would have if he knew the truth, likewise his later opinion may have been influenced by the prevalent school of thought in the 1930’s when source J was written.

In conclusion, although there are sources that would agree with the title statement, especially source F, the majority of these sources seem more flawed then the sources that would contradict the given statement, for example Source E that comments on the Generals not fighting on the frontline when we know this to be false. Because of this I would conclude that the sources do not support the statement.

In the 1900s the German Navy could not build battleships and battle cruisers as quickly as the British could yet Scheer and his colleagues were confident that they had higher quality vessels.

By August 1914 he was in charge of an entire squadron of German dreadnoughts, and itching to attack the Royal Navy. German strategy at that point was aimed at destroying units of the Grand Fleet to reduce the British superiority in terms of numbers. Scheer was impatient with the inability to achieve that objective. The kaiser was fearful of heavy loses after the Battle of Dogger Bank.

He became Commander of the German High Sea Fleet in January 1916 when the terminally ill Hugo von Pohl stepped down. Scheer got the major battle with the British later .that year at Jutland.

Thanks to better German gunnery and poor fire control abroad the British battle cruisers the Royal Navy suffered greater loses. Had the Royal Navy not lost contact with the Germans during the night the outcome would have been very different.

Jutland did not affect the outcome of the war, with the continuation of the naval blockade meaning that Germany slowly starved to death. Scheer and his capital ships did not fight again before been confiscated as part of the Versailles Peace Settlement. He died in 1928.

Bibliography

Lenman B (2004) The Chambers Dictionary of World History

Massie R K (2005) Castles of Steel – Britain, Germany and the winning of the Great War at Sea, Pimlico, London