Difference between revisions of "Jellicoe:After Jutland"
From The Dreadnought Project
Simon Harley (Talk | contribs) (Made Changes.) |
Simon Harley (Talk | contribs) (→Choosing a Successor) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In a letter of 16 November, 1916, Balfour dictated: | In a letter of 16 November, 1916, Balfour dictated: | ||
| − | As you may well suppose, I have been giving serious thought to our conversations of last Saturday and Sunday weel; and though it is not the purpose of this letter to reopen the particular scheme then before us, it is clear to me that the time has come, or is just coming, when important changes are necessary to the Fleet under your command.<br><br>Admiral Burney's time is now approaching its natural conclusion, and I do not think that we ought to stretch the ordinary rules of the service in his favour. I am well aware - both from what you tell me, and from what I learn from the First Sea Lord - of Admiral Burney's high professional qualifications. But though his general health is good, you told me that you had serious doubts whether he could bear the continuous strain of which must fall upon the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet in case of a general action: and I also remember you saying that, though Admiral Burney was a splendid seaman and a safe fleet commander, he might on occasion be lacking in initiative.[pencilled in, "(overcautious & slow to act)"]<br><br>As you know from your conversations with the First Sea Lord and with myself, we are of opinion that should anything make it necessary for you to give up the command of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Beatty should be your successor. You pointed out that one objection to this course was that Admiral Beatty had no Grand Fleet experience, and that no substitute could be obtained from the command of the Battle Cruiser Squadron.<br<br>I think in these circumstances that he should be made your Second-in-Command [added in pencil, "possibly"?] with the rank of Admiral, and the implied succession to the post of Commander-in-Chief should that fall vacant.<br><br>I am of course well aware of the inconveniences which inevitably attach to this policy. It will not, I am afraid be agreeable to the Vice-Admirals who are now in command of the 2nd and 4th Battle Squadrons. But we should have had to face these inconveniences in even a more aggravated form if your original plan of coming to the Admiralty to deal with the submarine menace, could have been carried into effect. They really are inevitable; and I, or any successor of mine in this Office, may at any moment be compelled to deal with them.<br<br>There are of course many subsidiary problems to be solved if the course I propose is adopted - e.g., the status and command of what is now called the Battle Cruiser Fleet. All these questions will require very careful reflection. The main point, however, is that Admiral Burney's time has elapsed, his successor as Second-Command should be the man who, in the opinion of the Admiralty, would would be best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief - if a new Commander-in-Chief had to be selected.<br><br>I propose to talk the matter over as soon as possible with Admiral Beatty. I have already discussed it with the First Sea Lord. He gives a general approval to the plan; and I most earnestly hope that you will do the same.<ref>Letter of 30 January, 1911. Jellicoe Papers. British Library. Add. MSS. 71556. ff. 133-135.</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>As you may well suppose, I have been giving serious thought to our conversations of last Saturday and Sunday weel; and though it is not the purpose of this letter to reopen the particular scheme then before us, it is clear to me that the time has come, or is just coming, when important changes are necessary to the Fleet under your command.<br><br>Admiral Burney's time is now approaching its natural conclusion, and I do not think that we ought to stretch the ordinary rules of the service in his favour. I am well aware - both from what you tell me, and from what I learn from the First Sea Lord - of Admiral Burney's high professional qualifications. But though his general health is good, you told me that you had serious doubts whether he could bear the continuous strain of which must fall upon the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet in case of a general action: and I also remember you saying that, though Admiral Burney was a splendid seaman and a safe fleet commander, he might on occasion be lacking in initiative.[pencilled in, "(overcautious & slow to act)"]<br><br>As you know from your conversations with the First Sea Lord and with myself, we are of opinion that should anything make it necessary for you to give up the command of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Beatty should be your successor. You pointed out that one objection to this course was that Admiral Beatty had no Grand Fleet experience, and that no substitute could be obtained from the command of the Battle Cruiser Squadron.<br<br>I think in these circumstances that he should be made your Second-in-Command [added in pencil, "possibly"?] with the rank of Admiral, and the implied succession to the post of Commander-in-Chief should that fall vacant.<br><br>I am of course well aware of the inconveniences which inevitably attach to this policy. It will not, I am afraid be agreeable to the Vice-Admirals who are now in command of the 2nd and 4th Battle Squadrons. But we should have had to face these inconveniences in even a more aggravated form if your original plan of coming to the Admiralty to deal with the submarine menace, could have been carried into effect. They really are inevitable; and I, or any successor of mine in this Office, may at any moment be compelled to deal with them.<br<br>There are of course many subsidiary problems to be solved if the course I propose is adopted - e.g., the status and command of what is now called the Battle Cruiser Fleet. All these questions will require very careful reflection. The main point, however, is that Admiral Burney's time has elapsed, his successor as Second-Command should be the man who, in the opinion of the Admiralty, would would be best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief - if a new Commander-in-Chief had to be selected.<br><br>I propose to talk the matter over as soon as possible with Admiral Beatty. I have already discussed it with the First Sea Lord. He gives a general approval to the plan; and I most earnestly hope that you will do the same.<ref>Letter of 30 January, 1911. Jellicoe Papers. British Library. Add. MSS. 71556. ff. 133-135.</ref></blockquote> |
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 09:34, 25 February 2011
| ||||||||
On 11 July, 1916, Balfour wrote to Lady Jellicoe:
I can most truly assure you that I am as anxious as you are that your husband should allow himself a rest. I ventured diffidently, but most earnestly, to press him upon this point when he was in London immediately after the great battle, and the opinion I held then I hold with undiminished strength at the present moment. There have, of course, been a good many small, though sometimes troublesome, questions about the despatch: but these are now over, and not merely the Allied, but the neutral world is, I believe, more than content.
I fear I could hardly "order" Sir John to take a holiday:! but, in the interests of the country as well as his own, I wish most earnestly that he would.[1]
Choosing a Successor
In a letter of 16 November, 1916, Balfour dictated:
As you may well suppose, I have been giving serious thought to our conversations of last Saturday and Sunday weel; and though it is not the purpose of this letter to reopen the particular scheme then before us, it is clear to me that the time has come, or is just coming, when important changes are necessary to the Fleet under your command.
Admiral Burney's time is now approaching its natural conclusion, and I do not think that we ought to stretch the ordinary rules of the service in his favour. I am well aware - both from what you tell me, and from what I learn from the First Sea Lord - of Admiral Burney's high professional qualifications. But though his general health is good, you told me that you had serious doubts whether he could bear the continuous strain of which must fall upon the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet in case of a general action: and I also remember you saying that, though Admiral Burney was a splendid seaman and a safe fleet commander, he might on occasion be lacking in initiative.[pencilled in, "(overcautious & slow to act)"]
As you know from your conversations with the First Sea Lord and with myself, we are of opinion that should anything make it necessary for you to give up the command of the Grand Fleet, Admiral Beatty should be your successor. You pointed out that one objection to this course was that Admiral Beatty had no Grand Fleet experience, and that no substitute could be obtained from the command of the Battle Cruiser Squadron.<br
I think in these circumstances that he should be made your Second-in-Command [added in pencil, "possibly"?] with the rank of Admiral, and the implied succession to the post of Commander-in-Chief should that fall vacant.
I am of course well aware of the inconveniences which inevitably attach to this policy. It will not, I am afraid be agreeable to the Vice-Admirals who are now in command of the 2nd and 4th Battle Squadrons. But we should have had to face these inconveniences in even a more aggravated form if your original plan of coming to the Admiralty to deal with the submarine menace, could have been carried into effect. They really are inevitable; and I, or any successor of mine in this Office, may at any moment be compelled to deal with them.<br
There are of course many subsidiary problems to be solved if the course I propose is adopted - e.g., the status and command of what is now called the Battle Cruiser Fleet. All these questions will require very careful reflection. The main point, however, is that Admiral Burney's time has elapsed, his successor as Second-Command should be the man who, in the opinion of the Admiralty, would would be best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief - if a new Commander-in-Chief had to be selected.
I propose to talk the matter over as soon as possible with Admiral Beatty. I have already discussed it with the First Sea Lord. He gives a general approval to the plan; and I most earnestly hope that you will do the same.[2]
Footnotes
- ↑ Letter of 11 July, 1916. Jellicoe Papers. British Library. Add. MSS. 71556. f. 118.
- ↑ Letter of 30 January, 1911. Jellicoe Papers. British Library. Add. MSS. 71556. ff. 133-135.
