Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. MahanMahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
History
Mahan on naval warfare : $b Selections from the writing of Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan
Mahan, A. T. (Alfred Thayer)
Naval art and science; Naval strategy; Sea-power
The writer has fallen into the mistake which our General Sherman
characterized as undue imagination concerning what “the man on the other
side of the hill” might do; a quaint version of the first Napoleon’s
warning against “making a picture to yourself.” The picture of Great
Britain’s dangers is overdrawn; that to her enemies—“the full measure of
the mischief we could do to a Continental nation”—is underdrawn. It
would seem as if, in his apprehension, “the disastrous consequences[122]
which would flow from even slight depredations by commerce destroyers on
British shipping” could find no parallel in the results to a Continental
trade from British cruisers. France or Germany, for example, shut off
from the sea, can be supplied by rail from, say, Antwerp or Rotterdam;
but it is apparently inconceivable that, in the contingency of a
protracted naval war, the same ports might equally supply Great Britain
by neutral ships. Alternate sea routes close, apparently automatically;
only alternate land routes stay open. Thus undue weight is laid upon
defensive motives, where the offensive requires the greater emphasis.
The larger merchant tonnage of Great Britain involves a greater
defensive element, yes; but are not defensive conditions favorably
modified by her greater navy, and by her situation, with all her western
ports open to the Atlantic, from Glasgow to Bristol and round to
Southampton? And is not the station for such defense identical with the
best for offense by maritime capture? The British vessels there occupy
also a superior position for coal renewal; the difficulty of which for
an enemy, threatening the Atlantic approaches to Great Britain, seems
too largely discounted by imaginations preoccupied with hostile commerce
destroyers.
The concluding sentence of Lord Loreburn’s letter contains a warning
familiar to military thought. “Great Britain will gain much from a
change long and eagerly _desired_ by the great majority of other
Powers.” The wish of a possible enemy is the beacon which suggests the
shoal. The truth is, if the British Navy maintains superiority, it is to
the interest of her enemies to have immunity from capture for “private
property;” if it falls, it is to their interest to be able to capture.
The inference is safe that probable enemies, if such there be, and if
they entertain the wish asserted, do not expect shortly to destroy the
British Navy.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account