Who actually won The Battle of Jutland?

The most important naval action seen during the First World War was, of course, the Battle of Jutland.
The date was the 31st May 1916. A trap had been set by the Germans.
Just off the coast of Jutland in Denmark, the largest nautical battle of the First World War was about to take place. The battle, involving 100,000 men and 250 ships, would last close to 2 days.
But who threw the first punch? And did Britain actually win the fight?
Find out more:
How codebreaking developed during the First World War: • Before Bletchley Park ...
More about Jack Cornwall: Jack Cornwell And The HMS Chester Gun | Imperial War Museums (iwm.org.uk)
Boy (1st Class) John ‘Jack’ Travers Cornwell VC | Imperial War Museums (iwm.org.uk)
More about the Battle of Jutland: Battle of Jutland Timeline | Imperial War Museums (iwm.org.uk)
How did the First World War start? • How did WW1 Start? | C...
Explore these stories with a visit to an IWM site: www.iwm.org.uk
The First World War Retold: shop.iwm.org.u...
Order and license the HD clips used in this video on IWM Film’s website: film.iwmcollec... film.iwmcollec... film.iwmcollec...
Follow IWM on social media: Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwarmuseums
Facebook: / iwm.lon

[@billyosullivan3192]

If there is one thing Germany in both world wars can teach it's that tactical victories don't win wars

[@lucius1976]

Well, what qualifies a tactical victory from a strategic one? I would say Germany had some strategic victories in the First as well as in the Second World War. Knocking out Russia in the first and France in the Second were strategic victories.

[@Duke-i3u]

a tactical victory is one where you inflict more harm on your enemy, thus seeming to win in a way, but it can still be a strategic defeat if you don't achieve your objective, as the german objective, overall, was to defeat the british and raise the blockade. failure to do so resulted in ultimate defeat in the war. the simple difference is in the old saying "you can win the battles, but still lose the war"@@lucius1976

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@lucius1976 Germany badly understood and then applied bad lessons from defeating russia in ww1. Ludendorff explicitly said his understanding of how Russia was beaten was tactical victories led to victory. He then believed all he had to do in the west was tear a hole and the rest will sort out itself. Besides in ww1, the western front was always the decisive front of the war. The fact Germany beat Russia but still lost shows that the westerners were always right

[@PeteOtton]

@@lucius1976 Coral Sea? First battle of Savo Island and a few other night actions off of Guadalcanal where the USN learned how to fight at night with that newfangled radar the hard way.

[@ignatziusturret5641]

@@billyosullivan3192 You have binairy stupid thinking.

[@billyosullivan3192]

"The German Fleet has assaulted its jailer, but it is still in jail."

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

I love that phrase, i think it's wonderful

[@biddyboy1570]

Sums it up. RIP the dead.

[@dynamo1796]

Put more simply, the Germans fancied some but got none. FAFO in the naval sense.

[@LMyrski]

Parroting that nonsense are we......The Brits could have remained in port that day drinking tea and achieved the same thing without losing so many men and ships.

[@billyosullivan3192]

@@LMyrski you don't enforce a blockade by sitting in port

[@22grena]

The Royal navy lost more ships and sailors but the German fleet never left its home waters again in an effective way to confront the Royal Navy until they surrendered. Therefore it was a win for the Royal Navy

[@DouglasEdward84]

Tactical German victory, Strategic British Victory.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Soviet casualties at Kursk were higher than Axis losses, but we all know who won the battle.

[@mattbowden4996]

Actually, the Germans sortied again in August 1916 and then again in October 1916, both times with the intent of engaging the Royal Navy. Then they fought defeated the Russian Navy in the Baltic in 1917 before trying to bait out the Royal Navy AGAIN in the summer of 1918. The idea that the High Seas Fleet never sailed again after Jutland is century old propaganda that was never true in the first place and we really shouldn't be repeating now. It's a shame the video didn't take a moment to dispell this myth, but I suppose they have to keep things brief.

[@mickywanderer8276]

Also Jellicoe signaled that the Grand Fleet was ready for another action with two days of arrive back at base. They had the ships to replace the ones lost/damaged. The Germans didn't.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@DouglasEdward84It’s not a “tactical victory” if you don’t get what you were fighting for.

[@Masada1911]

Very hard to judge. But in my opinion the Germans needed to upset the status quo and they didn’t do that. So I have to say the British came out ahead.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

it was said that Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon; só the fact that he didn't do só was a British win, however anticlimactic

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

It's actually very easy to judge, the German navy was bottled up in port before the battle, unable to operate openly on the North Sea for prolonged periods. They sortied out to try and disrupt grand fleet operations in the North Sea. After the battle their circumstances had not changed, the Royal Navy Home Fleet still had control of the North Sea and it's exits, thus the Kaiserliche Marine failed to achieve any real results other than damaging and sinking ships that the Royal Navy could repair or replace.

[@biddyboy1570]

Within 24 hours the Grand Fleet was ready to go again. Same could not be said for the High Seas Fleet. A draw was a win for GB.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@biddyboy1570Which means that it wasn’t a draw. The score-card was irrelevant. It was about who could do what they wanted afterwards. The British had what they wanted . The Germans did not. So….. not a draw.

[@biddyboy1570]

@@peterwebb8732 The British wanted to end the stalemate with a complete victory. A Trafalgar 2.0. We can't compare the losses as the Brits had more they could lose. The morning after the battle the tactical situation was unchanged with the Germans still unable to control the seas. Status quo maintained. Hence a draw with the Germans moving to a fleet in being.

[@alanclague2333]

Drachinifel has done a good series of videos on the Battle of Jutland. The first video was the set up to hhe battle and the run to the south. The second covers the run to the north to the night actions. The final video discussed the outcome and consequences.

[@landsea7332]

IMO its one of Drachinifel 's best documentary's . Also , the grandson of Jellico made an excellent documentary on this battle . kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5C4o6x8n7CIqa8 .

[@alanb9443]

You should never measure victory by loss of men and equipment. It’s whether or not you met your strategic objectives. The USSR lost nearly 3x as many men and tanks as Germany in WW2 but no one is arguing Germany won the war. This is the mistake the US made in Vietnam, it doesn’t matter if you’re destroying their troops and equipment if theyre willing of taking the loss and capable of finding replacements.

[@Blablablabla1ify]

Your comment deserves more appreciation! Good points.

[@callumgordon1668]

My son won a competition to name a street in a new development in Rosyth sometime before 2009. We did a wee bit looking online and found there were streets named after Jellicoe and Beatty, but not for the battle of Jutland. So we still have a Jutland Street sign in the loft after my son, not so forward unusually asked if he could have the mockup they’d done for publicity. The year’s significant as I told the photographer there was still a living witness to the battle. He looked at me as if I was mad, but Henry Allingham was still alive then. I thought the analysis in your video was spot on. The Royal Navy lost more ships and men, but their tactics were sound and the Germans failed in their strategic objectives: destruction of the cruisers and breakout, whereas the British achieved theirs. Retained dominance and blockade and the Germans never came out again. In fact they mutinied in 1918 when their commanders wanted them to embark on a death ride into the North Sea. The battle indirectly leading to the US entering the war is an interesting point.

[@melvinjohnson2074]

Despite the David Beatty's incompetence the battle went to the Grand Fleet.

[@copferthat]

If a winning boxer quits on his stool, he's lost

[@dominiccassidy9708]

Neither side achieved the objectives that they had planned but that was a strategic win for the British. The German fleet had to break out of the North Sea and they failed.

[@marcdavis4509]

It’s how it was described as the prisoner has assaulted their jailer but is still in jail. Tactical victory for the High Sea Fleet but strategically nothing really changed.

[@peterwebb8732]

It’s not a victory of any kind if it doesn’t get you what you want. It’s not a game of cricket that is won or lost according to some scorecard. It’s about who owns the sea afterward.

[@LMyrski]

Parroting that nonsense are we......The Brits could have remained in port that day drinking tea and achieved the same thing without losing so many men and ships.

[@LMyrski]

@@peterwebb8732 So the Brits Burning Washington DC in the War of 1812 was a British defeat?

[@peterwebb8732]

@@LMyrski It’s hard to find the words to explain just how myopic your claim is Britain, France and their allies were engaged in a World War on the Western Front. Their ability to do that depended entirely on international trade coming through the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the North Seas. The Germans knew this, and their objective was to blockade Britain and France at sea . Had they been able to do this, the war on land would have been lost. The objective of the Grand Fleet was to prevent the Germans from achieving naval dominance of those waters, and they did exactly that…….

[@xwormwood]

@@peterwebb8732Sorry, that is a very single sided view on the situation. Matter of fact it was the Grand Fleet that blockaded Germany, trying to starve them to death.

[@occamraiser]

it's one of those 'tactical' Vs 'strategic' questions. Undoubtedly the Germans won the engagement - in a tactical sense..... they sank more ships Undoubtedly the British won the engagement - in a strategic sense.... they forced the German navy back into port - permanently.

[@iansneddon2956]

Maybe initial tactical victory for the Germans in the Battlecruiser engagement. If the Germans had retreated after sinking two of Beatty's battlecruisers I would call this a tactical victory for the Germans, but they squandered their accomplishment and failed tactically by trying to chase down Beatty's remaining force, misjudging why they were heading North instead of heading home - chasing the RN battlecruisers into a trap. (Beatty's lack of communication aided the Germans, but Jellicoe's quick decision overcame this putting the German fleet in the worst tactical situation with their T being crossed by a battleship line 5 miles long). Faced with this the Germans launched torpedoes at the British and retreated. This provided cover for their retreat, so was a good tactical decision. But then they returned to see if they had softened up the British and resume the battle. But, again, Jellicoe acted correctly pulling his fleet back to avoid torpedo hits and then returning to position... so when the Germans returned they drove into the same bad tactical position. This time the German line collapsed under the bombardment with Captains not waiting for orders but just turning out of the line and retreating on their own .... a disorganized rout. Since the whole point of the German strategy was to avoid this sort of battle with the RN battleships... they failed tactically going head on against an enemy they were not prepared to fight, taking a beating, retreating, and then coming back for more of the same. The Germans did not dare bring their battleships up against the strength of the RN for the remainder of the war. I'd call it an overall British tactical victory (tacitcal victory by Jellicoe in the main part of the battle) due to (1) pounding the enemy to the point that they didn't just retreat, they ran away in panic, and (2) they left the enemy so demoralized that even when their ships were repaired they were not wanting to go up against the Grand Fleet again - but trying once again in late 1917 to see if they could engage just part of it - failing due to poor intelligence which seems a common German failure through all of this. Had the Germans stopped after sinking two of Beatty's battlecruisers and then retreated with much less damage, leaving their fleet physically and emotionally ready to soon fight again, I would call that a German tactical victory. But they squandered their victory trying to go for it all and paid for it dearly.

[@rickkephartactual7706]

This was one of the better, if short, descriptions of the events that took place.

[@seanmoran2743]

Beatty should have been sacked for allowing the German Battle Cruisers to open fire first when he had them in range

[@Brian-----]

Pretty clear that with the blockade still on, Britain and the Entente won.

[@tim7052]

Broadly speaking the Germans won tacticly (more RN men and ships lost in the Battle) and they retreated to fight another day - which tied up RN resources to meet another, potential, future sortie. But the Royal Navy won strategically because after Jutland, the German Navy never ventured out from Port again: their Navy even mutinied rather than fight.

[@xwormwood]

Last sentence is not true. They mutinied because the war was already clearly lost. They would have fought if it wouldn't have been so ovious that they were meant to sacrifce their lifes for nothing but the pride of the Admirality.

[@iansneddon2956]

Except the German High Seas Fleet retreated to never fight another day, so how was this a victory for the Germans? The ships eventually did steam out to meet the British... who came to escort them into internment at Scapa Flow where the Germans scuttled their ships rather than let the British and French take them. The Grand Fleet had no other place they needed to be than stationed around Britain or out in the North Sea. The ships had already been built and were going to be maintained and kept operating so there was not much additional cost waiting to see if/when the High Seas Fleet would come out again. The Germans failed in their plan to weaken the Royal Navy down to parity. There is a poster (images of it online) showing the German High Seas Fleet on its way to Scapa Flow escorted by Royal Navy battleships with a few American battleships, along with the cruisers and destroyers. The overwhelming number of ships of the Royal Navy on full display.

[@tim7052]

@iansneddon2956 The Germans won a tactical victory (sunk more ships and killed more sailors) but lost strategically. The UK didnt want to repeat another Jutland - as their losses would be more keenly felt. Understand?

[@davidcrabbe9710]

Whilst I appreciate the need for brevity given the short running time, it would have been worth delving into why the Battlecruisers under Beatty suffered catastrophic explosions, why given the excellent positioning of the Grand Fleet so little damage was inflicted and also the exceptional way in which the High Seas Fleet was able to extricate itself from potential disaster. For anyone interested, I highly recommend Rules of the Game by Andrew Gordon.

[@simonlancaster1815]

Give us a few ideas in brief. British ships weaker and poorly designed compared to German? British guns not good at long range? German seamanship just better?

[@davidcrabbe9710]

@@simonlancaster1815 German designs valued protection over firepower, British shells were unreliable at Jutland, Beatty was a poor subordinate to Jellicoe and his decision to prioritise weight of fire over shell handling safety would have disastrous consequences for the Battlecruisers under his command. Also The Germans handled their ships and the tactical situation brilliantly.

[@simonlancaster1815]

@@davidcrabbe9710 Scheer thought Germany had better ships and men. Maybe he was correct.

[@MortRotu]

So Germany 'won' tactically (more sunk ships/killed sailors) but lost strategically (blockade maintained, resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare -> US entry into WW1). Seems clear enough to me.

[@iansneddon2956]

Lost tactically as while they were able to engage the battle cruiser squadron and inflict heavier losses, they were not able to do this in isolation. The whole point of their plan was to avoid open battle against the Grand Fleet. The pounding they took forced the Germans to retreat the first time, and the second time the ship captains weren't waiting for orders - they just broke and ran. When your forces are thrown into a rout and escape into the darkness hoping to get home without getting into another battle - you haven't won. They were afraid as they knew there were British out there, lots of them. The defeat of the High Seas Fleet at Jutland led to that resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare which did more harm than good to the German war effort.

[@daveoaktowers]

Tactical and Strategic victory for the Royal Navy, as many of the losses were often by Beatty's poor handling of the opening race to south, left behind the QE battleships. Despite losses being higher the Royal Navy were never threatened to lose the battle, always had upper hand. Jellicoe's brilliant single formation to force Scheer into crossing the T forced the Germans to head home. Some were unfortunate such as HMS Black Prince

[@xwormwood]

Not sure how brilliant one has to be if he knows when and where the enemy will arrive, while having supriorty in numbers, but anyway, I guess it is safe to conclude that both navies "did their job", and were let by people which knew their business. In the end this was the wrong war after all, ruining Europe for good.

[@johntechwriter]

An impressively comprehensive, yet easy to understand, presentation of the military and political consequences of a historic battle. Your research extends from the admirals in charge to the valiant ordinary sailors. And your deceptively simple animations portray what took place between the two navies with a clarity that in other recountings have required hours of reading and viewing, and still we weren’t quite sure what happened. I agree with your summary of this seemingly inconclusive engagement. The British discovered the vulnerability of their lightly defended decks - something that would come back to haunt them in WWII with the loss of the Hood to the Bismark. But the Germans were unnerved by the prescience of the Brits. How did they know where the Germans would be? Which brought to the fore their inferiority complex. The superiority of British intelligence would come back to haunt the Germans in WWII when Enigma foretold so many German battle plans long before they were executed. Look at Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin if you wish to judge the relative importance of nerds vs. whiskered old admirals stuck in the 19th century.

[@FuriousFire898]

Waiting for the second battle of Jutland in the comments 🗣️🔥

[@ralphe5842]

The number of ships sunk or sailors killed doesn’t determine a win or loss but the results of the engagement in tha t case Germany lost and actually lost big as there huge expense on a navy was a waste it wasn’t the trafalgar that the public wished but the results were just as important.

[@iansneddon2956]

Naval power is the ability to use the oceans for your purposes and depriving your enemies of the ability to use the oceans for their purposes. Britain achieved this and was able to expand their blockade of Germany which brought down the Kaiser and the German war effort.

[@OceanHedgehog]

Britain would have won decisively if Beatty wasn't there.

[@aquilarossa5191]

Neither side won it or lost it. The UK was able to continue its blockade of German ports. Germany was able to deal a severe blow to the UK's battle cruiser squadron. Both outcomes were consistent with each country's naval strategy. The UK and its blockade strategy to deny Germany war materials, which would impede and diminish it ability to successfully fight a war. Germany had a fleet in being and would attempt break outs to destroy parts of the UK's fleet in detail if they could, which is exactly what they achieved against the battle cruisers. However, if we determine a winner just by by losses at sea, Germany won a costly victory.

[@iansneddon2956]

UK strategy was to retain dominance over the North Sea and maintain the blockade. They succeeded. German strategy was to engage just part of the Grand Fleet and wear down the RN piecemeal to the point where the High Seas Fleet could match the Royal Navy and to then use the High Seas Fleet to break the blockade. The cost of dealing that blow to the UK's battle cruiser squadron was such a pounding on the High Seas Fleet it would be years before they could set out again and even then the crews mutinied rather than go out to battle the RN again. The blow to the Battlecruiser squadron was inconsequential to Royal Navy power. The High Seas Fleet needed to inflict much more damage to achieve their strategy.... but were unable to continue the battle. While they didn't know it at the time, the Royal Navy had effectively knocked the German surface navy out of the war. Strategic victory for the Royal Navy. Strategic defeat for the German Navy. The German defeat was completed by their resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare which brought the USA into the war.

[@joegordon5117]

I recall long-ago history lessons at school, where our history master posed the same question of who won this battle, before saying both side claimed victory, and in their way they were both right. The Germans inflicted far more damage, but then they effectively surrendered the field of battle ro the Royal Navy for the rest of the war, so the RN can claim victory too. Looking back now I realise our teacher wasn't just explaining this moment in history to us, he was gently training us to realise that history was not always clear cut and often depends on the interpretation of different people with different opinions, which was not a bad thing to teach us.

[@Muesli711]

@1:37 With 10 'big' guns - this all big gun configuration was one of the revolutionary aspects of the Dreadnought design.

[@gswombat]

Jack Cornwall is not the youngest to be awarded the VC. That was Hospital Apprentice Andrew Fitzgibbon in 1860 at age 15. Facts matter.

[@rogerrees9845]

Another very interesting presentation..... Thank you....Roger...Pembrokeshire..

[@cheriefsadeksadek2108]

It was a tactical victory for Germany and a strategic defeat at the same time and a tactical loss for brtitain but a strategic victory for it

[@Mustapha1963]

I think that it could be said that the British won, despite themselves. Germany needed a decisive victory that redressed the imbalance of ships and to break the British blockade. They did neither. I said "despite themselves" because the British could have lost the battle. David Beatty had a terrible day. He had fought Jellicoe over control of the new Queen Elizabeth-class Superdreadnoughts and had finally won that control- and then failed to bring the commander of those ships to hid flagship to discuss tactics. During the battle, Beatty failed to exert leadership over his assets. Worse, he failed to keep Jellicoe even remotely informed of what the Germans were doing. This was completely inexcusable, as Jellicoe had made to crystal clear that keeping him informed was the primary task of all scouting forces- of which Beatty's Battlecruiser Force was part. Yes, there was "something wrong with our bloody ships today"- but there was also "something wrong with the bloody Battlecruiser Force commander today". Had David Beatty fulfilled his duties competently, given Jellicoe's actions in deploying his ships effectively even though he was but marginally informed of the whereabouts of the Germans, the Grand Fleet might every well have wrecked the High Seas Fleet to a point that the war could have ended shortly after Jutland, as the Germans might have concluded that breaking the blockade with a shattered High Seas Fleet was impossible.

[@iansneddon2956]

As I posted in another comment, historical reflection makes it abundantly clear that Beatty was no Nelson, Hood, Rodney or Cunningham. (regardless of how much he saw himself like that).

[@scotthill8787]

Jellicoe won Jutland by not losing. The blockade of Germany was continued.

[@markdunigan805]

to answer your question as to who won, the ones still alive at the end.

[@KarlKarpfen]

Well, in all effect, the battle of Jutland ultimately and directly ended the war and the German Empire: The moment the order came to do it all again, the German navy sailors revolted and thereby ended the war.

[@xwormwood]

They revolted because the war was clearly lost and nearly over.

[@kb4903]

Did they really say that they didn’t want to risk the dreadnoughts in battle? If so seems another insane ww1 view. Battleships that weren’t used for battle?!

[@dynamo1796]

No, they never said that - I don't know why IWM thinks that. Both sides were gagging to use these massive fleets of battleships, they definitely weren't afraid.

[@jurgschupbach3059]

Empathisches Rollenspiel ist Voraussetzung in der modernen Wertschöpfung der Teambildung

[@bobbybinns379]

It could be argued that the UK won the battle but lost the strategic war. The main reason the UK was drawn into WW1 against Germany (a long time ally with strong cultural / royal family links to the UK) was the threat that Germany posed to Royal Navy hegemony. However, the cost of WW1 (40% of government spending was on war cost / bond repayments by 1918) was so great that the UK struggled to maintain as large a navy post war. The fact the enormous amount of money poured into US arms production by the UK caused the US to overtake the UK as the world’s largest economy in 1916 - signaling the beginning of the end of the Pax Britannia and severely denting UK prestige. Plus all the overseas trading partners that had been reliant on the UK before the war had to develop their own industries / find other trading partners during WW1 as the Royal Navy was no longer around to protect global trade routes in the UK’s interests. For me, Jutland was a watershed moment in the UK’s history - a naval battle that marked the end of the period of Royal Navy and UK global dominance that had started at another naval battle - Trafalgar. A good historical equivalent of how a breakdown of trade can have severe impacts on the status quo - what started the fall of the Roman Empire was the crisis of the Third Century. During this time, the trade routes (and resulting imperial tax revenue) and economic stability that had been guaranteed by Roman Legions broke down. In the absence of cross-Empire supply of goods, and most importantly food, localized economies and power bases started to emerge around local war-lords who were able to provide these essentials to people - marking the start of the Fuedal system in Europe and the end of Imperial dominance. We get the word “lord” from the old English word “hlaford” which literally means “bread guarder” as it was the supply of food to dependent people post Roman Empire that got Feudalism going.

[@PeteOtton]

Trouble is that Germany by backing Austria-Hungary was upsetting the delicate power in Europe. I don't think Britain was willing to risk Germany getting ascendancy on the continent at the expense at France.

[@iansneddon2956]

Royal Navy dominance was not lost at Jutland and the cost of building such a large navy was already spent one way or another. Ultimately Britain and USA were aligned for both WW I and WW II. But the cost of the arms race and wars was very heavy. That German capital ships regularly ran away from British capital ships, and the naval victories over Italy, show that Royal Navy dominance was still present through WW II - just becoming eclipsed by the massive growth of the US Navy. Britain was more immediately threatened by one nation or alliance gaining dominance over Western Europe, but USA also recognized that such a European power would challenge America's Monroe Doctrine which would force USA to give in or wage war. Advisors of Wilson were pushing early in WW I that America needed to get in the war to ensure Germany didn't win. Both World Wars forced UK in earlier and at great cost - achieving Pyrrhic victories where Western Europe was eventually saved but at a cost that lost Britain her wealth and empire.

[@melbjohn]

The launch of the Dreadnought in 1906 did not presage the naval arms race! True, it rendered much of the pre-dreadnaught era ships out of date but the race had been going on since 1897 and when it was put on the blocks it was just a new stage.

[@skyden24195]

Which fleet ended up interned and eventually at the bottom of the sea? That fleet definitely did not win.

[@xwormwood]

They did not loose either, because they sank themself, where they were meant to hand over their ships.

[@rossbabcock3790]

I've studied this battle for years. My conclusion: tactically, Germany. Strategically, Britain.

[@kylestevens7263]

The RN won both tactically and strategically. They drove the Germans off the the battlefield and dominated the North Sea for the rest of the war. Yes the Germans sank more RN ships and inflicted more casualties, but there are many instances where the winning side suffered a higher casualties.

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

In a way, Britain did. They kept Germany locked up in its home parts and ensured the blockade wold resume.

[@ChrisOREILLY-gc4yq]

I5 from Chester UK 🇬🇧👍

[@johnfitzalan3128]

I would say that the battlecruiser fight went the German way, but in terms of the main fight between the actual battle fleets jellico outmanoeuvred them tactically and the German fleet took a real battering and escaped a really serious defeat in part by some smart manoeuvres but also because of poor visibility. Had jellico been in the position earlier in the day in clear conditions then he would probably have won a definitive victory. While they wouldn’t admit it publicly the German navy was well aware of this both at senior and junior levels.

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

Fascinating to compare to World War II, where the British largely sweep the German navy out of the sea during the Norway campaign (and do the same to the Italians a year later in the Mediterranean). There's also the u-boat campaign in both wars, but even that was probably a closer-run thing in World War I than in World War II.

[@DMS-pq8]

The German navy or at least its surface fleet was much much smaller in 1940 than it was in 1916

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@DMS-pq8 true, though the Italians had a reasonably large & well-equipped navy that the British similarly smashed

[@DMS-pq8]

@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Italians had no aircraft carriers, Poor coordination between the navy and airforce and their ships were not well armored and lacked radar

[@andrewsoboeiro6979]

@@DMS-pq8 fighting close to their coastline largely made up for the lack of carriers, though; & the lack of armor was traded for more speed/flexibility. You’re right about the lack of skill/coordination, but that’s kinda my point about the British Royal Navy completely outclassing the Axis navies, to a much greater degree than they did the Central Powers in WWI

[@ignatziusturret5641]

GB almost collapsed 1942 due the shortage of goods. You need to update your knowldedge.

[@tomhalla426]

What is not mentioned is just how bad visibility was through most of the battle. Fog, coal smoke, and smoke from gun propellant led to targets vanishing within gun range.

[@johnfisher9692]

Actually visibility was excellent at the start of the battle with the light greatly favoring the Germans but as the battle progressed visibility quickly grew worse due to funnel and gun smoke and changing weather conditions. the weather can change with shocking rapidity in the North Sea.

[@Outlier999]

The Germans won a tactical victory but they were too stupid to know it, so they scurried away and hid for the rest of the war, thus handing the British the ultimate strategic victory.

[@iansneddon2956]

What victory had they achieved? Had they stayed fighting they would have suffered much more damage. The first time they drove into Jellicoe's battleship line they were forced to carry out a tactical retreat to save their ships from destruction. They came back for a second attempt and this time the German captains didn't wait for their Admiral's order, they just left formation and turned and ran.

[@RachelAllcock]

As I understand, the British didn't "share the message to the German ambassador" with the Americans, they did something far more subtle and cunning. They shared the *key* to the German code such that the Americans could take their copies of the coded messages and decode them for themselves, so giving no doubt at all that this was a German plot and not a British provocation.

[@MarkHarrison733]

The US had sided with the British Empire from the very beginning, as it would during World War II.

[@RachelAllcock]

@@MarkHarrison733 Yes, but didn't as a country want to come into the fight. As in WW2 a national outrage was needed, and that the Germans were stupid enough to supply.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@RachelAllcock Wall Street had declared war on Germany on 24 March 1933.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@RachelAllcock The US was already at war with Germany in 1940, as Admiral King had confirmed at the time.

[@marcneef795]

By some metrics, it was the largest naval battle of all time.

[@kumasenlac5504]

Leyte Gulf ? - in both area covered and number and size of ships involved...

[@marcneef795]

@@kumasenlac5504 I am aware, that Leyte Gulf is the largest one by most metrics. 😉 But not by some others, like total displacement of the involved ships or number of capital ships

[@kumasenlac5504]

@@marcneef795 I'm happy to accept 'most metrics'.

[@marcneef795]

@@kumasenlac5504 fair 😎

[@PeteOtton]

@@marcneef795 And Leyte could be considered 3 or 4 battles that converged but didn't quite make it into one huge battle.

[@jozef_chocholacek]

Very good video, as usual. Just your pronunciation of Scheer's name makes my ears of a German speaker hurt.

[@nobbytang]

The Germans had better optics and A.P. Shells but we had centralised gun control and our A.P. Shells didn’t work ( useless)…after the battle the Germans evaluated the battle damage and concluded that if we had decent A.P. Shells like they did then they would have lost between 6-8 capital ships ( based on shell hits some from 15 inch British guns) …

[@iansneddon2956]

Yes, Jelicoe was aware of the problems with the Shells but had to leave it for others to fix when he was promoted to admiral of the Grand Fleet. However, his further promotion after Jutland put him in a position to make sure the shell problems were fixed. A rematch in 1918 would have gone very very bad for the Germans.

[@rbaxter286]

Jellicoe won it after Beatty tried to lose it, regardless of how people try to buff the incompetent, Good Ole Boy of Beatty. BTW, I note Beatty is the Poster Child for you video, which gets an automatic down vote.

[@iansneddon2956]

Beatty was no Nelson, Rodney, Hood or Cunningham.

[@denniskrenz2080]

Germany won the penalty shoot out, but Britain the season. But, not so clear as it is presented here looking just at the surface. The German U-Boats had a pretty good run in WW1 already and where also a threat that Britain never had been able to contain, despite the success of the convoy system late in the war. An omen for the next war.

[@iansneddon2956]

The U-boat campaign in WW I sunk more shipping than the campaign in WW II, but was an unmitigated disaster for the war effort. They failed in preventing the Entente powers from receiving materials they needed to stay in the war, they failed to persuade the civilian populations of the Entente powers to leave the war, and they failed to force an end to the blockade of Germany that led to starvation and revolution.

[@stephenandersen4625]

Jelacoe could have lost the war. But, despite Beatty, he crossed their T twice and kept his chestnuts out of the fire. Beatty’s reporting was terrible

[@GrenvilleP710]

The Germans sunk more RN ships But they never put to sea in force again The RN ruled the waves.

[@Roland14d]

1:35 Odd that he doesn't say what made HMS Dreadnought (DN) special. - She ONLY carried 12" guns, ie ALL BIG GUNS! N secondary armament. In other words, Dreadnought had 2.5 TIMES as many guns as her predecessor (King Edward VII class). - She was the first capitol ship to use turbines give her a 12-15% more speed for less fuel use.

[@Cailus3542]

The High Seas Fleet fled the area and, through both skill and luck, avoided much heavier losses. Battles, regardless of you view them, are not determined solely by losses. The British didn't tactically "win" (they failed to inflict heavy losses on the High Seas Fleet), but then, neither did the Germans. They wanted to isolate and destroy a few dreadnoughts, not battlecruisers, which wouldn't materially affect the balance of power in the North Sea. Neither side achieved their immediate objective,while the British achieved their long-term objective. Quite frankly, we should all be grateful that Jutland was such a dud. A second Trafalgar could've resulted in the single deadliest day of World War One.

[@georgedoolittle9015]

This was not the "decisive Battle" as was promised by having the Battleship in the first instance for Great Britain. This Battle called into question the very idea of Battleships as "war winners" a debate that would be settled by the World War 2 "Aircraft Carrier" and over the horizon attack. Still even all of this would change with the advent of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them in 1945.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Except that the German fleet never risked a further confrontation with the Grand Fleet. Two sorties were aborted almost before they had begun. As a result, whilst the HSF swung around cables in the Jade, the British Northern Patrol systematically drove Germany into malnutrition, revolution, mutiny, and defeat.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland. Germany was not defeated in World War I, and the blockade was illegal under international law. The mutinies and revolution were caused by foreign agents and Communists.

[@Jack_Gibby]

We hear about Victoria Cross actions but never about feats of courage on the Axis side. Perhaps we could hear stories about this that isn’t a Tiger Ace.

[@manilajohn0182]

Jutland was a tactical victory for Germany and a strategic victory for Britain- in the same way that the Battle of the Coral Sea was a tactical victory for Japan and a strategic victory for the United States.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Japan won the Battle of the Coral Sea.

[@stueyguerreiro]

This question is so old and as such quite boring now. According to the vast majority of modern historians, Britain won both a tactical and strategic victory. The war was effectively won at Jutland. The High Seas Fleet never left port again as the British blockade tightened. In doing so the Royal Navy starved Germany to death, which essentially led to her Army quitting in 1918 and German civilians rioting, bringing about the end of the war. Plain and simple.

[@leemcclelland2618]

Germans because they inflicted much greater losses on the British fleet, and the British because the Grand Fleet wasn't driven from the North Sea, the High Seas Fleet was still bottled up in Germany, and unrestricted submarine warfare was the only serious way Germany had of challenging England at sea.

[@iansneddon2956]

Epic failures. The Germans lost their ability to challenge Royal Navy dominance over the North Sea, and was forced back into the "own goal" failure of engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare. Germany almost had American help to force peace talks to end the war in 1915 (recognizing even then that Germany was not going to win the war) failed with American backlash over the sinking of RMS Lusitania. Germany managed to avoid an expansion of the war by resuming the old prize rules for 1916 but the return to unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 put Germany on a collision course to war with USA. Ironical that while the German Imperial Navy hit more than twice as many ships with u-boat attacks in a shorter war than Nazi Germany did, this campaign just made Germany's situation worse.

[@jpc443]

The prisoner has assaulted his jailer, but is still in jail.

[@nosorab3]

Question: "Who won the Battle of Jutland?" Answer: "Yeah."

[@willberry6434]

Sounds like a tactical defeat for the UK but strategic victory for them

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

The clash between Beatty's force and Hipper's battlecruisers was a tactical German victory, pehaps because of Beatty's mishandling of BS5. The clashe between Jellicoe & Scheer, however, was unquestionably a British tactical success.

[@newskenger3885]

The British naval blockade was in the WW1 form absolutely illegal as it violated the sea law of their time. Instead of a blockade of the German ports it was constructed at a huge distance and with no continuing ship line. Additionally it declared everything as conterbande no matter if it is food or steel. Neutral states who traded with Imperial Germany were included. A video from an official museum should include this.

[@smacky101]

I believe the British have to be considered the winner. That being said I've heard that same opinion loads of times from british historians. I don't think I've ever heard it from a german one.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Well, whose fleet controlled the oceans and imposed a blockade, and whose fleet barely poked a nose out from the River Jade, and finally mutinied when asked to sortie in 1918?

[@stevetheduck1425]

Everyone who died lost. The taxpayers who footed the bill lost. Lots of fish died. More seriously, there are four elements to any battle / campaign / war. Grand Strategy = how do you want your country to be positioned after the battle / war? Strategy = who has gained and who didn't? Operations = who still has a fleet afterwards. Tactics = who sank more ships / shot more accurately? The Central powers lost the first two, and the third was decided by them not coming out for another try. They won the last and least important element.

[@iansneddon2956]

The Central Powers won the tactical battle against Beatty's squadron which they had set out to engage. But they lost the tactical battle, twice, against Jellicoe's main battleship force.

[@Duke-i3u]

it was kind of a draw. the germans sank more british ships than they lost, but the british still had them bottled up in port afterward. this gave a tactical victory to germany, but a strategic one to britain.

[@dynamo1796]

How is it a tactical victory when your fleet is so badly bashed up they can't put to sea again for another few months? And then of course you're even more outnumbered than when you started. Its a defeat up and down.

[@Duke-i3u]

simple. there are two ways to measure victory in battle. first, who caused the most casualties on the enemy. the german fleet did this, just as the japanese fleet did in two ww2 carrier battles, coral sea and santa cruz. second, who achieved the objective. the british were trying above all else to keep the german bottled up and neutralized. they did this. in ww2's battle of the coral sea, the us objective was to halt the japanese move south and save australia and new zealand,, and although the us navy lost more ships, they did. that is the difference between tactical victory, in which you may win the battle, but still lose the war, but in a strategic one, you can actually kind of lose, still win the war.@@dynamo1796

[@Duke-i3u]

When you inflict more harm on your enemy than you suffer, that's a tactical victory. If you still prevent your opponent from achieving their objective, even though you suffer more losses, that is a strategic victory. That is why both sides could claim victory. And has been pointed out many times before, it is possible to win the battles, but still lose the war.

[@dynamo1796]

@@Duke-i3u What harm? Its not a tactical victory if its pyrrhic in nature. The Germans did more damage, sure, but the cost of doing that meant their fleet was no longer a viable contestant to the might of British sea power. The British on the other hand did lose a few ships but it made nearly no difference to their position. If I take 100 men and assault the enemy position of 500 men, kill 100 of theirs and lose 30 of my own, I am actually worse off for that engagement. Its not a tactical victory, because my ability to fight future engagements is neutered. If you cant see this then I'd love to play some AOE4 against you - you can have the 100 men and I'll take the 500 lol

[@iansneddon2956]

@@Duke-i3u Yes, because we all remember the Vietnam war as a stunning American victory as they killed more than a million Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while losing less than 60k troops.

[@alex.harrison]

I love these videos but I wish they'd consider renaming to Metric War Museums

[@edwardkenworthy7013]

Jellicoe was the admiral that won the battle, and avoided losing the war, and was the CinC of The Grand Fleet. In contrast Beatty was thrashed by Hipper, despite Beatty outnumbering him 2:1, and he also failed to do his job and keep his CinC informed of The High Seas Fleet's location. So why on earth does the thumbnail for your video include a picture of Beatty and not Jellicoe?

[@iansneddon2956]

I think Beatty's previous successes at Heligoland Bight and Dogger Bank helped offset this, along with political connections. He still comes across as an example of failing upwards, though.

[@edwardkenworthy7013]

@@iansneddon2956 Even Beatty thought he failed at Dogger Bank and Heligoland Bight, which he did, and tried to blame his flag lieutenant for all three of his failures.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@edwardkenworthy7013 Germany won at Jutland.

[@edwardkenworthy7013]

@@MarkHarrison733 Which is why the High Seas Fleet fled back to their bases and never again went to sea, meanwhile the Royal Navy maintained control of the oceans and the blockade that would ultimately defeat Germany was maintained.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@edwardkenworthy7013 The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland. The Royal Navy's blockade was illegal. Germany was not defeated in World War I.

[@giulliannafokoloni]

it's a detail, but on your map it says Holland ; it's called the Netherlands

[@MarkHarrison733]

Britain did not control the sea, and its blockade was illegal under international law. The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland. Germany did not lose World War I, and by the 1930s Britain no longer mattered at all.

[@Finnbobjimbob]

This is sarcasm right? No one is actually this stupid

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@Finnbobjimbob Yes, he is. He is a troll who posts simply to annoy. Best to ignore him.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@Finnbobjimbob See the 1931 Statute of Westminster, "appeasement" and why Ike bankrupted sterling.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 See why Israel bombed British civilians during World War II.

[@BlindPidePiper]

I'm getting so tired of Brits spinning this. The answer is clear and simple. The battle was a tacticle victory for Germany (they won on the battlefield) and a strategic victory for Brittian (they controlled the waters after the battle). Done. I'm so tired of hearing Brittish insecurity.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@McDuckSauce The Germans left port several times after their great victory at Jutland.

[@manilajohn0182]

Yep. They're far too prone to make excuses and it's just nuts. The Japanese achieved a tactical victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea for precisely the same reason- while experiencing a strategic defeat.

[@BlindPidePiper]

@@manilajohn0182 Exactly.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@manilajohn0182 Japan won the Battle of the Coral Sea.

[@legiran9564]

"I von ze battle . . . by running avay, ja?"

[@mattbowden4996]

Yes, because the Germans never intended to hold the field in the first place. The battle of Jutland was a strategic raid. The German plan was to destroy what they could then get away before the massively superior Grand Fleet showed up. If the Germans had sunk the entire Britsh Battlecruiser Fleet and then evaded the Grand Fleet without taking a single loss, would you still be claiming they had lost because they ran away? That's not how it works...

[@legiran9564]

@@mattbowden4996 Keep coping wehraboo 🤣

[@mattbowden4996]

@@legiran9564 I find it's pretty typical of someone who realizes they're wrong but refuses to back down to start throwing insults around. I suggest you either make an intelligent contribution or - as you so eloquently put - learn to "cope" with having your childishly bad take corrected.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@mattbowden4996Victory is achieving your objectives. The Germans did not achieve theirs. They not only did not break the British blockade, or deny the British their dominance of the Atlantic, they did not make a significant step toward doing so.

[@mattbowden4996]

@peterwebb8732 Your argument only works by assigning objectives to the High Seas Fleet that they were not trying to achieve on the day - because the objective of the Jutland fleet advance was NOT to break the blockade and had nothing to do with the Atlantic. The Germans expected it would take three of four successful operations to whittle down the Royal Navy enough for them take them on directly and lift the blockade, so their sole objective was to inflict asymmetrical casualties on the Grand Fleet whilst avoiding a general fleet action. You are mistaking the objective of the battle for the objective of the campaign. Nobody disputes that the Germans lost the North Sea Campaign, but that doesn't mean they "lost" the battle Jutland, where they achieved exactly what they set out to do only to realize their larger plan simply wasn't going to work - so I suppose I agree that they did not make a significant step towards whittling down the Grand Fleet. Even so, I assume you have heard of the concept of a pyrrhic victory? The reason it is impossible to say who won at Jutland is because both sides achieved their objectives, but neither side was happy about the cost they incurred doing so.

[@DanH-u3f]

The British won the Battle of Jutland, but with a heavy cost. The Germans never challenged again in the war.

[@rbaxter286]

Heavy cost? The RN pretty much repaired most ships AND suffered no real diminution of the REAL line of battle throw weight, with a resulting SEALING the blockade by the huge losses of the High Seas Fleet and the Royal Idiot Willy's decision to keep the fleet in port as a bargaining chip for most of the rest of the war. By the end of the war, the RN was completely supreme, showing the planners and constructors had chosen the right strategy. The REAL threat was the U-boat fleet, not the surface forces.

[@Mr00934]

germans sunk more ships than they got sunk, 16-9. also killed more sailors 6200-2200. then they went home never to leave port again.

[@mikedillon6490]

The battle of Jutland was a victory as complete as Trafalgar, at the end of both, Britain had complete mastery of the sea.

[@Kenbreg]

It's "Share", not "Shear".

[@MyTv-]

Normally, the winner retains control of the battlefield. Even if the Royal Navy lost more ships and men, she did get the mastery of the ocean

[@mattbowden4996]

That's a fallacy. It is entirely possible to win a battle by quitting the field if holding the ground was never part of your objectives in the first place. The Germans were conducting a strategic raid with the objective of inflicting assymetrical losses on the enemy. From their perspective, a perfectly executed operation would have left the Royal Navy in control of the battlefield, but having taken numerous losses without inflicting any in return. The mistake is to assume that the Germans were trying to beat the Royal Navy in one giant Gotterdammerung style battle. Jutland was part of a series of strategic raids intended to whittle away the strength of the Royal Navy piece by piece - but because it was only operation to result in a fleet battle, we forget about Germany's larger strategy.

[@MyTv-]

@@mattbowden4996As interesting as their strategy was, it didn’t work. The result of Jutland is clearly that they lost. Or did they plane for the surface fleet to cower in home waters for the rest of the war? It was a desperate idea that couldn’t work in the best of circumstances, given how big the Royal Navy was and Britain capacity for banging out war ships at the time. Still in ww2 they could easily built more then they could man. At best it would have inconvenienced Britain and forced reprioritisings.

[@mattbowden4996]

@MyTv- But they didn't cower at home for the rest of the war. In fact one of the secondary objectives of the August 1916 Fleet advance was to prevent the allied press making such claims. Certainly the operation did not result in a battle, but it was a serious attempt to learn from the Jutland experience and do the same plan better. And then when that didn't work they tried again in October 1916, then turn their attention to the Baltic and defeated the Russian Navy in 1917. Then they tried to tempt out the Royal Navy AGAIN in the summer of 1918. That is not "cowering" from the enemy and to claim it is is akin to calling a bantam weight boxer a coward for not letting a heavy weight take a free shot at his jaw.

[@kc4cvh]

The big winners at the Battle of Jutland were : 1) Marine creatures. They got a feast better than several dead blue whales. 2) Arms merchants, who reaped enormous profits. The big losers were primarily the young men whose lives were squandered and those who mourned their loss, to a lesser extent, those who footed the bill.

[@PaulfromChicago]

Yeah. The Americans won.

[@peterwebb8732]

The definition of victory is to achieve your objectives, while denying the enemy theirs. The British achieved their objectives. The Germans did not. That should be the end of the discussion right there. It was not a cricket-match. It was not some weird game of “keeping score”.

[@Poliss95]

The British objective was to annihilate the High Seas Fleet. They failed because of Jellicoe's bungling. He was kicked upstairs after Jutland and was replaced by the even more inept Beatty.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@Poliss95 The War would not be won by destroying the High Seas Fleet. The question that you have to ask, was what the British had to do differently, due to adverse outcomes at Jutland. Can you name any such thing?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@Poliss95 Jellicoe did not 'bungle.' He was wise not to risk his fleet in a chaotic pell mell action, after Scheer had begun his run for the Jade. What was foremost in Jellicoe's thinking was the need to retain naval control of the North Sea, which he did.

[@JohnnyNorfolk]

Well the German Navy never came out of port again after the battle, so in my book that a win for the Royal Navy.

[@mattbowden4996]

That's not true. They sortied again in August 1916 and then October 1916, both times with the intent of engaging the Royal Navy. Then they defeated the Russian Navy in the Baltic in 1917. The idea that the Germans "never sailed again" after Jutland is a blatant falsehood that was put about as propaganda during the war and has entered popular history.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@mattbowden4996 They never came out to engage the Grand Fleet anymore. They looked to carry out bombardments or find weaker targets to attack while running back to port if they thought the Grand Fleet was approaching.

[@donaldduck4888]

Well it certainly wasn’t Four Buttons Beatty.

[@ArnoSchmidt70]

So Britain had double the number of ships, but lost double the tonage and double the number of sailors. Sounds for me like Germany was the clear winner.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Only if you judge battles by counting corpses, rather than by considering strategic objectives. I wonder if you would consider Stalingrad of Kursk German victories, using the same criterion.

[@xwormwood]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Those comparison don't help, as you can't compare land battles with each other, nor land battles with naval engagements. According to such a kind of logic one could argue that the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk was a german victory. Such examples are meaningless, and not helpfull at all.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@xwormwood The point is that some (generally Germans) do indulge in corpse-counting where Jutland is compared, rather than accepting that the outcome of the battle was an undoubted British strategic success. Of course you can compare battles, simply by determined who achieved their strategic objectives, and who didn't. Regardless of the level of loss.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Adding to the general consensus here, to win the battle Germany would have had to have damaged the British fleets to the point where the blockade of Germany could not be enforced. The German fleet ran for home, the RN remained in command of the battlefield. Your presenter could have explained how Germany's fleet had prepared to fight the RN in a close blockade, not a distant blockade, hence their attempts to coax the RN out to fight. Your presenter could also have considered that Germany chose to start this arms race.

[@mattbowden4996]

The Germans were engaged in a strategic raid - what these days would be called a shaping engagement - so holding the ground was irrelevant to them. Their objective was to inflict assymetrical losses on the Grand Fleet whilst avoiding getting entangled in a general fleet engagement they could not hope to win. As such, the Germans achieved their operational objectives, but only just and in a manner which they recognised they could not afford to repeat.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@mattbowden4996 excellent summary of German intentions, even if I disagree they achieved what they set out to do.

[@mattbowden4996]

@Simon_Nonymous I'm happy to agree to disagree on that. I'm firmly of the opinion that you can't really answer the question "who won at Jutland?" because both sides achieved their objectives, but neither side was very happy about the manner in which they achieved them.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@mattbowden4996 me too - your last sentence there sums it all up nicely!

[@indigohammer5732]

Strange pronunciation of “Rosyth”.

[@fredericklockard3854]

The battle was won by the Germans. But the tactical victory was, in reality, a strategic loss.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Most battles are decided by more than simply corpse-counting. Do you really think that the tactical 'victors' were the ones who, in reality, fled the battlefield?

[@iansneddon2956]

Having succeeded in not only foiling the German plan but also subjecting the Germans to a battleship pounding they never recovered from was a victory for the RN. The heavier losses for the RN meant this was a costly victory, but a victory they needed to achieve and therefore worth it.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@iansneddon2956 Quite, Scheer knew haw close his fleet had been to a catastrophe, and within days was warning the All Highest that it must not be risked again. Of course, it wasn't.

[@sapphyrus]

Tactical German victory but strategic British victory.

[@jurgenmuller143]

Such a topic in 2024? Does British exceptionalism (or nationalism) need a push to forget the mess Brexit created?

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

It is called 'History.' I can, perhaps, sympathise with someone with your name wishing to forget most of the history of the 20th century, however.

[@RobertPaskulovich-fz1th]

Bismarck won the Battle of the Denmark Strait!

[@iansneddon2956]

But Bismarck was still running away from the RN pursuit by HMS Prince of Wales and two cruisers, having to slip away in the darkness to lose these pursuers. And damage inflicted by Prince of Wales delivered a mission kill to Bismarck, forcing the change in course to France for repairs instead of heading out into the Atlantic in search of convoys.

[@thenovine]

Why are all the measurements given in imperial units? Was this video made in 1916??

[@TinaHollner]

British history is funny: At the battle of Trafalgar, Royal Navy won because the other side lost more men and ships. The Royal Navy also won the battle of Jutland even though they lost the most men and ships :) Standards are good, so double standards are twice as good? :D

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Don't be a fool. The Royal Navy won the Battle of Jutland because after it, the German fleet never dared challenge the Grand Fleet again, but swung peacefully at anchor in the Jade whilst the RN's Northern Patrol systematically starved Germany into revolution, mutiny, and defeat.

[@TinaHollner]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Making your own definitions of a battle does not change the fact that the Battle of Jutland ended the moment the participants stopped shooting and sailed for home. What happened after this moment is not part of the Battle of Jutland but belongs to a part of another history. If Manchester United lost to Liverpool but won the championship, ManU still lost to Liverpool... Following your definition the British Expeditionary Force won the battle for France and Belgium in 1940, even though they fled leaving all their weapons and supplies. Because 5 years later the Allies won the war. Only fools make up their own definitions, so stop doing it!!

[@johnawalker9261]

The H.M.S. Dreadnought, bad grammar.

[@hrvojestanic1791]

The British navy tried to destroy the smaller and weaker German navy, and with that task it set sail, but returned to its ports with a broken and bloody nose. That is the factual situation. The German Navy is the clear winner in that battle. All other interpretations are a sneaky attempt to falsify the outcome of the battle.

[@Justjunniee]

Germany "won" but all they won was a destroyed navy and the continuation of the British blockade

[@iansneddon2956]

@@Justjunniee And they also won the prize behind Door #3: starvation for everyone

[@14rnr]

I've never heard an English person pronounce Jutland correctly.

[@xwormwood]

Because it should sound like Skargerrak? ;)

[@14rnr]

If they learned that J is pronounced as Y in most European languages it would be a start. @@xwormwood

[@craignairn4854]

For me the British, they where ready to fight the next day, the German's where not.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Germany continued fighting until it was betrayed on the Home Front in November 1918.

[@craignairn4854]

@MarkHarrison733 they did but not at the same level, they did not have the men and ships.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

@@craignairn4854 You are wasting your time replying to this notorious troll. He infests the internet with his anti-British one sentence comments.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@dovetonsturdee7033 Germany easily won the Battle of Jutland, and in the process permanently ended the Royal Navy's prestige for all time.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

'THE' HMS Dreadnought? Please try harder!!

[@dumptrump3788]

Who won at Jutland? Well, what were the German war aims from this conflict? 1: Send the High Seas fleet out, without the Royal Navy knowing. 2: Lure the Royal Navy Battlecruiser fleet out to sea & ONLY the Battlecruisers. 3: Surround & destroy the Royal navy Battlecruiser fleet. 4: This would leave the RN Battleships dangerously exposed & would force them to stay in port. 5: This would enable the Germans to lift the Royal Navy blockade of Germany &... 6: The German Imperial Navy would then control the North Sea. The results were 1: The Royal Navy knew the full Imperial Fleet had sailed, 2: The RN sortied with the FULL fleet, not just Battlecruisers, WITHOUT the Germans being aware of this, 3: The RN Battlecruiser fleet was damaged, but not fatally & the Germans also took casualties that were much higher than they'd expected, 4: The RN Grand Fleet were ready to sail the next day, the German Imperial Fleet wasn't & couldn't for months afterwards, 5: The RN naval blockade stayed in place, 6: And the North Sea stayed devoid of German ships. To claim that the Germans "won" at Jutland because they inflicted more damage is to claim that Kursk was a German victory because more Russian troops were killed & more Russian tanks were destroyed......but history shows that Kursk was actually a massive defeat for Germany & the same goes for Jutland. Even the Germans concluded that, after Jutland, "We can't do this again, they'll tear us apart." & the only other time the High Seas fleet sortied they ran away as soon as RN ships were seen & understandably so.

[@mattbowden4996]

This is nonsense. You've concocted a whole set of extra objectives the Germans did not have in order to claim they didn't "win." The German objectives were to inflict asymetrical loses on the Royal Navy whilst avoiding a general fleet engagement. They were not picky about what they destroyed and they did not expect a single action to do enough damage to defeat the Royal Navy in one go. As such, breaking out into the Atlantic, or even lifting the blockade, was never an objective for the Jutland operation. The plan was always to get in, lay down the hurt and then get out again before the entire Grand Flet showed up and inflicted the Wrath of God upon you. Then, with luck, after two or three such successful operations the High Seas Fleet might be in a position to take on the Grand Fleet head to head, lift the blockade and (maybe) send raiders out into the Atlantic. As such, the Germans actually fulfilled their operational objectives, only not in a manner that gave them much confidence the larger plan would work. They did try again in August 1916, but the fact the entire Grand Fleet nearly caught again seems to have finally convinced Scheer that the larger strategic plan was never going to work. However, that doesn't mean the Germans at least partially suceed at Jutland - and if you think the Royal Navy was perfectly happy suffering 2:1 losses in capital ships and men holding back the High Seas Fleet then I have a bridge in London to sell you...

[@iansneddon2956]

@@mattbowden4996 The British public was not happy, but the losses did not threaten Royal Navy dominance.

[@transvestosaurus878]

Russia

[@VersusARCH]

A clear German victory.

[@dovetonsturdee7033]

Was that why the High Seas Fleet spent the rest of the war swinging round anchor chains in the Jade, whilst the Royal Navy maintained a blockade which systematically starved Germany into collapse, revolution and, in the case of the HSF, mutiny? Because of their 'victory' at Jurland?

[@iansneddon2956]

Just like that clear American victory in the Vietnam war since they only lost 58,281 personnel while North Vietnam and the Viet Cong lost over 1 million. Keeping Vietnam safe from Communism to this day.