Why did Germany lose the Battle of Jutland and why was Admiral Jellicoe vilified by the British public despite him winning the battle for them?
>>1244278
Germany "lost" because their fleet was blockaded for the rest of the war... which was the goal of GB. Germany wanted to engage and defeat the British fleet. That didn't happen. Plus they retreated back to base rather than pushing forward.
Jellicoe was the scapegoat because he decided to break off the engagement (not knowing the Germans were retreating) and sail back home. He'd lost more ships and men and England was embarrassed by that fact.
>>1244278
Germany got knocked down and couldn't get back up. Jellicoe was just a convenient scapegoat for failure or anything that is not total success.
>Germany lost at Jutland
>>1244278
Neither side "lost" Jutland, but it was a strategic victory for Britain and a tactical victory for the Germans.
>>1246971
>it was a strategic victory for Britain and a tactical victory for the Germans.
What do you mean, how so?
>>1246994
The German's won the battle because they inflicted more damage. At the same time the battle caused them to realize that even winning more battles at that rate would cause them to lose their navy while the British would still have plenty to spare. It essentially guaranteed that the German navy wouldn't be willing to commit to any more large engagements, and allowed the British fleet to control the waters from that point.
>>1247066
A tactical victory doesn't mean you inflict more damage. Germany still lost because they gave up their position against the British as they turned away from the final torpedo volley.
>>1247071
So what you're saying is that if Germany destroyed every British ship then decided to sail away it would be a tactical loss?
>>1244278
The battle was considered a victory from both sides. Germany boasted a military victory as it destroyed more ships and killed more sailors overall. Britain boasted a strategic victory as the German navy's break out attempt was stifled and they remained under blockade for the rest of the war. Obviously the strategic victory was far more important than loss of life in battle however this was not apparent to the British people. At this point British naval supremacy was the biggest propaganda peice the British had and the people believed it. The idea that a British fleet off of the British coast would lose so many ships to a smaller, inferior force was unimaginable. People wanted blood and Jellicoe was the easiest to blame. In actual fact it was ammunition overstocking, battle cruiser design and poor tactics that lost so many ships and sailors.
If you want it in economic terms, Germany had the comparative advantage, but England had the absolute advantage.
If the scenario repeated endlessly, Germany would win on percents and efficiency, but England would still ultimately win in raw numbers. Like how England has a far larger GDP than Ireland, but Ireland has a higher GDP per capita.
>western simpletons dont understand what a draw means
>>1247144
>draw
>forced one navy to sit out the war and gave the other near uncontested control of the seas
this board is a joke
>>1247099
No. In naval war the point isn't to hold a position but to hold the enemy off of it. If the British had no more ships there would be no point in sticking around because it's not like they're going to pop back out of the water. If the enemy retreats you've pretty much succeeded and can be safe in the newfound prospect of turning back because they probably won't be coming back for another round in that state.
