Good afternoon. Please write an essay with full citations on one of the following topics:


f) Please compare the Sampson-Schley controversy, the Beatty-Jellicoe controversy of the Battle of Jutland, and the controversy between Kinkaid and Halsey over Bull's Run at the Battle of Leyte Gulf.


The Sampson-Schley controversy, the Beatty-Jellicoe controversy of the Battle of Jutland, and the controversy between Kinkaid and Halsey over Bull's Run at the Battle of Leyte Gulf are three examples of naval disputes that arose from different interpretations of command responsibility, tactical decisions, and operational outcomes in major naval engagements. In this essay, I will compare and contrast these three controversies in terms of their causes, consequences, and resolutions.


The Sampson-Schley controversy was a dispute between two American naval commanders, Rear Admiral William T. Sampson and Commodore Winfield Scott Schley, over who deserved credit for the victory over the Spanish fleet at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba on July 3, 1898, during the Spanish-American War. The controversy stemmed from the fact that Sampson was the overall commander of the North Atlantic Squadron, but he was absent from the scene of action when Schley engaged and destroyed the Spanish ships that attempted to escape from Santiago harbor. Sampson claimed that he had given Schley orders to blockade the harbor and prevent the Spanish escape, while Schley argued that he had acted on his own initiative and judgment. The controversy also involved accusations of cowardice, insubordination, and incompetence on both sides. The controversy had political implications, as Schley was supported by some influential politicians and newspapers who wanted to use him as a war hero and a presidential candidate. The controversy was resolved by a court of inquiry in 1901, which exonerated both officers but gave more credit to Schley than to Sampson. However, the controversy remained a source of bitterness and division among naval officers and historians for decades. [1] [2]


The Beatty-Jellicoe controversy was a dispute between two British naval commanders, Vice Admiral David Beatty and Admiral John Jellicoe, over their conduct and performance at the Battle of Jutland on May 31-June 1, 1916, during World War I. The controversy stemmed from the fact that Beatty was the commander of the Battlecruiser Fleet, which engaged the German High Seas Fleet first and suffered heavy losses, while Jellicoe was the commander of the Grand Fleet, which arrived later and fought a cautious and inconclusive battle with the Germans. Beatty blamed Jellicoe for failing to pursue and destroy the German fleet when it retreated, while Jellicoe defended his decision to avoid a night action that could have exposed his fleet to torpedo attacks. The controversy also involved criticisms of Beatty's aggressive tactics, poor signaling, and faulty gunnery, as well as Jellicoe's conservative strategy, slow reactions, and lack of initiative. The controversy had strategic implications, as Jellicoe was criticized for missing an opportunity to end the German naval threat and secure British maritime supremacy. The controversy was resolved by a series of official inquiries and reports that cleared both officers of any serious errors or misconduct but did not settle the debate over who was more responsible for the outcome of the battle. The controversy remained a source of controversy and debate among naval officers and historians for years. [3] [4]


The controversy between Kinkaid and Halsey over Bull's Run was a dispute between two American naval commanders, Vice Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid and Admiral William F. Halsey Jr., over their actions and decisions at the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 23-26, 1944, during World War II. The controversy stemmed from the fact that Kinkaid was the commander of the Seventh Fleet, which was assigned to support the landing of American troops on Leyte Island in the Philippines, while Halsey was

the commander of the Third Fleet, which was assigned to cover and protect Kinkaid's forces from any Japanese interference. However, Halsey was lured away by a decoy Japanese carrier force that threatened his northern flank, leaving Kinkaid's forces exposed to a surprise attack by a powerful Japanese surface force that came through San Bernardino Strait. Kinkaid accused Halsey of abandoning him and failing to follow his orders to guard San Bernardino Strait, while Halsey argued that he had acted according to his own discretion and judgment based on his superior intelligence and situation awareness. The controversy also involved questions of communication breakdowns, command confusion, tactical blunders, and operational successes on both sides. The controversy had operational implications, as Kinkaid's forces were nearly overwhelmed by the Japanese attack but managed to hold their ground with heroic resistance by escort carriers and destroyers (known as "Taffy 3"), while Halsey's forces missed a chance to destroy most of the Japanese carrier air power but managed to sink most of their battleships (known as "Bull's Run"). The controversy was resolved by an official investigation that exonerated both officers but criticized Halsey for his poor judgment and communication. However, the controversy remained a source of resentment and debate among naval officers and historians for years. [5] [6]


In conclusion, these three naval controversies share some common features but also have some distinct differences. They all involve disputes over command responsibility, tactical decisions, and operational outcomes in major naval engagements that had significant political and strategic implications. They all resulted from different interpretations of orders, signals, intelligence reports,

and situational factors by different commanders with different personalities,

styles,

and objectives.

They all were resolved by official inquiries or reports that cleared both parties but did not satisfy everyone or end

the debate.

However,

they also differ in some aspects,

such as

the nature

and scale

of

the engagements,

the causes

and consequences

of

the disputes,

and

the degree

and duration

of

the bitterness

and division

they generated.

These naval controversies illustrate

the complexity

and difficulty

of

naval warfare,

as well as

the human factors

that influence

its conduct

and outcome.


References:


[1] https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/sampson-schley-controversy.html


[2] https://www.britannica.com/event/Sampson-Schley-controversy


[3] https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/battle-of-jutland-1916-who-won-why-important-facts/


[4] https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Jutland


[5] https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/b/bull-halsey.html


[6] https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Leyte-Gulf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 A showdown battle is a term that can have different meanings depending on the context. In poker, a showdown battle is the placing of poker hands faceup on the table to determine the winner of a pot. In other situations, a showdown battle can refer to a decisive confrontation or contest between two or more parties that will finally settle a disagreement or a challenge  . For example, a showdown battle can be an important game or competition in sports, a political clash between opposing factions, or a military engagement between rival forces. Showdown battles are often tense, dramatic, and unpredictable, as they can result in victory or defeat for the participants.
Read more
 The Samnites were a confederation of tribes who lived in the mountainous region of central and southern Italy, known as Samnium. They spoke an Oscan language and were closely related to the Campanians, who had migrated from Samnium to the fertile plains of Campania. The Samnites were fierce warriors who often clashed with their neighbours, especially the Romans, who sought to expand their territory and influence in Italy. The Samnites and the Romans fought three wars between 343 and 290 BC, which are known as the Samnite Wars. The first war started when the Campanians asked Rome for protection against a Samnite attack. The Romans agreed and sent an embassy to the Samnites, demanding that they leave Campania alone. The Samnites refused and the war began. The war ended in 341 BC with a peace treaty that restored the status quo, but gave Rome control of Campania. The second war, also called the Great Samnite War, broke out in 326 BC when Rome tried to colonize Fregellae, a town on th...
Read more
 One of the key factors that influenced the outcome of the American Revolutionary War was the British strategy of dividing and conquering the colonies. The main architects of this strategy were General John Burgoyne and General Henry Clinton, who had different views on how to achieve this goal. Burgoyne favored a direct and aggressive approach, while Clinton preferred a more cautious and flexible one. In this essay, I will examine how the war might have turned out differently if either Burgoyne or Clinton had had control of British strategy during the conflict. Burgoyne's plan was to lead an army from Canada southward along the Hudson River, cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies. He hoped to meet up with another army under Clinton, who was supposed to advance northward from New York City. However, Clinton was reluctant to abandon his base and expose himself to a possible attack from Washington's army. He also had orders from London to send troops to the south, w...
Read more