Various explanations have been offered for the failure to bring the Goeben to action after the declaration of war, and every telegram sent by the Admiralty was searched to find phrases which could justify or palliate what had occurred. For instance, it was pleaded that the sentence in the Admiralty telegram to the Commander-in-Chief of July 30, ‘Do not at this stage be brought to action against superior forces except in combination with the French as part of a general battle,’ justified Admiral Troubridge in refraining from attacking the Goeben with his four armoured cruisers. On this it may be observed that this sentence is clearly shown by the context to refer to the Austrian Fleet against whose battleships it was not desirable that our three battle cruisers should be engaged without battleship support. Secondly it was contained in a telegram giving the Commander-in-Chief general directions for the strategic conduct of the naval campaign in the Mediterranean. It was not intended by the Admiralty to govern tactical action. The words, however, acquired a more particular significance when they were repeated—as they were—by the Commander-in-Chief to his subordinate Admiral Troubridge. But even so it ought not to have been treated as a veto upon British ships ever engaging superior forces however needful the occasion. This was an unreasonable reading of the Admiralty instructions. On such a reading both the Gloucester and the Dublin were guilty of disobedience. On such a reading, pedantically construed, no individual British ship in the Mediterranean would have been allowed to fight a vessel stronger by a single gun. Nobody ever honestly supposed that such doctrines were being laid down by the Admiralty. Moreover, the self-same telegram specifically emphasised the importance of bringing the Goeben to action and singled out that vessel particularly among all the hostile forces in the Mediterranean. No such conception of his duty was taken by either of the Captains Kelly. Nor was it the view of Sir Berkeley Milne himself; for he disapproved strongly of Admiral Troubridge’s abandonment of the chase.
Again it has been urged that the sentence, ‘Your first task should be to aid the French in the transportation of their African army,’ imposed upon Sir Berkeley Milne the duty of placing all three of his battle cruisers west of Sicily. Thus wrested from their context and from the whole series of Admiralty telegrams, these directions have been made to serve as an explanation. Against them must be read the full text. On July 30, ‘Your first task should be to aid the French in the transportation of their African army by covering and if possible bringing to action individual fast German ships, particularly “Goeben.”‘[[40]] And again, on August 2, ‘Goeben must be shadowed by two battle cruisers.’ And again on August 3, ‘Goeben is your objective. Follow her and shadow her wherever she goes, and be ready to act on declaration of war, which appears probable and imminent.’ And again on August 4, ‘Good. Hold her. War imminent.’
Certainly if the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean had in reliance upon these dominant and reiterated instructions managed to put one battle cruiser each side of the Straits of Messina, instead of all on one side, and if in consequence he had brought the Goeben to action, as would have been inevitable, and if he had thus protected the French transports in the most effectual manner by fighting the Goeben, no one could have found fault with him on the score that he had exceeded his orders.
The reader is now in a position to form his own judgment on this affair. I have indicated plainly the point on which the Admiralty was in fault, namely, in not spontaneously lifting the prohibition to enter Italian waters the moment we learned the Goeben was at Messina. The conduct of Rear-Admiral Troubridge was subsequently investigated by a Court of Inquiry composed of the three Commanders-in-Chief of Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham. As the result of their report, he was tried by court-martial at Portland in September and honourably acquitted of all blame. His career in the Navy was, however, at an end, the general feeling of the Service not accepting the view that the four armoured cruisers and other vessels at his disposal ought not to have fought the Goeben. In view of his acquittal he was appointed to take charge of the naval guns which we sent with a mission to Serbia. In this capacity his work was distinguished and successful. He gained the confidence and respect of the Serbians and their Government, and he proved on numerous occasions that whatever might be thought of his reasons for not attacking the Goeben, want of personal courage was not among them.
After studying the reports of Sir Berkeley Milne and other officers concerned, the First Sea Lord recorded the opinion that Admiral Milne had taken the best measures with the force at his disposal, that his dispositions were the proper ones, and that they were successful inasmuch as they prevented the Germans from carrying out their primary rôle of interrupting French troops crossing from Africa. On this I find that my sole comment was (August 27): ‘The explanation is satisfactory; the result unsatisfactory.’ Thereafter on August 30, 1914, the Admiralty issued a statement that: ‘The conduct and dispositions of Sir Berkeley Milne in regard to the German vessels Goeben and Breslau have been the subject of the careful examination of the Board of Admiralty with the result that their Lordships have approved the measures taken by him in all respects.’
In all this story of the escape of the Goeben one seems to see the influence of that sinister fatality which at a later stage and on a far larger scale was to dog the enterprise against the Dardanelles. The terrible ‘Ifs’ accumulate. If my first thoughts on July 27 of sending the New Zealand to the Mediterranean had materialised; if we could have opened fire on the Goeben during the afternoon of August 4; if we had been less solicitous for Italian neutrality; if Sir Berkeley Milne had sent the Indomitable to coal at Malta instead of Biserta; if the Admiralty had sent him direct instructions when on the night of the 5th they learned where the Goeben was; if Rear-Admiral Troubridge in the small hours of August 7 had not changed his mind; if the Dublin and her two destroyers had intercepted the enemy during the night of the 6th–7th—the story of the Goeben would have ended here. There was, however, as it turned out, one more chance of annulling the doom of which she was the bearer. That chance, remote though it was, the Fates were vigilant to destroy.
[Click anywhere on map for high resolution image.]
EXPLANATION
M MILNE WITH TWO BATTLE-CRUISERS, TWO LIGHT CRUISERS. T TROUBRIDGE WITH FOUR ARMOURED CRUISERS, EIGHT DESTROYERS. D LIGHT CRUISER DUBLIN AND TWO DESTROYERS JOINING TROUBRIDGE. G GOEBEN AND BRESLAU SHADOWED BY GLOUCESTER. X POSITIONS AT MIDNIGHT, AUGUST 6TH–7TH.