Tarnishing victory? Contested histories & civil–military discord in the U.S. Navy, 1919–24
Branden Little
Defense & Security Analysis, 2020, vol. 36, issue 1, 1-29
Abstract:
As the First World War came to an end, the U.S. Navy's leadership engaged in a bitter fight over the “lessons” of the war. Admiral William S. Sims and Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels fought against each other's irreconcilable positions. Sims argued that the Navy Department's inexpert civilian secretary had hamstrung mobilisation, impeded the anti-submarine campaign, and ostracised capable officers in favour of friends upon whom he bestowed medals. Daniels countered that his administration had masterfully responded to the crisis of war. The Navy's record, Daniels insisted, could best be summarised as “a great job greatly done.” Only disloyal nit-pickers could find fault in its accomplishments. The Sims-Daniels controversy raged in congressional hearings, the press, and in partisan histories written by the protagonists. The heart of the dispute and its uncertain resolution rested in radically different understandings of American civil–military relations, naval heroism, and the determinants of victory.
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14751798.2020.1712021 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cdanxx:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:1-29
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CDAN20
DOI: 10.1080/14751798.2020.1712021
Access Statistics for this article
Defense & Security Analysis is currently edited by Martin Edmonds
More articles in Defense & Security Analysis from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().