One, the H.M.S. Hood, was the epitome of Royal naval power, the symbol of the British Empire and supposedly the mightiest ship of her age. The other was Bismarck, the epitome of Nazi strength, the symbol of the new and rising German Reich and supposedly the most modern ship of her age. They embodied two very different empires, the former old and supposedly venerable, the latter young and hungry, but they were epicenters of thought and fervour. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that their ensuing combat should have become the most famous naval battle of the Second World War.
Both had similarities in use and function: they were physically and psychologically dominant ships, meant to not only defeat other craft in combat but to create fear and loyalty by their very presence. Both fed pride and spirit by chaffing against treaties, the Hood acting as a smoothing agent for the Washington Treaty and the Bismarck smashing the treaties of both Versailles and London. The ships were also affected by the aftermath of Jutland and the Great War over twenty years before: the Hood directly with changes to her design and the Bismarck indirectly, as the release of a twenty-year anger. But more than anything, Hood and Bismarck were flagships with the same message, that of supreme strength and imperial glory.
There are, of course, differences. The Bismarck hadn't been built specifically to face the British, while the Hood's main enemy had rarely been Germany. The latter's creation had certainly been stimulated by war with Germany - although plans for larger battlecruisers already existed - and the Hood's final form was a reaction to British failures at Jutland and a growing emphasis on submarines. However, the German navy was relegated to a sideshow in the 1920's, while Hood became a beacon of Britannic might in opposition to America, Japan and Russia. It was only during the thirties that the resurgent Nazi navy became a threat, and Hood once again faced German might. In addition, The Bismarck's proposed spheres of influence were the North Sea and the Baltic, key areas in the idealised German euro-empire. Germany did not, at least until after the Bismarck's destruction, intend to challenge the British empire.
Nevertheless, Rheinübung changed the naval world. The icon of British Empire was shattered and the biggest symbol of the Nazi Reich dragged down to destruction. Commentators have found it awfully tempting to forge a new symbolism from this clash, remarking how Bismarck's defeat by overwhelming force reflected the destruction of the Third Reich, while the creaking, out of date Hood was shattered by modern weapons just as the empire she represented was broken by modernity.
Are such comparisons helpful? Certainly not for historians, for they mask the complexity of Nazi defeat and the demise of colonialism, but they are excellent signs of the resonance and multi-layered context present during the collapse of Rheinübung. For instance, May 24th 1941 has been called the German Navy's finest day, for not only did she sink the Hood, but she did it on what was, throughout the Commonwealth, 'Empire Day'. The pride of the British fleet was destroyed on her proudest day. Only by understanding the full meaning attached to Hood and Bismarck can readers understand the contemporary reactions to the battle, the elation of the German navy at Hood's destruction and the fury behind the sinking of the Bismarck.
