BS: The Siege of Sydney Street

Subject: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: GUEST,Martin
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:55 AM

Read recently that "Peter the Painter" escaped during the siege and was never caught. Great story if like me you have only been introduced to it. Winston Churchill, who took charge of it, later referred to it as a police failure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:22 AM

That's Sidney St.


http://www.eastlondonhistory.com/sidney%20street%20siege.htm

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:52 AM

Who was Peter the Painter ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:04 AM

An anarchist, and possibly a Mudcat Guest too!
G

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:43 AM

The Sidney Street Siege was one of the most notorious confrontations in East End criminal history - an affair wrapped in myth and confusion, it prompted the ill-advised intervention of a publicity-hungry Winston Churchill.

And it was to give rise to no less than three feature films: two by East London's own master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock; a third starring sixties cult TV hero Peter Wyngarde as the mysterious Peter the Painter.

The build up to the dramatic events of 3 January 1911 had begun nearly three weeks before, when PC Piper knocked on the door of 11 Exchange Buildings in Houndsditch. Banging and tunnelling noises had been reported by neighbours. The constable couldn't have expected what lay inside. A gang had been steadily tunnelling through to a neighbouring jeweller's shop. Caught in the act they decided to shoot their way out, leaving Sgts Bryant and Tucker and Constable Choat lying dead.

The gang escaped, though one of their number, George Gardstein, was badly wounded. Amazingly, other members managed to drag him half a mile through the night-time streets of Whitchapel to their lodgings in Grove Street. A Dr Scanlon was called, and told the gang that Gardstein needed urgent hospital treatment. Unsurprisingly they refused. The doctor then left and immediately phoned the police.

It was midnight by the time the police got to Grove Street, and a story began to emerge which was much stranger than a mere failed burglary.

Along with the body of the now-dead Gardstein, they found a room filled with guns, ammunition and anarchist revolutionary literature. They quickly learned that the robbery had been designed to raise funds for a group of Russian and Latvian anarchists, aiming to fuel revolution in Russia.

But if the anarchists were stunningly inept, the police didn't perform much better. They failed to find any proof that the five they had arrested had fired the fatal shots. Worse, they knew that the key figures in the robbery had slipped through their fingers. Fritz Svaars and Joseph Marx, along with the shadowy figure of Peter Piatkow (Peter the Painter) were hiding somewhere in the East End. The problem was that the Eastern Europeans who lived in the area were saying nothing. Their experiences of police were coloured by the bullying and brutality they had experienced back in the pogroms of Russia and Latvia. And with feelings running high against their countrymen they were scared of reprisals; they closed ranks.

But on 2 January 1911, the police got a tip off that Svaars and Marx were hiding at 100 Sidney Street. Once again the Met's approach was bizarrely naïve. As the gang were armed and dangerous, only unmarried officers were call up for the raid. But the same officers were then armed with single-shot rifles fitted with .22 calibre practice rounds, as well as revolvers and shotguns. It was a fatal error - the revolutionaries had Mauser semi-automatics, high velocity and quick and easy to reload. Then, in a misguided show of fairplay, Sergeant Ben Leeson was sent to throw pebbles at the windows of No 100, to attract the anarchists' attention and invite them to surrender. The response was a hail of fire, and Leeson was hit twice.

More firepower now arrived in the shape of Scots Guards from the Tower of London. Home Secretary Winston Churchill also arrived. Soon after, flames were seen from the building. Along came the Fire Brigade, but they were forbidden by Churchill to extinguish the blaze. Churchill was later criticised for his dramatic intervention.

Two bodies were discovered inside the house, one on the first floor where he had been shot, and the other on the ground floor where he had been overcome by smoke. An unfortunate neighbour was killed by a collapsing wall.

Two decades later, Alfred Hitchcock was to use the siege for the climax of his 1934 film The Man Who Knew Too Much. A dark and creepy Wapping is the scene for the anarchists' showdown, featuring the suitably sinister Peter Lorre. 22 years later, Hitchcock remade the movie in starring James Stewart and Doris Day - losing the eerie East End climax along the way.

But the 1960 film The Siege of Sidney Street (cranked up a notch for the US as Siege on Hell Street) was much closer to home. Though much fictionalised, with Donald Sinden as an undercover police inspector, it offers its own, highly speculative view of Peter the Painter's escape (assuming he was ever in the house at all). But the film of police and troops on the East End streets are remarkably similar to photographs of the siege, though by 1960, the producers had to use Dublin locations - No 100 Sidney Street was long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:44 AM

The above is from
here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:50 AM

I thought I'd already posted that!

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:57 AM

Pardon me all to Hell and back. Sorry. If a clone wants to remove my post, please do with my blessing.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:58 AM

They certainly look the same, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:06 AM

"Wapping is the scene for the anarchists' showdown,"

Does anyone know if this is a reviewer's mistake or did Hitchcock move the setting southwards from Stepney for the sake of atmosphere?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:21 AM

After the siege grandad fled to Weston Super Mare where he married a local girl, opened an amusement arcade and lived quietly for the rest of his life. There were three children, the youngest my mother, whose two brothers died in WW2. After the war and when dad, grandma and grandad were dead, mum sold the arcade and we moved up to London where I still live, working in the City. I'm a member of a major political party and hope soon to win a seat and enter Parliament. I think that grandad would be pleased that my party's policies in many ways reflect his own views.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:59 AM

Peter the Painter was the name given to the Mauser C96 pistol which this guy favoured. I have a beautiful example of one in my own collection.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:05 AM

All that remains is for Ken Loach and/or Neil Jordan to direct an excellent film about them, win the Golden Bumhole at Cannes, then straight

Subtext: The English are complete bastards - particularly the brutal way the policeman knocked on that door.
Most moving scene: Julia Roberts and Stephen Rea spontaneously sing The Internationale over their dead comrades

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 11:48 AM

Well i know history is rewritten, but i understood that the battle of sydney street, was about something quite different.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 12:02 PM

As far as I know they were anarchists, there was a great black and white film made about it in the early sixties, would like to see it again if anyone has a copy ? (beg, beg)

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:09 PM

You dont want to be believing what is on the computer.Go to the east end of london and ask people over sixty five and you will get the real story.what you have read is Codswallop.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 01:12 PM

Would you be kind enough to elaborate, CB?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 03:11 PM

Dick,

Are you confusing it with the Battle of Cable Street which was a few hundred yards to the south? There's a lot of codswallop written about that one, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:30 PM

Doubt anyone from the East End would be alive to remember the events of Sidney Street.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 07:57 PM

My grandma remembered it, mind you she died in 1960. However, she told me a lot of stuff - not about Sydney Street, you understand. but there could be someone around whose Grandad or Grandma told them about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 08:13 PM

Long time ago now Al.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: The Walrus
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 08:15 PM

I did hear one tale that, during the "seige" a man came round selling sandwiches to the police and various 'civilians attached'.
I was only later that they learned that he was the local cats' meat seller.

Friend-of-a-friend/man in a pub? It must be true!

W

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 08:29 PM

I heard that the leader of this gang escaped once the buildings went on fire and was never caught, the rest of the gang died there. About this Peter the painter name, was he an artist or did he just whitewash the odd ceiling ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 02:04 AM

He took his name from an earlier anrchist hanged for arson in Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 04:00 AM

he liked to identify with one of life's winners....I know the feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 06:41 AM

Apolgies , the anarchist bit is correct, but Winston Churchills role seems to me to have been air brushed,from what I was told by people who were alive at the time,he was quite unconcerned whether innocent bystanders were injured or killed.The same attitude he used when employing the black and tans in Ireland.I still think that history from the mouths of the people,is more accurate than what is often found in the history books. In French History books and in English history books, the same war was one by both sides. to quote Henry Ford, history is bunk.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 03:52 AM

History is written by the winners and the sycophantic propaganda merchants of the time. Winnie went on to get Britain out of its' darkest hours... using the same 'win at any costs' method. We don't like to bad-mouth the man who single-handedly won the war for us, so anything slightly less heroic that he may have done in his youth, is glossed over. These days, as in the recent 'Forest Gate' incident, he would have been vilified in the press and probably forced to resign.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Micca
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 07:22 AM

Glossed over Liz, your right, wasnt he responsible for the Dardanelles campaign in the First World War? which I think was a much bigger disaster than Sydney St.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 07:47 AM

Yes that's him. He also told the troops to open fire on striking miners.
Lovely man.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 08:04 AM

This reminds me of a story, When I was about 8 years old my grandfather, my brother and I were sitting having lunch one day, When the conversation turned to Winston Churchill, whenever my father talked about him he referred to him as that bas....so in my innocence, I repeated the phrase, not knowing that my Grandad thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. My Grandfather looked like Alf Garnett and was about as reactionary.anyway he picked me up by the scruff of the neck ,and hauled me outside, and said dont ever use bad language, and dont ever talk about that great man like that. Needless to say I was confused, but im not now .

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: GUEST,Barrie Roberts
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:43 PM

Peter the Painter is said to have been so nicknamed because he was an artist who painted scenery for Anarchist plays.
Research in the 1990s suggested that. if he ever was at Sydney Street. he escaped ans made it to Russia. He is reputed to have been a Soviet artist called Gederts Eliass who died in the USSR about 1952

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 04:03 PM

My mate's grandad, whenever the subject of Winston Churchill came up usually finished a series of expletives with "an' 'e couldn't even catch Peter the Painter!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 13 Jul 06 - 04:31 PM

Another perspective, and one that probably more accurately descibes Churchills actions that day.

A call went out for troops from the Tower of London - a call that reached Home Secretary Churchill in his morning bath. Dripping wet, Churchill hurried to the telephone and granted permission to use whatever force was necessary. Once dressed, he went to the Home Office for more news, but found little.

"In these circumstances," wrote Churchill later, "I thought it my duty to see what was going on myself, and my advisers concurred in the propriety of such a step. I must, however, admit that convictions of duty were supported by a strong sense of curiosity which perhaps it would have been well to keep in check."

On to Sidney Street be went! Crowds had gathered behind the cordon lines by the time WSC arrived. There were several cries of "'Oo let 'em in?" referring to the Liberal Government's lenient immigration policies. Churchill's party made its way to the neighborhood of the besieged house, where the Home Secretary, wearing a top hat and fur-collared overcoat, viewed the action.

The gunfire continued its fierce reverberations. A company of Scots Guards from the Town occupied a building behind #100 and riddled the upper floors of the house with bullets. Amazingly, but in good British fashion, everyday life went on as normal nearby, and a postman actually made his rounds a few houses away.

Churchill now found himself in an embarrassing position. He had no wish to assume personal command of operations at the scene, but his high office inevitably attracted responsibility. "I saw now," he wrote, "that I should have done better to have remained quietly in my office. On the other hand, it was impossible to get into one's car and drive away while matters stood in such great uncertainty, and moreover were extremely interesting."

As usual, Churchill was full of ideas. He suggested dragging up heavy artillery batteries; or storming the house from several directions simultaneously; or advancing up the staircase behind a steel shield. A search for such a shield was begun in nearby foundries. An unexpected solution, however, soon presented itself. Wisps of smoke began drifting from the upper windows, and soon the top floor was ablaze. Slowly the conflagration made its way down to the lower levels, driving the gunmen before it.

The presence of the Home Secretary now became very useful. A fire brigade, determined to do its duty as it saw it, rushed up to the police barricades and demanded to be allowed through to extinguish the flames. The police refused to accommodate them, and a heated argument ensued. Churchill intervened and forbade the fire brigade to approach the house. But he enjoined them to stand by should the fire threaten to spread to adjacent buildings.

The crisis, however, was now past. The fire engulfed the ground floor, the ceiling and upper floors collapsed, and the existence of life in what was left of the building clearly became impossible. Scores of guns were trained on the front door, which never opened. At last, the police lines dissolved, the fire brigade was unleashed, and the Home Secretary went home. The charred bodies of Svaars and Joseph were recovered.

Over the next several weeks, Churchill was hooted and jeered for the personal part he took in the Siege. In Parliament, Arthur Balfour said: "We are concerned to observe photographs in the illustrated newspapers of the Home Secretary in the danger-zone. I understand what the photographer was doing, but why the Home Secretary?"

Did Churchill act improperly in going to the scene? Churchill himself afterwards believed so, and called Balfour's comment "not altogether unjust." Rumbelow indicates agreement without discussing the question at any length. They are probably right, on the general principle that those in high command should remain at the nerve centers of control and communication rather than direct events at the front. In this instance, however, certainly no great harm was done by Churchill's appearance at Sidney Street, and he may have saved the lives of several.

His motives need particular exoneration. He was accused at the time of grandstanding, or "playing to the gallery." Certainly Churchill never lacked a sense of the dramatic. His impulse, though, was not one of publicity but rather a strong, genuine curiosity and desire to see the action firsthand. Though still young, he was an old campaigner and war correspondent. After more than a decade away from fields of martial strife, he must have found the attraction of a gunbattle in the heart of London irresistible. It is delightful to observe that the same impulse nearly prompted him many years later to accompany Allied liberating forces across the Channel on D-Day, an action from which he was barely dissuaded only at the last moment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:56 AM

Churchill and the Dardenelles disaster:   I don't claim to be an authority, but I've read that the disaster need never have occurred if Churchill had had his way and the Straits had been forced. Once Constantinople had been taken--and there was already panic in the city--Gallipoli could not have been fortified by the Turks.

Kitchener told Ian Hamilton "If the Fleet gets through, Constantinople will fall of itself and you will have won, not a battle, but the war."

The reason it didn't happen was that after losing a ship to mines and 3 others crippled on 18 March 1915, First Sea Lord Fisher and Admiral Jackson insisted on clearing the Gallipoli peninsula of enemy artillery before proceeding.


Also, regarding Gallipoli, Churchill had wanted to send out the 29th Division and the Australians and New Zealanders in February. This was vetoed by Kitchener. The landing by Hamilton didn't happen til April--after the Turks had that time to prepare.





A Turkish colonel had supervised laying a string of 20 mines parallel to the Asian bank of the Dardanelles. British minesweepers had missed them--but even so the Allied warships still had an 8,000 yard wide channel to maneuver in--though they of course did not know this. DeRobeck's ships were hit since they sailed too close to shore.

Even after this, Fisher first said he would continue the naval campaign through the Narrows--but then changed his mind. He feared more mines and did not know the Turkish forts were virtually out of shells.

So, after a crucial delay, the disastrous Gallipoli campaign started--but it may well have been totally unnecessary--the ships could have continued on to Constantinople, whose 2 arsenals could be destroyed from the water.




Anybody have anything to deny or confirm this?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 12:37 PM

They also made the unpardonable mistake of getting on the beaches and stopping the advance. Supplies were brought in and refreshments were served before they made an advance against a very weak force. The Turks took this advantage to fortify the high ground and bring in their reserves, who then slaughtered the British during the advance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 12:38 PM

Forgot to add: Not what Churchill wanted at all..

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:30 PM

Actually three battleships were sunk (Irresistable, Ocean and the French Bouvet) as well as heavy damage to others. Ships could not engage the forts from a close enough range because of the minefields and the (civilian) trawler crews could not sweep the mines because of the smaller guns. Of course de Roebuck didn't know there were only 20 mines. He must have thought there could be mines all the way.

So I think it's fair to credit the Turkish defenders with knowing their job more than crediting Winston Churchill who, as usual, was trying to tell everybody else how to do theirs.

You're right about failure to advance at Suvla Bay, though, Dave - much more correct than Eric Bogle! 'The Turks they were ready...' No they weren't! And the Aussie telling the story must have got to the wrong place - the Aussies were at Anzac Cove! Actually it might have been better if the Aussies were there - they had a much better commander than the useless General Stopford.

I must admit I've little time for Churchill. He betrayed his political party (twice), brought back the idiot 'Jacky' Fisher in the First World War, destroyed the British economy, opposed self-determination for India, insisted in trying to support Norway in the Second World War when everyone told him it was useless (it was) and generally acted like the stuck-up overbearing bully that he was. And he couldn't even catch Peter the Painter!

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 03:59 PM

Les, I don't think i've ever heard Jackie Fisher as being regarded an idiot, he was a great supporter of modernising the Royal Navy. His support for new technology helped make important changes to Britain's naval forces.

Churchill's reason for not supporting self-determination for India was because he knew that eventual split of power between Nehru and Jinnah would lead to division of India. He could foresee the religious differences would never work, and he knew Jinnah would never agree to establishing one India. Churchill made comment on the cost in human lives of such a civil war and he was ultimately proved right.

Again another perspective. Great men are human beings and as such have their faults, but Churchill was never the less the only man for the job in 1939. If you make allowances for his upbringing and social standing in the time period he lived, he was a very caring human being. He was an avid supporter of social insurance, and was very instrumental in supporting the introduction of pensions for workers. I recommend reading "A Thread In The Tapestry" by his daughter Sarah. There is no end of criticism levied against him and as he always opined "I have always benefited from criticism and seldom recall a time I was ever short of it"

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 05:11 PM

Well Jacky Fisher had good and bad points. Unfortunately he was one of the few who didn't know this.

His battle cruisers were fine if they didn't come near any other ships armed with similarly large guns. But they did, with disastrous consequences.

HMS Swift (1908) was his idea. This was a very large destroyer designed for about 36 knots (Fisher claimed 38). Twice the size of contemporary destroyers, it was almost all engine! It was a very expensive way of getting 4-4" guns and 2-18" torpedo tubes into battle.

When Churchill brought him back he started with his battle cruisers again (Renown and Repulse) with only 6 inch main belt armour! Then came Glorious, Courageous and Furious which he called 'large light cruisers' as he wasn't allowed any more battle cruisers. Very large at 18,000 tons! They were known as Spurious, Outrageous and Curious by the poor chaps who had to man them.

And when he thought that the Germans had fast 'fleet' submarines he had to have faster ones. The only to get the speed he wanted at the time was by using steam propulsion and that lead to the disastrous K class, possibly the most ill-fated class of ships ever.

Like Fisher, Churchill was a keen self-publicist. But I'm not decrying that they both did some good. They both had plenty of energy when energy was important to have. And Churchill could put over a good speech (even if he didn't write them, and that much of his books). The UK needed a figurehead in WW2 and he did the job ideally. But I can't help thinking that he is remembered as a 'great man' because he so often told people that he was. He still couldn't understand why the electorate rejected him so emphatically after the war was over. And he still couldn't catch Peter the Painter!

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:42 PM

Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A Macdonald, has also been the subject of much controversy. He had the NWMP (Northwest Mounted Police) and damned near every other person in Canada looking fo Louis Riel who was causing lotsa trouble in what is now southern Manitoba. However, Sir John A didn't really want Riel caught because that would have forced a trail and the creation of a martyr (because Riel would have been hanged or at least jailed for the Red River uprising of the Metis people. Anyway, while the whole damned country and its police/army were searching for Riel, Sir John A met Riel face to face walking down the street. The story goes that Sir John A reached in his pocket and gave Riel money to get out of Canada. Riel took the money and went to Minnesota where he taught school.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:55 PM

Sorry about the thread creep but I'm really interested in Churchill, especially pre-World War II. The info on Peter Painter is fascinating. Don't recall any of that in my Churchill books.

But at the risk of yet more thread creep, my main book, The Last Lion, by William Manchester--(obviously pro-Churchill) states that only 1 ship was sunk on 18 March 1915--the Bouvet. Inflexible, Irresistible, and Ocean were also struck and put out of action--but not sunk. Manchester also states that there were in fact no more mines. Once past Chanak, there were only a few smooth-bore bronze cannon--aimed in the wrong direction. Enver Pasha, Turkey's wartime dictator, said after the war "If the English had only had the courage to rush more ships through the Dardanelles they could have got to Constantinople."

So Churchill was right to push to continue the naval campaign, even after the loss of the Bouvet. At Constantinople the Turks were already panicking.

He also had been right to push to occupy Gallipoli in February--when that plan was vetoed by Kitchener. And to delay til mid April was disastrous.

According to Manchester, Gallipoli "was no natural fortress. Except for a series of jutting heights known as Sari Bair, it was relatively flat and largely barren, covered with stony soil, coarse scrub, a few olive trees and scattered flocks of sheep and goats. Thinly held, as it was before the tumult in the Narrows alerted the Turks, Gallipoli could have been seized in a few days, almost without bloodshed".

What are your sources? I'd like to read more.

Also, in defense of Eric, his song was written from the point of view of an ordinary Aussie soldier--who I imagine would know nothing of the all the missed opportunities and squabbles at higher levels. From his perspective, by the time Hamilton finally landed, Johnny Turk was indeed "ready". With tragic consequences for the ANZACs, as in the song.
According to Manchester "The Anzacs were supposed to come ashore at Gaba Tepe, in the vicinity of Ari Burnu. A navigation error put them a mile to the north, where they faced precipitous cliffs form whose scrub-covered rideges the Turks could deliver a murderous, scything fire." "Another landing was made at Suvla. It was the same story". The commander got 20,000 men ashore. When he did not advance, "Mustapha Kemal arrived and occupied the heights overlooking the beach" .

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 08:42 AM

"from whose scrub-covered ridges"

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 09:13 AM

Might I recommend 'Gallipoli' be Alan Moorehead, originally published in 1956 but available in more recent editions.

I take your points about Eric's song - one of the best ever written. But they didn't give him a tin hat (they weren't available in 1915). And he didn't land at Suvla Bay (it was 1 Irish Division and 2 English Divisions), and the Turks weren't ready. I imagine he was really describing the landing at what became known as Anzac Cove, as you say a mile north of where they should have been. Even there the Turks weren't really ready (they were covering the beach at Gaba Tepe where the troops should have landed. But the terrain was truly terrible and the Turks reacted quickly enough to hold them there. It was here that Mustapha Kemel arrived and organised the defence.

The Gallipoli peninsula had always had many artillery fortresses. They were the key. The Turks didn't want the Russian Black Sea Fleet to have access to the Mediterranean in time of war and that was the main reason for those forts. Fixed fortifications were difficult to overcome (impossible without heavy guns).

Perhaps the confusion over the loss of the two British battleships occurred because nobody on the Allied side saw them sink. They were both mined, under heavy Turkish shellfire and abandodned by their crews. And they were never seen again. In addition, the battlecruiser Inflexible had hit a mine and was limping back to Tenedos.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 09:22 AM

Thanks, Les. I'll check out Moorehead's book. Should be obtainable.

It's interesting there seem to be some real discrepancies in sources--even over facts. Manchester says point blank that aside from Bouvet, all the ships could have been repaired--and were destined for the scrap heap anyway. I can't really tell what his precise sources are, though, even from the copious footnotes.

But isn't it true that if the fleet had continued through the Narrows, it could have rather easily taken Constantinople? And that's what WSC planned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 09:25 AM

A relevant quote about Churchill. General Sir Alan Brooke, Churchill's chief of staff, wrote that "Winston had 10 ideas every day, only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was".

And from the Churchill Centre Churchill's mistakes

Another thing that bugged me about the Churchill family was the sale of the 'Churchill Papers' a few years ago. These were papers dating from Winston's time as Prime Minister. Many people regarded them as 'stuff he nicked from work'! How come they didn't belong to the nation anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 09:52 AM

The battleships that were sunk were obsolescent 'pre-dreadnoughts', and were suitable only for subsidiary duties. Nobody had suggested scapping them yet. Inflexible was a dreadnought battlecruiser, thought to be an effective unit. And Queen Elizabeth was the most modern and powerful battleship in the world.

De Roebuck's view was that his minesweeping was inadequate - the ships were mined in an area that was thought to be clear. He thought that the Turks may be using the current to send down floating mines. Of course he didn't know about the 20 mines laid overnight. You can only make decisions based on what you know. In fact there were plenty more mines which would have to be swept under gunfire further up towards the Narrows (where the main Turkish heavy guns were). The 'minesweepers' were hired trawlers with civilian crews who accepted the risky job of sweeping for mines who had not envisaged doing it under shellfire from forts and mobile batteries.

Any ships that got though this lot would have then faced the Turkish fleet.

The Dardenelles Royal Commission in 1917 weighed all the evidence and thought that the campaign was a mistake - 'well-intentioned but injudicious'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM

OK, I'll have to get the Moorehead book. Sounds like Manchester was not always well-informed. That's why I like to read several different sources.


Another question, somewhat related, (but also egregious thread creep, of course)

I've read an allegation that Churchill may have purposely withdrawn the escort the Lusitania had, hoping it would be sunk, and that would bring the US into the war. Then I've read some information countering this idea. Seems quite murky. What's your take on this one?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Streete
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 10:30 AM

Allegation is the Juno received orders to abandon the escort mission, and return to Queenstown, but the Lusitania was not informed she was alone. Supposedly Admiral Oliver reminded WSC that the Juno herself was not suitable for exposure to submarine attack without an escort, and suggested the elements of the British destroyer flotilla be sent. Unclear what happened next.

Diana Preston (Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy) says WSC was simply preoccupied with other matters--especially the Dardanelles fiasco and that both he and Fisher discouraged initiative, pushing to have all matters referred to them---and then were fighting each other.

Preston fingers a Captain Reginald Hall for possibly allowing the Lusitania to be sunk. He, among other things, is alleged to have sacrificed the agent who stole a German code to prevent the German authorities from discovering it had been taken.

Her final conclusion, however, is that everybody simply shared Cunard chairman Sir Alfred Booth's view that there was "no reason to believe that the ship was in any serious danger of being sunk".

What's your take?

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 10:32 AM

"suggested that elements"

Subject: RE: BS: The Siege of Sydney Street
From: Les from Hull
Date: 15 Jul 06 - 11:50 AM

Lusitania:
Captain Schweiger of U20 would have fired a torpedo into anything that floated past with a British flag on it. He was that sort of person.

Captain Turner of Lusitania should have been steaming faster or zig-zagging to avoid submarines. But he thought he knew better.
I don't think that the failure of the Admiralty to inform Lusitania of submarine activity was significant. I don't believe it was standard practice at that time.

The German Government had warned that ships flying the British flag were liable to be attacked. Lusitania was on a list of ships that could be taken up by the Admiralty as Armed Merchant Cruisers, but this was never done (she was too expensive to run).

As an unarmed merchant ship, the attacking U-Boat captain should have warned the crew and passengers to leave before sinking the ship.
In actual fact Lusitania was carrying war materials (artillery shells and fuses) which would have made her a valid target anyway.
People do love a conspiracy, though. Often the simple answers are not enough for some people, who see every action or inaction as significant and don't seem to realise that sometimes things just go wrong.

My own view is that if Captain Turner had kept up his speed and/or zigzagged, Lusitania would never have been hit. How much was his fault and how much the owners, we'll never know. Fast liners made many voyages across the Atlantic during WW2 unescorted without problems.