HMS Erin: The Forgotten Ottoman Battleship Seized by the British

[@Ewen6177]

Short but sweet young Sir, enjoy your holidays.

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Hello everyone! Thank you for watching the video. I apologize for it being shorter and not as detailed as some of the others. If you did not watch the one-year birthday of the channel video, I am going on vacation and have been trying to get content prepared for when I am gone. Now, Saturday's video will be one of the longest ones I have made, and while I am gone, I have some fun shorts for every day I usually upload. Update video I mentioned at the end:kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZ29pY2Xqrmim7s

[@hazchemel]

Thanks for that. Did any indication of what the Germans were cooking up for the Greek Navy emerge in your study for HMS Erin?

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Yes, the Greek dreadnought Salamis would have been a nice ship for their navy. I believe she had been laid down and near completion in 1914. She was to be armed with eight 14 inch guns on around 20,000 tons. She was never delivered due to the war and scrapped in the 1930s.

[@hazchemel]

@@ImportantNavalHistory hey thanks heaps. Yes, that proto - Salamis would've outclassed Ottoman heavies. Happy holiday.

[@Backwardlooking]

Always considered her a good looking ship from which I first saw a photograph of her in the early 60’s in Cornwall. 👍🏻🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@--Dani]

Good video length and content 👍

[@barneylinet6602]

I love the lines of these WWI vintage dreadnaughts.....As a matter of fact, a number of japanese WWII battleships looked very much like them, because they were basically the same design. Although old, they were fearsome. One unfortunate US tin can skipper had the opportunity to study one of these beasts bow-on from a close distance. he survived and said that his impression from his bridge was a gigantic hatchet head slicing through the water at him.

[@johnfisher9692]

The British had NO plans to seize the ship until after the Archduke was assassinated. Given the rise of tensions it was deemed wise to delay turning the ship over to a power which was extremely friendly with the German Empire. History has shown just how wise this was. And seizing a warship you are building for another power was common policy to ALL ship building nations if war broke out. Compensation was paid to the owning Nation, which the Ottomans refused

[@brucesim2003]

The Ottomans didn't 'refuse' compensation, they wanted their ships. As for the wisdom of seizing them, that directly caused the Ottomans to accept the Goeben as a replacement, and that, ultimately resulted in the Ottomans joining the war against the UK.

[@johnfisher9692]

@@brucesim2003 It was a very, very long established custom that in the event of war any ship a country is building for another would be taken for use in their Navy. And Britain either bought the ship outright and paid compensation to the 'aggrieved' country with the ship being handed over after the war. If it didn't survive, more money or another ship would be offered. The Ottomans refused all this and demanded their ships, while some might see this as reasonable, it would be beyond idiocy to let a country that had developed very close ties to, and was very likely to side with, your enemy have two brand new and just completed Dreadnoughts. What would you do if you were in Britain's place? Be honest.

[@brucesim2003]

@@johnfisher9692 What would I do in the UK's place? Exactly what they did. But that doesn't make it legal. The UK wasn't at war at the time of seizure. It might have only been a few days, but such is the requirements of law. The UK found this out after the end of the war when Krupp sued them over the Vickers artillery fuses used, which owed royalties to Krupp. The UK had tried to pass laws voiding said contract, but as an international contract, UK law wasn't the only authority.

[@johnfisher9692]

@@brucesim2003 True point that war had not been declared but also true is the Britain did not Seize! the ships until After war had been declared. What the First Lord of the Admiralty did was detain the Ottoman sailors in their barracks and prevent boarding the ships until it was certain war was happening. An illegal act, yes, but if the war clouds had blown over (clouds caused by Austria-Hungry and Germany) an apology would have been issued and probably compensation. And the incident diplomatically forgotten. History has proven the wisdom of the First Lords actions. Why bring up the matter of fuzes? It's not relevant to this but to make a point. Greece sued the German constructors of the ship they ordered but was never completed. Something Germany tried to ignore. Many country's have done the exact same thing during both peace and war, the US is one of the biggest culprits here, an international patent is ignored by them if you don't ALSO take out a US patent while they think a US patent overrides a patent in another country or even an International one. The battle of the name Ugg Boots, made in Australia for many decades yet a US company has recently taken out a US patent on the name and demanded the Australian company stop using the patented name Ugg Boots.

[@brucesim2003]

@@johnfisher9692 The ships were seized on 31 July, BEFORE the UK was at war. And unlike the other nations which had ships seized, the Ottomans were unique in having no compensation offered. They were basically told 'we're taking the ships. Sux to be you.' The fuses were brought up to underline the fact that the law doesn't care about situations, only if you are in compliance. In the case of the Turkish battleships, the UK was NOT in compliance. Churchill had a habit of ignoring international law when it suited him. See the planned mining of Norwegian waters in 1940.

[@dec_thesussy]

I would honestly love to see a video on HMS Canada, another ship seized but just as interesting

[@stuartaaron613]

An interesting thought is this, what would have happened if the British allowed the Turks to obtain their two battleships? First, would the Goeben and Breslau be allowed to sail to Turkey since that did get (or were going to get) their two British built battleships? Second, would the Ottoman Empire have joined with Germany and Austria-Hungary? And third, would the Turks have allowed allied supplies to go through to Russia?

[@GM-fh5jp]

Very good commentary and analysis. Subscribed!

[@DaveSCameron]

You're very prolific with the uploads and kudos to you Sir 👍

[@alanclague2333]

In most cases when the UK s we seized ships they reimbursed the original country or returned the ship post war. The Ottoman's didnt get this because they allied with the Germans in the war.

[@andrewemery4272]

These are good. Stop apologising.

[@noneofyourbusiness2997]

I like the longer and more detailed videos. I can read the stats of the ships in Wikapedia, but changes that happened and what they did seems faar more interesting. As a side note - At 8:57 there is a fascinating 'pre-dreadnought ears ship with what looks to be an armored foremast and fighting top at the end of the pier above it. Do you have any idea of what that ship is?

[@ImportantNavalHistory]

Well like I said I didn’t exactly have the time to make a detailed video. Also, the cruisers are HMS Mars on the far left and I believe HMS Algiers on the far right. They’re quite old somewhere between the 1870s and 90s. I would also recommend not looking at Wikipedia for ships stats because they run the risk of being wrong. I have looked at some of my sources that I trust like RA Burt, John Roberts, Gary Staff etc. and it can be pretty different.

[@noneofyourbusiness2997]

@@ImportantNavalHistory Thanks - This one wasa great - I thought you were saying that you were going to be making them shorter :-) And yes - I have about 8 shelves of books on ships (& some naval aircraft).

[@johnjephcote7636]

I was wondering whether it had been designed by Hugh Tennyson d'Eyncourt who had also designed another 're-assigned' vessel later named HMS Agincourt.

[@vincentcondron588]

Excellent video of this ship and the story behind it with what the Turkish people suffered to pay for those ships it is sad about this because it might have kept them out of the war as taking was in fact one the reasons for joining on the German side

[@TheopolisQSmith]

I like detailed vids

[@bigsarge2085]

✌️✌️

[@hazchemel]

Thanks for that. She's an interesting one-of ship. Interesting that the British thought the Sublime Porte more likely to play with Germany, but even more interesting that the Sultan wasn't thinking exactly like this else surely, they wouldn't have given a British shipyard even their hair.

[@sadiqmohamed681]

The history is that even before the assassination, Turkey was undergoing a sort of proxy civil war. The Sultan was mostly being advised by the older members of the establishment and the most senior military and naval command. The younger officers wanted the Sultan out and whole scale modernisation of both Army and Navy. The is where the term "The Young Turks" first appeared. In the background the German Army favoured The Young Turks and were helping train and arm the Army. The RN had more connection to the Turkish Navy, and had a delegation that hard been training and advising. However by 1914 they were being sidelined. and TYT had been pushing for modernisation and for the German Navy to have a greater role. In the end it was the British Intelligence service that had been keeping a close eye and advise Churchill in the event of war the Turks would join with Germany and wanted the two battleships (Erin and Agincourt) which would almost certainly then support the German Navy in the Med. The British Admiralty were adamant the should not happen. This was well covered by Richard Hough in his book "The Big Battleship".

[@hazchemel]

@@sadiqmohamed681 Your comment is much appreciated, thank you. My prior knowledge amounted to a general support for the O.E. at least in specific confrontations. Significantly, I was unaware of TYT favourable disposition towards Germany. You mention assassination. If you would be so kind, can you relate just 1 or 2 data points, like the unfortunate victim, that I may pursue and study?

[@adamcarreras-neal4697]

@@hazchemel Franz Ferninand was the assassination. You now the spark that lite the fuse of WWi

[@hazchemel]

@@sadiqmohamed681 Both battleships would probably rule the Black Sea v Russian pre dreadnoughts ... and thanks for the full answer. Would K. Ataturk have been a Young Turk?

[@Paulftate]

semper fi semper fortis

[@richardcutts196]

The Greeks also ordered a Dreadnaught from France (a Bretagne class) that was never started.

[@geofflewis8599]

..at the 8.41 mark, what is the hulk to the left??..

[@richardbennett1856]

Great job. It's interesting that the British never kept the promises anyway. Essentially, Churchill borrowed 2 modern battleships, and never returned them, sparking war...as possession is 9/10s of the law, Welcome to the RN guys...

[@markkringle9144]

What was the disposition of the debt to the Turks. Did they say too bad, you went to war with us?

[@jamesbugbee9026]

Meaty little monster; that 6" battery would B evil in poor visibilty ❤️

[@domenicozagari2443]

In 1911 the Turks had a war with the Italians, they where the principal enemy of the Turks.

[@blackpowder4016]

The Russians, Greeks and Balkan states joined the conversation

[@donaldwilliambillows]

My .mums dad served on her. Boy seaman and was injured on it at Jutland his name was William snoook

[@CaptainSeato]

With how often the British would "seize" ships they were building for others, I'm surprised their clients did not insist on delivery of the unfinished hulls, then delivery of guns/turrets, and doing the fittings out themselves, in home ports. Or a number of smaller ships (cruisers, in this case), instead of bigger ships that would take longer to construct.

[@andrewemery4272]

These other countries did not have the skills, ability nor machinery for the job.

[@johnfisher9692]

All ship building nations did the same thing when war broke out, not Just the British.

[@adamcarreras-neal4697]

there was also compensation paid to the purchaser, but with the Ottomans, the refused

[@beachboy0505]

This treachery caused the Ottomans to enter the war. This caused untold casualties and misery. The imperial Germans provided two state of the art battleships. Churchill was responsible for this debacle.

[@lyedavide]

The British were less than honourable in the way they handled the matters of ships seized for the purpose of bolstering the Royal Navy in WW1. They neither returned the vessels, repaired to original specifications, nor did they pay compensation to the countries to whom the ships belonged. This is perhaps more an indication of the odourous character of Churchill than the Royal Navy itself.

[@mikepotter5718]

It's an indication that they were headed for war. Keeping the ships was just common sense.

[@joemaloney1019]

Not true HMS Canada was returned to Chile after the war and the UK paid for her sistership which was turned into an aircraft carrier. The Chiliens didnt want the aircraftcarrier so the Brits paid compensation.

[@stuartclemmons3832]

Did the Turks ever get their money back?