• 3 Comments

•

Standard, 25 February 1913, 9

The phantom airship scare has clearly entered a new phase since the sightings last Friday in Yorkshire and Warwickshire. Several major London dailies -- all politically conservative -- devote substantial amounts of column space to the mystery; half the main news page, in the case of the Standard. Only it's not regarded as a mystery any more. For example, the Standard's military correspondent says (p. 9; above):

There is not the smallest doubt but that this country at the present moment is the object of a systematic aerial reconnaissance carried out at night. Carried out by whom? it will be asked. There is only one answer to that question -- by Germany, because Germany alone possesses aircraft capable of doing what is being done by the airships that have been seen over England.

After explaining the numbers and capabilities of the Zeppelins, the correspondent goes on to argue that

By these nightly trips to our shores the Germans have made a certainty of being able to sail to any point in England within a given time. They have marked the ranges, as it were, and the vessels of a fleet of Zeppelins sent upon an errand of destruction would arrive at their various destinations with the certainty and punctuality of an express train.

The situation, then, is this: Within eight hours, at most, after the making of a signal in Berlin anything between 40 and 100 tons of high explosive could be dropped simultaneously at twenty different selected points in England. Within that short space of time, the whole of our arsenals and dockyards could be laid in ruins, and if our warships escaped, which is unlikely, the offensive power of the Fleet would be hopelessly crippled. And as matters stand we have absolutely no means of resisting such an attack, even if we had warning of it; therefore the attack would inevitable succeed.

The Standard's leading article (entitled 'The airship peril') backs its military correspondent, and adds that it is 'imperative that we should make the most energetic exertions to raise our air fleet above its present meagre proportions' (p. 8). Still it suggests that 'it is not exactly polite for foreign Governments to authorise these espionage flights over our soil' and warns that 'It would be a very "awkward incident" indeed if a Zeppelin hailing from Friedrichshafen or Johannisthal were brought to earth by a shell from an English gun'.
...continue reading →

• 9 Comments

•

Standard, 24 February 1913, 9

Last week was a relatively quiet one for the phantom airships, but today they receive the most press coverage yet. The main reason for this is a cluster of sightings reported from Yorkshire on Friday, along with another sighting from Warwickshire about 100 miles inland. In fact, there are so many reports that no one newspaper covers them all. According to the London Standard (p. 9; above):

It was seen by many observers on Friday night [21 February 1913] in both districts, apparently at about the same time. The fact of its flight may be regarded as well-established. The description of the craft agrees with that of the earlier visitor whose night flights puzzled the authorities.

The sighting featured most prominently is that of C. H. March, a solicitor and a law lecturer for the Leeds Education Committee, and his wife (though her husband does all the talking, apparently). They were returning to their Selby home after attending a lecture about a mile away. He is quoted in the London Daily Mail (p. 7) as saying:

We left at nine precisely and were in Doncaster-road, Selby, at 9.15. We had just passed the houses in Doncaster-road and had our first clear glimpse of the country to the west when I saw two lights in the sky. It was just about half dark, and though it was impossible to judge accurately I should say the lights were about two miles from us to the west.

"One of the lights was big and bright like the head light of a motor-car. I do not think it was a searchlight, because its ray, which we could plainly see, remained horizontal all the time and did not slant upwards or downwards as though it were movable. The other light was small, and it struck me as possible that it might be a tail light. What makes me think that they were head light and tail light respectively is the fact that at times the big head light would eclipse the smaller tail light, and I think the object to which they were attached was not moving to any great extent but was hovering. The lights were too low in the sky and too big and bright to be stars."

The Standard adds (p. 9) that it was first seen in the direction of Hambleton, due west:

He drew his wife's attention to it, and they were astonished to see the light begin to move up and down, and apparently now and then go out. Watching for three-quarters of an hour he observed what he was then certain was a dirigible reconnoitre in different directions for some miles, and then turn at an acute angle, and pass out of view, going towards Leeds.

March 'believes that it was a foreign aircraft attempting to find out the exact position of a Government magazine in the district'. The Mail doesn't attribute this belief to him, though it does note that the area is home to 'Barlby Arsenal, where there is stored a great quantity of army ammunition' (p. 7). The distinction is worth making because despite the apparent availability of a direct statement by one of the witnesses the various accounts disagree in some particulars. Some are easy enough to explain -- the Liverpool Echo, for example, says that he first saw the 'large dirigible balloon' when 'looking out from his house on Brayton-road' (p. 7); presumably the Marches didn't stand around on Doncaster Road watching the airship in the cold but continued on their way home and resumed watching it from there. Others are more troubling. Despite March's clear and reasoned statement, as quoted in the Mail, that the airship did not have a searchlight, the Standard says that 'He states that an airship with a powerful searchlight hovered over the town' (p. 9). It could be that there are other accounts available; the Mail's quotation is evidently truncated and perhaps in the full statement March says he saw a searchlight switch later. (The other press references to the Marches' sighting, in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express, are too brief to help.) Or it could be that the Standard is, possibly inadvertently, making March's airship conform to other accounts.
...continue reading →

• 3 Comments

•

Illustrated London News, 22 February 1913, 239

TO ILLUSTRATE THE SO-CALLED 'BLACK SHADOW OF THE AIR-SHIP', A MAP OF JOURNEYS POSSIBLE TO AEROPLANES AND DIRIGIBLES.

This week's issue of the Illustrated London News devotes three whole pages -- mostly taken up with illustrations, of course -- to an examination of what a headline calls 'A MENACE THEORY': 'IS IT "THE SEA TO US, THE AIR TO THE FOE"?' (p. 239). Some of the material, including the maps above and below, is taken from an article in the latest issue (dated 3 February) of the Review of Reviews which has attracted considerable attention, not least because it is so visually striking. As the ILN explains:

The Government's new Act, designed to prevent the unauthorised flying of air-ships over the United Kingdom, lends special interest to the illustrations on this page, especially to the two maps [which illustrate] admirably a belief that is common to a good many people in this country, who see grave menace in the air and are not a little eager, therefore, that Great Britain's air-craft shall not only be increased in numbers and strength, but be increased without delay; on the principle that if a people is to have pace it must be prepared for war.

The ILN explains that 'The reported flights made over England by unknown air-ships have led the Government to construct a Bill dealing with the matter' (p. 240). Noting Colonel Seely's claim that the new legislation was directed against airships belonging to private pilots, not foreign powers, the ILN comments (p. 241):

This, of course, is putting the case somewhat mildly; for there can be no doubt that the law will be so designed that it will be perilous also for unauthorised air-craft to pass over fortifications, harbours, and naval bases.

And, of course, aircraft are now important weapons of war (p. 240):

It cannot be gainsaid that to the struggle for the control of land and water has now been added a struggle for the control of the air; hence not only much energy devoted to the construction of aeroplanes and dirigible balloons, but the provision of such as Act as that framed by the British Government [...]

The Act (as it now is) permits 'proper officers [...] to fire at, or into, any such aircraft, and use any and every other means' to stop it from flying over prohibited areas (p. 240). The 'signal of warning to quit' will probably be 'a column of smoke' by day, or 'flares, rockets, or some such device' by night (p. 241).
...continue reading →

• 1 Comment

•

Liverpool Echo, 22 February 1913, 4

The Liverpool Echo provides some additional information about the Scarborough airship reported yesterday (p. 4; above). It turns out that it was actually seen 'either once or twice in the early part of the present month' [February 1913], so why it has only come to light now is unclear. According to the Echo, Miss Hollings

reports that while in Stepney-road, some time after nightfall, she heard a noise of machinery in the air in the direction of the racecourse ahead. Looking up she saw what first appeared to be a bright star. A few minutes later from near this light there streamed down a steady, conical stream of white light, playing hither and thither over the racecourse. It continued for several minutes off and on, and then disappeared.

The other witness named in the previous report is not mentioned.

Frank Goddard, of Church Farm, Charlton Musgrove, Somerset, has written in to the Daily Express to report another mystery airship (p. 6):

"This morning [18 February 1913], at about five o'clock, I and two of my men saw an airship appear in the east and sail away to the north-west as if making for the coast.

"It was lighted up and went very fast when going out of sight, but at one time it seemed quite stationary.

"May this not be the same mysterious aircraft that has been seen on several occasions before?"

Both these reports are circumspect with respect to the question of origins, not leading the reader to one conclusion or another.

• 2 Comments

•

Evening Telegraph, 20 February 1913, 4

Although phantom airships have often been in the news lately, none have actually been reported for more than a week. The Dundee Evening Telegraph and Post breaks the drought today with a sighting from Scarborough, on the coast of the North Riding of Yorkshire (p. 4; above). No date is given, unfortunately. At least two people saw it near the racecourse, 'Mr C. T. Taylor, who holds a managerial position in connection with a firm of grocers', and 'Miss Hollings, daughter of Dr Hollings, whose attention was first attracted by the sound of machinery':

The airship showed flashlights for about seven minutes, went away, returned, and showed them for another five minutes, after which it went north.

Mr Taylor thought at first, when the headlight alone was visible, that it was a bright star, but when it began to move naturally his interest was greatly awakened, the more so when he saw the flashlights.

Unusually, the Telegraph seems to imply that the Royal Navy was responsible:

Naval authorities have paid a great deal of attention to the East coast recently, and much manœuvring has been carried out in the vicinity of Scarborough.

The paper's liberal politics perhaps accounts for this lack of alarm about the mystery airship.
...continue reading →

•

Daily Mirror, 17 February 1913, 5

The Daily Mirror has a curious item today under the headline 'BRITAIN'S PERIL IN THE AIR' (p. 5; above). It is apparently a statement made yesterday by an unidentified 'famous naval tactician', but instead of setting it out as an article or a letter to the editor it is given as an extended quotation with no gloss apart from the hint about the person's identity. Even if it is from an interview, it's an unusual way of doing things.
...continue reading →

• 7 Comments

•

Daily Mail, 15 February 1913, 5

The Aerial Navigation Bill, introduced into the House of Commons only a week ago, is now the Aerial Navigation Act, 1913, as the Daily Mail records (p. 5; above):

The Aerial Navigation Bill received the Royal Assent yesterday and comes into operation at once. Foreign airships will now cross England at their peril unless their pilots declare the objects of their journey. Should pilots pass over forts, royal dockyards, or arsenals they are liable to be shot at and killed.

The terms of the new Act will be communicated at once to foreign Governments, also the regulations to be made by the War Office. Aircraft passing prohibited places will be warned by smoke signals before they are fired at. Rockets or flash lights will be used at night.

The Standard's parliamentary reporter, John Foster Fraser, reports the granting of the Royal Assent in picturesque terms (p. 6):

A pleasant interlude in the shape of a call to the House of Lords broke the rather drab current of the Commons' proceedings. The faithful Commons were called to the House of Peers to hear the reading of a broad, cracking sheet of vellum announcing that the King, under the Great Seal, had commissioned a group of peers to signify the royal assent to a little batch of Bills. So, in solemn ceremonial, the Aerial Navigation Act, with its power to authorise the shooting of aeroplane fly-by-nights, became the law of the land.

As this kind of pomp and ceremony presumably happens on a regular basis, it's difficult to see why it needs to be recounted with this level of detail. Perhaps it's a slow news day.
...continue reading →

•

Giles MacDonogh. 1938: Hitler's Gamble. London: Constable, 2010. 1938 was a big year for Germany, with the army purge, the Anschluss of Austria, the Sudeten crisis, and Kristallnacht. It seems that the fate of the Jews in Germany (including those parts absorbed in the course of 1938) is given a relatively large amount of attention when compared with the diplomatic machinations that are perhaps more usual in accounts of this year, which is fine because I already own more usual accounts. Also: cheap.

•

Daily Herald, 14 February 1913, 6

Yesterday, the Daily Mail said that the Aerial Navigation Bill would be put before the Lords next week. In fact, as today's issue reveals, the bill already 'passed through all its stages in the House of Lords late last night' (p. 5). Moreover, 'all the regulations for the enforcement of the Government's Aerial Navigation Bill [...] have already been drawn up by the Home Office, with the assistance of War Office experts'.

In view of recent circumstances, everything has been hurried forward so that there will not be the least hitch or delay in enforcing the Act, which gives power to the authorities to shoot at sight at any aircraft coming from places outside the United Kingdom whose pilot fails to respond to certain signals. Pilots anxious to sail over our harbours and naval bases will be subject to the most stringent regulations.

The same article also discusses the mystery airships:

We are able to state that in the case of the airship which was reported by The Daily Mail to have been seen sailing above Sheerness on October 14, the authorities have satisfactory proof that this was not one of our own airships but one belonging to a foreign country.

The nature of this proof is not explained, nor is the identity of the airship its origin stated. No reference is made to the claim -- assumed to be officially inspired -- in The Times a month ago that there was reason to believe that the airship responsible was the German civilian airship Hansa. But it seems like this is new information, because that previous report also blamed Hansa for the Dover sighting, whereas the Mail says 'Nothing is certain in regard to the other reported flights'. However, given this 'conclusive proof of the visit of a foreign airship to Sheerness the other reports are naturally considered in a very grave light' (pp. 5-6).

The Mail further reports that, according to the War Office, 'special guns capable of firing at aircraft within a reasonable height are already mounted at various points round the coast' (p. 6). Again, yesterday it had merely said that this would happen at some unspecified point in the future. So things are speeding up.
...continue reading →

• 4 Comments

•

Daily Mail, 13 February 1913, 5

The Aeroplane today suggests that 'The visits of the various "scare-ships" have evidently not been without salutary effect', if they have given rise to the present Aerial Navigation Bill (p. 162). The Daily Mail would tend to agree, but hopes for more. It devotes both its first leading article and nearly a column's worth of articles on the opposite page to the bill and to the mystery airship danger (much of which are reprinted in the Dublin Irish Independent, p. 6, and the Dundee Evening Telegraph, p. 4). To take the Mail's reportage first (p. 5; above):

The Government has awakened to the fact that foreign airships have several times recently appeared over England. The result is that a Government Bill is now being rushed through Parliament to meet the danger.

The operative word here is 'rushed'. The bill was introduced into the House of Commons only on Friday (according to the Mail, but Hansard says Saturday; the text seems to have been published on Friday), but

will be the law of the land before many days have passed. Read for the second time on Monday, its remaining stages in the Commons were passed in a single session. During Tuesday's session it was, in the terse language of the orders of the day, considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed. The Bill will be taken in the House of Lords early next week.

There was practically no discussion in the Commons. The proceedings took place after midnight in the sessions both of Monday and Tuesday [...] Thus a Bill of considerable importance to national defence has been hurried through with hardly a word of discussion. The Opposition were asked, and agreed, not to delay the Bill in any way.

Colonel Seely is reported to have told the Commons that the bill 'is not aimed at the aircraft of any foreign Power, but rather at preventing mischievous persons -- possibly from over-sea [sic] -- from hovering over places where there are combustible stores, to the great inconvenience of the people of this country'. This would not seem to explain the haste with which it has been conducted through to the Lords, unless the scareships are taken in account:

The reasons for this urgency are to be found in the frequent reports published in The Daily Mail, of the appearance of unknown airships over various parts of England.

(Though in fact the reports have not been nearly so frequent in the Mail as they have been in the Standard or the Express.) There then follows a summary of the Sheerness incident from last October (which was thoroughly investigated by the Mail) and eight sentences from yesterday's Times on the more recent airship visits and their presumably unfriendly purpose. The Mail then concludes by revealing that

It is understood that the 'sky guns' for firing at aircraft for which contracts were given some time ago will be stationed round the coast for the purpose of carrying out the new regulations.

...continue reading →