Russia Pursues Naval Treaty with Britain

Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons

The First World War was an unprecedented catastrophe that killed millions and set the continent of Europe on the path to further calamity two decades later. But it didn’t come out of nowhere. With the centennial of the outbreak of hostilities coming up in August, Erik Sass will be looking back at the lead-up to the war, when seemingly minor moments of friction accumulated until the situation was ready to explode. He'll be covering those events 100 years after they occurred. This is the 112th installment in the series.

April 15, 1914: Russia Pursues Naval Treaty with Britain

The European alliance system was undoubtedly a major cause of the First World War, but the image of a rigid structure bringing about conflict with mechanical inevitability isn’t quite accurate. On one side, the Triple Alliance wasn’t much of a triple anything: Germany and Austria-Hungary were closely bound to each other, but the third member of the defensive pact, Italy, was unreliable, to say the least. Meanwhile there was no formal diplomatic agreement governing the Triple Entente of France, Russia, and Britain; rather, it was an informal coalition hinging on France, which had a defensive alliance with Russia and a mostly unwritten “Entente Cordiale” (friendly understanding) with Britain.

Indeed, the Brits were a cagey lot who prized their traditional independence from Europe and remained leery of any commitments that might embroil them in a Continental conflict. They were especially reluctant to promise intervention with land forces, a prospect that summoned nightmarish memories of the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars. But as the world’s dominant naval power—and at the same time, an overstretched empire looking for ways to cut costs – Britain was more receptive to the idea of naval conventions that could reduce demands on the Royal Navy while serving as a force multiplier for British sea power. That was the thinking behind the Anglo-French Naval Convention of 1912, as well as Russian overtures for a similar agreement in the final months before war broke out.

The Russians had a number of reasons to want a naval convention with Britain: it would firm up British commitment to the Triple Entente, deter Germany and Austria-Hungary, and let France know that Russia was pulling its weight in their alliance. But the most important reasons were the super-dreadnought battleships Britain was building for the Ottoman Empire, the Reshad V and Sultan Osman I (latter pictured above, rechristened HMS Agincourt), which threatened to change the balance of power in the Black Sea, frustrating Russian plans to conquer the Turkish capital of Constantinople.

As this complex dynamic illustrates, Britain and Russia were what today might be termed “frenemies,” happy to cooperate in some areas, like containing Germany, but openly competing in others, like the Middle East and Asia. Nevertheless the Russians hoped that Britain might be persuaded to sell the battleships to Russia instead of Turkey as part of a naval convention, and were willing to offer concessions in Persia and Central Asia—where the British feared Russian influence might someday threaten India, the crown jewel of the British Empire—to sweeten the deal. Eventually Anglo-Russian agreement might even extend to a formal three-way alliance with France, converting the Entente into a solid military bloc containing Germany.

This was the gist of a letter sent by Russian foreign minister Sergei Sazonov to the Russian ambassador in London, Count Alexander Konstantinovich Benckendorff, on April 15, 1914, in which Sazonov observed:

The English, filled with their old insular mistrustfulness, must not lose sight of the fact that they will one day find themselves under the inexorable necessity of taking an active part in the struggle against Germany, if she undertakes a war, the only aim of which can be to tilt the balance of power in Europe in her own favor. Is it not better from every point of view to secure oneself in advance… by an act of political farsightedness which would make an end of the steadily growing ambitions of Germany?

The following day, the Russian naval minister broached the idea of Russia buying the dreadnoughts with the British ambassador to St. Petersburg, Sir George Buchanan. The Russians also called on their French friends to act as intermediaries and present the Russian case for an Anglo-Russian naval convention, possibly followed by a full alliance. In the second half of April, King George V and British foreign secretary Edward Grey were due to visit Paris, where President Poincare, Premier Viviani, and foreign minister Gaston Doumergue would make the Russian case.

The British, ambivalent as always, were distinctly lukewarm about the proposed naval convention with Russia, but some progress was made: Grey agreed to the idea in principle in April, and on May 19, 1914, he met with Benckendorff and the French ambassador Paul Cambon back in London, apparently to set up preliminary negotiations between the British and Russian admiralties. Meanwhile on April 27 British undersecretary for foreign affairs Sir Arthur Nicolson noted: “I know the French are haunted with the same apprehension—that if we do not try to tighten up ties with Russia she may become weary of us and throw us overboard. In that case we should be in an exceedingly awkward position, as she could cause us an infinity of annoyance, to put it mildly, in the Mid and Far East, without our being in any way able to retaliate.”

But as always diplomacy proceeded at a sedate pace, and was swiftly overtaken by events following the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 (there was no more need for a convention when Russia and Britain were allied in an actual war against Germany). That’s not to say that the negotiations had no result. In the final months of peace German newspapers caught wind of the rumored Anglo-Russian Naval Convention, further stoking German paranoia about “encirclement” by the Triple Entente. Like Russia’s Great Military Program and planned Black Sea buildup, ironically the negotiations for a naval convention with Britain managed to inflame German fears without adding appreciably to Russian security.

See the previous installment or all entries.

Midge's Apartment In The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Would Cost $9 Million Today

Nicole Rivelli, Amazon Studios
Nicole Rivelli, Amazon Studios

Fans of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel may fantasize about traveling back in time to live in Midge's apartment—but even in 1950s New York, the place wasn't exactly affordable. Using data from StreetEasy, Refinery29 calculated how much Midge's luxurious Upper West Side apartment would cost today, and how much the price has risen since the late 1950s, the period during which the show takes place.

The building where Midge lives—just one floor away from her parents—isn't a real location (she gives a fictional address in the pilot). But the set is based on a real apartment building: The Strathmore, a 48-unit high-rise on Manhattan's Riverside Drive. Based on recent sales numbers, a Strathmore apartment similar to Midge's seven-room flat would be valued at nearly $9 million today. (You can get a peek at it in the video below.)

Sixty years ago the price would have been slightly more reasonable—by New York standards, at least. Real estate prices in the city are 19 times higher today than they were in 1959, which means the price of Midge's apartment would have been closer to $460,000. But adjusting for inflation, that still would have been been worth roughly $4 million in today's dollars.

The cost of living isn't the only thing that has changed in New York since Mrs. Maisel's days: Food was a heck of a lot cheaper, too. Earlier this month, the famed (but now-closed) Carnegie Deli reopened its doors to promote the Emmy Award-winning Amazon series, and it featured a 1950s-style menu complete with $.99 sandwiches.

[h/t Refinery29]

Scarlett Johansson Had No Clue About the Avengers 4 Trailer or Title Drop

Marvel Studios
Marvel Studios

Last week, the Russo Brothers finally gave the people what they wanted: a name and a trailer for the next Avengers film. But it seems as if some of the film's biggest stars—including Scarlett Johansson—were as much in the dark as the rest of us about the film's title until the trailer dropped.

The epic trailer for Avengers: Endgame went live on Friday, December 7 and became the most viewed trailer in history with 289 million views in 24 hours.

At an event she was hosting for Black Panther, Johansson was asked about the new trailer. According to Fandango managing editor Erik Davis, not only did Johansson not know about the trailer, but she also wasn’t privy to the title of the new movie (despite being in it).

Fellow Avengers actor Sebastian Stan also recently admitted that he had no clue about the movie’s title.

“I didn’t have anything to do with [the title],” Stan said at the 2018 Comic Con Experience festival. “We didn’t know, but also the last thing I filmed was in 2017, which was earlier 2017, so that was a long time ago.”

While there hasn’t been much new information since the trailer and title drop, the Russo Brothers did give fans some insight when they alluded to the fourth film's title while on a press tour for Infinity War. Joe Russo explained that the Avengers 4 title would break new ground in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

"I don't think there are any comics that correlate to it," Joe told ComicBook.com. "I think we're in pretty fresh territory with Avengers 4. If anything, I think it's interesting after to go back and look at some of the Marvel films and view them through a different lens. But I can't think of any comics in particular that would have value."

Avengers: Endgame is set to hit theaters on April 26, 2019, which is a few weeks earlier than it was originally scheduled to arrive.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER