Brits Fear Growing Dependence On U.S.

Erik Sass is covering the events of the war exactly 100 years after they happened. This is the 252nd installment in the series. 

October 4, 1916: Brits Fear Growing Dependence On U.S. 

The unprecedented material demands of modern warfare, exemplified by the huge number of shells expended in the Allied offensive on the Somme (with British artillery firing 1.7 million in the opening bombardment alone) required the financial and industrial resources of whole empires to sustain – and even these proved insufficient. By the fall of 1916 Britain, France, and Russia found themselves relying more and more on the world’s biggest neutral nation, the United States, for loans as well as supplies of munitions, food, fuel, and other necessities. 

Click to enlarge

After initially steering clear of financial entanglements with the belligerents, starting in 1915 American banks – led by J.P. Morgan – opened lines of credit for the Allies, encouraged by a change of heart in the White House, as President Woodrow Wilson was angered by German intransigence over unrestricted submarine warfare. The Allies promptly turned around and spent the money on everything from explosives, oil and steel to wheat, beef and horses, fueling an economic boom across the U.S. 

This one-sided arrangement, with American goods increasingly paid for by American loans, was obviously bad news for both Britain’s balance sheet and its balance of trade, but there was no alternative as long as the war continued. More alarming was the possibility that Britain’s own wartime policies might alienate the U.S., jeopardizing London’s ability to raise loans and make vital purchases across the Atlantic Ocean. Of particular concern were the British blockade of the Central Powers, which hurt some U.S. business interests (even as others prospered selling goods to the Allies); British censorship of mail and telegrams; and finally a “blacklist” of firms still doing business with German counterparts via other neutral countries. 

Introduced in July 1916, the blacklist immediately became major point of contention with the U.S. business community, and therefore the U.S. government too. After diplomatic protests failed to obtain concessions from London, in early September the U.S. Congress passed a series of laws setting the stage for tit-for-tat measures including the bluntly named Retaliatory Revenue Act, threatening to ban British imports and detain British merchant ships in U.S. ports. 

While these threats proved to be mostly bluster, they set alarm bells ringing in the British government, in part because they might prompt demands from British business interests for further restrictions on American commerce (in other words, retaliation for the retaliation) when a trade war was the last thing the Allies needed. Faced with this awkward and complicated situation, on October 4, 1916 the British cabinet convened the first meeting of a new advisory group, the “Interdepartmental Committee on the Dependence of the British Empire on the United States,” to assess the likely impacts of any escalation in the diplomatic and commercial dispute between the countries. 

The committee’s conclusions, delivered on October 10, were painfully clear: further disturbance in the Anglo-American relationship could easily cause the British war effort to collapse, leaving the British virtually no leverage over their American cousin. As one member, Lord Eustace Percy, recorded in the minutes: 

… it developed at once… that there was really nothing to deliberate  dabout because our dependence was so vital and complete in every possible respect that it was folly even to consider reprisals. In munitions… all previous estimates of our being able to fill our own needs by a certain time have been entirely destroyed… In steel… we have been obliged to buy up the whole of the United States’ steel output; in foodstuffs and especially in wheat…, in all industrial raw materials and above all in cotton and lubricants American supplies are so necessary to us that reprisals, while they would produce tremendous distress in America, would also practically stop the war. 

This judgment was based, among other things, on a quick analysis of British and Allied finances by the economist and Treasury official John Maynard Keynes, who noted that Britain alone had spent $1 billion in America from May to September 1916, of which two-fifths had come from American loans. The terms were only going to get more lopsided, Keynes added, predicting that from October 1916 to March 1917 Britain would have to spend another $1.5 billion on American goods, with five-sixths of this financed by American loans. 

Click to enlarge

In case anyone failed to understand the central role American production played in the British war effort, another response to the committee’s inquiry from the Board of Trade stated bluntly:

To sum up, it is quite evident that any failure to obtain imports from the United States would at once affect this country irremediably from the point of view of our food supplies, of military necessities, and of raw materials for industry. For numerous articles important from one or other of these points of view, America is an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply. 

Not only was there currently no possibility of retribution in case of a trade war; to keep the munitions flowing from U.S. factories to British guns, Keynes warned that the scope of British borrowing in America would have to expand even further with bond offerings to regular American citizens. He added that this would require a careful public relations strategy: 

Any feeling of irritation or lack of sympathy with this country or with its policy in the minds of the American public (and equally any lack of confidence in the military situation as interpreted by this public) would render it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to carry through financial operations on a scale adequate to our needs. The sums which this country will require to borrow in the U.S.A. in the next six or nine months are so enormous, amounting to several times the national debt of that country, that it will be necessary to appeal to every class and section of the investing public. 

The unpleasant but unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from all this was that the United States, having surpassed Britain as an industrial power in the late 19th century, would soon surpass it as the world’s dominant financial power too, if it hadn’t done so already. Of course, this would bring with it any number of uncomfortable changes, as America’s growing financial power translated into enhanced diplomatic influence and a bigger say in international relations – including, presumably, the eventual peace settlement and shape of postwar Europe. 

In that vein Reginald McKenna, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (comparable to a minister of finance) wrote in a memo to the cabinet on October 16: “If things go on as at present, I venture to say with certainty that by next June or earlier the President of the American Republic will be in a position, if he wishes, to dictate his own terms to us.” With a presidential election coming up in November 1916, and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson and his Republican opponent Charles Evan Hughes both emphasizing their commitment to American neutrality, there was plenty of reason for the British to be nervous about the outcome.

Indeed, not long after the election the British would get another scare: on November 26, 1916 the newly-formed Federal Reserve warned American bankers that loans to the Allies were increasingly risky in light of the continuing deadlock and the growing possibility of a Central Powers victory. 

Fortunately for the Allies, they had some help from an unexpected quarter – Germany itself. While the British fretted about maintaining access to American loans and goods, America’s supplying munitions to the Allies convinced hardliners in Berlin that the United States was for all intents and purposes already at war with Germany, even if it was too cowardly and venal to actually engage in hostilities. In their view U.S. complaints about German U-boats sinking ships with American citizens on board was hypocritical and unreasonable, as a message sent by the U.S. ambassador to Berlin, James Gerard, to Secretary of State Robert Lansing on September 14, 1916, clearly conveyed: 

In general conversation with [foreign minister] Von Jagow recently he said that the offensive in the Somme could not continue without the great supply of shells from America. He also said that recently a German submarine submerged in the Channel had to allow 41 ships to pass and that he was sure that each ship was full of ammunition and soldiers but probably had some American… also on board and therefore the submarine did not torpedo without warning. He seemed quite bitter. 

Convinced that the U.S. wouldn’t fight, or would declare war in name only, the militarist faction led by chief of the general staff Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff were pushing Kaiser Wilhelm II and Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg to take the gloves off and resume unrestricted U-boat warfare for the third time. It would prove to be a disastrous miscalculation. 

See the previous installment or all entries.

Disney's Most Magical Destinations Have Been Reimagined as Vintage Travel Posters

UpgradedPoints.com
UpgradedPoints.com

Many of the iconic settings of animated Disney movies were modeled after real places around the world. Ussé Castle in France’s Loire Valley, for example, is widely rumored to have been the inspiration behind the original Sleeping Beauty story. (Although the castle in the movie more closely resembles Germany's Neuschwanstein Castle.) Likewise, the fictional island in Moana was made to look like Samoa, and the Sultan’s palace in Aladdin shares some similarities with India's Taj Mahal.

If you’ve ever dreamed of exploring Agrabah or Neverland, then you’ll probably enjoy getting lost in these Disney-inspired travel posters from the designers at UpgradedPoints.com, an online resource that helps individuals maximize their credit card travel rewards. Only one of the posters features a real destination ("Beautiful France"), but these illustrations let you get one step closer to scaling Pride Rock or plumbing the depths of Atlantica.

All of the images are rendered in a vintage style with enticing slogans attached—much like the exotic travel posters that were prevalent in the 1930s.

“A few of our designers wanted to capture that longing to experience the true locations of these fantastic films, and the inner child in all of us couldn’t resist seeing how they interpreted the locations of their favorite films,” UpgradedPoints.com writes. “The results are breathtaking and make us wish we could fall into our favorite Disney movies.”

Keep scrolling to see the posters, and for more travel inspiration, read up on eight real-life locations that inspired Disney places (plus one that didn't).

A Disney-inspired poster of France
UpgradedPoints.com

An Atlantica travel poster
UpgradedPoints.com

A Disney-inspired poster
UpgradedPoints.com

A Disney-inspired poster
UpgradedPoints.com

A Lion King travel poster
UpgradedPoints.com

A Neverland travel poster
UpgradedPoints.com

11 Memorable Facts About Cats the Musical

Mike Clarke/Getty Images
Mike Clarke/Getty Images

“It was better than Cats!” Decades after Andrew Lloyd Webber's famed musical opened on Broadway on October 7, 1982, this tongue-in-cheek idiom remains a part of our lexicon (thanks to Saturday Night Live). Although the feline extravaganza divided the critics, it won over audiences of all ages and became an industry juggernaut—one that single-handedly generated more than $3 billion for New York City's economy—and that was before it made a return to the Great White Way in 2016. In honor of Andrew Lloyd Webber's birthday on March 22, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

1. The work that Cats the musical is based on was originally going to include dogs.

Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats, published in 1939, is a collection of feline-themed poems written by the great T. S. Eliot. A whimsical, lighthearted effort, the volume has been delighting cat fanciers for generations—and it could have become just as big of a hit with dog lovers, too. At first, Eliot envisioned the book as an assemblage of canine- and tabby-related poems. However, he came to believe that “dogs don’t seem to lend themselves to verse quite so well, collectively, as cats.” (Spoken like a true ailurophile.) According to his publisher, Eliot decided that “it would be improper to wrap [felines] up with dogs” and barely even mentioned them in the finished product.

For his part, Andrew Lloyd Webber has described his attitude towards cats as “quite neutral.” Still, the composer felt that Eliot’s rhymes could form the basis of a daring, West End-worthy soundtrack. It seemed like an irresistible challenge. “I wanted to set that exciting verse to music,” he explained. “When I [had] written with lyricists in the past … the lyrics have been written to the music. So I was intrigued to see whether I could write a complete piece the other way ‘round.”

2. "Memory" was inspired by a poem that T.S. Eliot never finished.

In 1980, Webber approached T.S. Eliot’s widow, Valerie, to ask for her blessing on the project. She not only said “yes,” but provided the songwriter with some helpful notes and letters that her husband had written about Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats—including a half-finished, eight-line poem called “Grizabella, the Glamour Cat.” Feeling that it was too melancholy for children, Eliot decided to omit the piece from Practical Cats. But the dramatic power of the poem made it irresistible for Webber and Trevor Nunn, the show’s original director. By combining lines from “Grizabella, the Glamour Cat” with those of another Eliot poem, “Rhapsody on a Windy Night,” they laid the foundation for what became the powerful ballad “Memory.” A smash hit within a smash hit, this showstopper has been covered by such icons as Barbra Streisand and Barry Manilow.

3. Dame Judi Dench left the cast of Cats when her Achilles tendon snapped.

One of Britain’s most esteemed actresses, Dench was brought in to play Grizabella for Cats’s original run on the West End. Then, about three weeks into rehearsals, she was going through a scene with co-star Wayne Sleep (Mr. Mistoffelees) when disaster struck. “She went, ‘You kicked me!’” Sleep recalls in the above video. “And I said, ‘I didn’t, actually, are you alright?’” She wasn’t. Somehow, Dench had managed to tear her Achilles tendon. As a last-minute replacement, Elaine Paige of Evita fame was brought aboard. In an eerie coincidence, Paige had heard a recorded version of “Memory” on a local radio station less than 24 hours before she was asked to play Grizabella. Also, an actual black cat had crossed her path that day. Spooky.

4. To finance the show, Andrew Lloyd Webber ended up mortgaging his house.

Although Andrew Lloyd Webber had previously won great acclaim as one of the creative minds behind Jesus Christ Superstar and other hit shows, Cats had a hard time finding investors. According to choreographer Gillian Lynne, “[it] was very, very difficult to finance because everyone said ‘A show about cats? You must be raving mad.’” In fact, the musical fell so far short of its fundraising goals that Webber ended up taking out a second mortgage on his home to help get Cats the musical off the ground.

5. When Cats the musical came to Broadway, its venue got a huge makeover.

Cats made its West End debut on May 11, 1981. Seventeen months later, a Broadway production of the musical launched what was to become an 18-year run at the Winter Garden Theatre. But before the show could open, some major adjustments had to be made to the venue. Cats came with an enormous, sprawling set which was far too large for the theatre’s available performing space. To make some more room, the stage had to be expanded. Consequently, several rows of orchestra seats were removed, along with the Winter Garden’s proscenium arch. And that was just the beginning. For Grizabella’s climactic ascent into the Heaviside Layer on a giant, levitating tire, the crew installed a hydraulic lift in the orchestra pit and carved a massive hole through the auditorium ceiling. Finally, the theater’s walls were painted black to set the proper mood. After Cats closed in 2000, the original look of the Winter Garden was painstakingly restored—at a cost of $8 million.

6. Cats the musical set longevity records on both sides of the Atlantic.

The original London production took its final bow on May 11, 2002, exactly 21 years after the show had opened—which, at the time, made Cats the longest-running musical in the West End’s history. (It would lose that title to Les Miserables in 2006.) Across the pond, the show was performed at the Winter Garden for the 6138th time on June 19, 1997, putting Cats ahead of A Chorus Line as the longest-running show on Broadway. To celebrate, a massive outdoor celebration was held between 50th and 51st streets, complete with a laser light show and an exclusive after-party for Cats alums.

7. One theatergoer sued the show for $6 million.

Like Hair, Cats involves a lot of performer-audience interaction. See it live, and you might just spot a leotard-clad actor licking himself near your seat before the curtain goes up. In some productions, the character Rum Tum Tugger even rushes out into the crowd and finds an unsuspecting patron to dance with. At a Broadway performance on January 30, 1996, Tugger was played by stage veteran David Hibbard. That night, he singled out one Evelyn Amato as his would-be dance partner. Mildly put, she did not appreciate his antics. Alleging that Hibbard had gyrated his pelvis in her face, Amato sued the musical and its creative team for $6 million.

8. Thanks to Cats the musical, T.S. Eliot received a posthumous Tony.

Because most of the songs in Cats are almost verbatim recitations of Eliot’s poems, he’s regarded as its primary lyricist—even though he died in 1965, long before the show was conceived. Still, Eliot’s contributions earned him a 1983 Tony for Best Book of a Musical. A visibly moved Valerie Eliot took the stage to accept this prize on her late spouse’s behalf. “Tonight’s honor would have given my husband particular pleasure because he loved the theatre,” she told the crowd. Eliot also shared the Best Original Score Tony with Andrew Lloyd Webber.

9. The original Broadway production used more than 3000 pounds of yak hair.

Major productions of Cats use meticulously crafted yak hair wigs, which currently cost around $2300 apiece and can take 40 hours or more to produce. Adding to the expense is the fact that costumers can’t just recycle an old wig after some performer gets recast. “Each wig is made specifically for the actor,” explains wigmaker Hannah McGregor in the above video. Since people tend to have differently shaped heads, precise measurements are taken of every cast member’s skull before he or she is fitted with a new head of hair. “[Their wigs] have to fit them perfectly,” McGregor adds, “because of the amount of jumping and skipping they do as cats.” Perhaps it should come as no surprise that, over its 18-year run, the first Broadway production used 3247 pounds of yak hair. (In comparison, the heaviest actual yaks only weigh around 2200 pounds.)

10. A recent revival included hip hop.

In December 2014, Cats returned to the West End with an all-new cast and music. “The Rum Tum Tugger,” a popular Act I song, was reimagined as a hip hop number. “I’ve come to the conclusion, having read [Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats] again, that maybe Eliot was the inventor of rap,” Webber told the press.

11. Another revival featured an internet-famous feline for one night only.

On September 30, Grumpy Cat made her Broadway debut in Cats, briefly taking the stage with the cast. Despite being named Honorary Jellicle Cat, she hated every minute of it.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER