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.

Kit Harington Reveals Which Harry Potter Character He'd Want to Play in a Prequel

Kit Harington is clearly drawn to dark, brooding characters.

Winter is Coming reports that Harington, who is best known for his role as Jon Snow in the hard-hitting HBO series Game of Thrones, spoke on a panel at ACE Comic Con this past weekend. Though he was there to discuss his upcoming role as Dane Whitman, a.k.a. Black Knight, in the upcoming Marvel Studios film The Eternals, his involvement in—and love for—other franchises came up during the conversation.

The moderator of the panel surprised the audience by bringing up Harington’s love for the Harry Potter series, and, of course, asked him which Hogwarts house he aligns with. The 32-year-old actor responded, “I am a Gryffindor. I’ve thought very deeply about it.” Though Harington himself identifies with the lion-hearted, he does believe that Jon Snow would be a Hufflepuff because of his undying loyalty.

Harington was then asked which character he would want to play in a hypothetical Harry Potter prequel movie about the Marauders—a group of Gryffindors that included James Potter (Harry’s dad), Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew, who attended Hogwarts a generation before Harry and his friends. And who were often at odds with Slytherin Severus Snape.

Harington's response was immediate, and enthusiastic:

Severus Snape is the most tragic, wonderful, brilliant [character] ... He’s a character you hate, and then end up loving. He’s just phenomenal. I don’t think I’m right for him, so I’ll play Sirius. But, whoever gets to play Snape, that’s a great character.”

[h/t Winter Is Coming]

Disney's 10 Scariest Movies

Lynn-Holly Johnson, Bette Davis, and Kyle Richards in The Watcher in the Woods (1980).
Lynn-Holly Johnson, Bette Davis, and Kyle Richards in The Watcher in the Woods (1980).
Walt Disney Pictures

Disney: Known for catchy songs, cute animal sidekicks, brave Princesses … and occasionally scarring children for life. A lot of Disney’s more famously upsetting moments have to do with deathBambi’s mother and Mufasa’s father, for instance—but sometimes the studio goes plain horror movie with it. As Halloween approaches, here are 10 of Disney’s scariest movies.

1. Return to Oz (1985)

Return Oz establishes its “wait, what the hell am I watching?” cred early on, when Dorothy Gale—back in Kansas following her adventures in Oz—is shipped off to the doctor for a round of electroshock therapy to cure her insomnia and “delusions.” Dorothy is saved from her One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest fate and whisked off to Oz again, where she finds that the Nome King and Princess Mombi—Nicol Williamson and Jean Marsh, who also played the doctor and head nurse—have destroyed the Emerald City and turned most of its inhabitants to stone. Playing Dorothy in her first feature film role is Fairuza Balk, who would go on to star in perpetual Halloween favorite The Craft. Return to Oz is the only film directed by legendary editor Walter Murch, most famous for his work on Apocalypse Now.

2. Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)

The collected works of Ray Bradbury have been adapted into dozens of films, only a handful of which were written by the late author himself. The final feature film to be written by Bradbury is 1983’s Something Wicked This Way Comes, which in its first act is a typical, sweet—if somewhat dark—drama about two young boys growing up in a small town in the Midwest. Then a carnival rolls into town, and things get real messed up. Running the carnival is Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce), who grants the townspeople’s wishes in ways that … well, let’s just say they’re not very nice.

3. Mr. Boogedy (1986)

“Made-for-TV ‘80s movie about a gag gift salesman and his family” doesn’t scream terror, but Mr. Boogedy defies the odds to have some legitimately creepy moments. Granted, it’s not a subtle film: a family that moves into a dilapidated mansion in a town called called Lucifer Falls shouldn’t really expect to have an easy go of things. The mansion, believe it or not, is haunted by not one but three spirits: a widow, her child, and the eponymous Mr. Boogedy, who back in Colonial times sold his soul to Satan for a cloak that gives him magical powers. It’s Mr. Boogedy’s character design that gives the movie its biggest ick factor; the film’s makeup designer, Rick Stratton, would go on to win two Emmys. Mr. Boogedy’s cloak is eventually sucked into a possessed vacuum cleaner.

4. The Watcher in the Woods (1980)

Director John Hough’s The Watcher in the Woods isn’t only scary because it gives Bette Davis and current Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star (and then-child actress) Kyle Richards a decent chunk of shared screen time. Based on a 1976 novel, the film—like Mr. Boogedy—follows a family that moves into a mysterious house haunted by some mysterious presence. In The Watcher in the Woods, that presence is thought to be Karen, the long-disappeared daughter of the house’s owner, played by a collecting-those-paychecks Davis. Spoiler alert: There are actually two presences. One is Karen. The other is an alien. The original ending of The Watcher in the Woods actually showed the alien, but the effects were so bad that the premiere audience broke out laughing, causing Hough to reshoot the climactic final scene with the aliens as a vague blur of light.

5. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

Released in 1949, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad is made up of two half-hour, kid-friendly literary adaptations, the first from The Wind in the Willows and the second from “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.” Neither segment is particularly scary … up until the last few minutes of “Sleepy Hollow,” when the animators went all-out to make schoolteacher Ichabod Crane’s flight from the Headless Horseman a contender for Disney’s scariest scene. Clyde Geronimi, who with Jack Kinney directed the “Sleepy Hollow” sequence, would go on to co-direct Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, and 101 Dalmatians.

6. Pinocchio (1940)

Jiminy Cricket hopping around and The Blue Fairy singing “When You Wish Upon a Star” might be the most enduring images from Disney’s second-ever animated feature, but let’s not forget that Pinocchio could be scary when it needed to be. The film’s most potent bit of nightmare fuel comes in the scene where a bunch of children are magically transformed into terrified, crying donkeys so they could be sold away as slave labor. Looks like Disney had a taste for causing childhood trauma early on.

7. “The Skeleton Dance” (1929)

Spooky and cute: Why not both? The 1929 short “The Skeleton Dance” threads the needle deftly, with its depiction of a quartet of skeletons dancing around a graveyard maintaining the goofy tone that marks most of the early Disney shorts while still providing an ample dose of the shivers. “The Skeleton Dance” was drawn by Ub Iwerks, who several years earlier had designed Mickey Mouse.

8. Fantasia (1940)

Most of the segments in Disney’s Fantasia are markedly un-creepy—unless you consider ballet-dancing hippos disturbing, which makes a fair amount of sense—but with “Night on Bald Mountain,” Disney went full dark and stormy night. Set to the title song by composer Modest Mussorgsky, the film depicts the ancient Slavic deity Chernabog (whose name means “black god) calling all sorts of assorted demonic creatures to him before being driven away by the rising of the sun. Bela Lugosi served as a live-action reference for Chernabog, spending a day at Disney Studios striking a series of ominous poses. Nothing that Lugosi provided was ultimately used, as animator Bill Tylta was unimpressed by it.

9. The Black Cauldron (1985)

The Black Cauldron was an infamous failure for Disney, earning a mere $20 million domestically against a budget that made it, at the time, "the most expensive animated feature ever made.” With the film, Disney ditched the songs and lighthearted feel that marked its animated features up to that point in favor of a darker fantasy epic; notably, The Black Cauldron was the first Disney animated feature to earn a PG rating. Though it’s notoriously regarded as a flop, there’s one area in which The Black Cauldron is quite successful: making its villain, the Horned King, absolutely terrifying. Even the way he dies is nightmare-inducing: The magical black cauldron that the Horned King hoped would give him power to take over the world with an undead army instead melts his flesh off. It’s a bit more gruesome than the typically death-by-falling most Disney villains get.

10. Hocus Pocus (1993)

Initially released in 1993 to middling box office returns (Disney made the odd choice to release this Halloween-themed movie in July), director Kenny Ortega’s Hocus Pocus has gone on to achieve cult status. Omri Katz, since retired from acting, stars as Max Dennison, who with neighbor Allison and younger sister Dani must defeat the Sanderson sisters, a trio of witches who were hanged during the Salem witch trials. One of the witches was played by Sarah Jessica Parker, whose ancestor Esther Elwell was accused of being a witch in 17th-century Salem; she escaped execution when prosecution from witchcraft was done away with.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER