Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

British Naval Strategy: The Russian Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish Straits, 1890–1904

2010; Routledge; Volume: 32; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/07075332.2010.534597

1949-6540

Nicholas Papastratigakis,

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 A. J. Marder, British Naval Policy, 1880–1905: The Anatomy of British Sea Power (London, 1940). 2 For example see: M. Allen, ‘Rear Admiral Reginald Custance: Director of Naval Intelligence, 1899–1902’, Mariners Mirror, lxxvii (1992), 61–75; M. M. Jefferson, ‘Lord Salisbury and the Eastern Question, 1890–1898’, Slavonic and East European Review, xxxiv (1960), 44–60; C. J. Lowe, Salisbury and the Mediterranean, 1886–1896 (London, 1965); R. F. Mackay, Fisher of Kilverstone (Oxford, 1973); K. Neilson, Britain and the Last Tsar: British Policy and Russia, 1894–1917 (Oxford, 1995); K. M. Wilson, Empire and Continent: Studies in British Foreign Policy from the 1880s to the First World War (London, 1987). 3 On the Russian angle consult: O. R. Airapetov, ‘Na vostochnom napravlenii: Sud'ba Bosforskoi ekspeditsii v pravlenie imperatora Nikolaia II’, in O. R. Airapetov (ed), Posledniaia voina imperatorskoi Rossii, (Moscow, 2002), 158–261; N. S. Kiniapina, Balkany i prolivy vo vneshnei politike Rossii v kontse XIX veka (1878–1898) (Moscow, 1994); V. M. Khevrolina and E. A. Chirkova, ‘Prolivy vo vneshnei politike Rossii v 80–90 gg. XIX v.’, in L. N. Nezhinskii and A. V. Ignat'ev (ed), Rossiia i Chernomosrksie prolivy XVIII–XX stoletiia, (Moscow, 1999), 223–52; R. V. Kondratenko, Morskaia politika Rossii 80-kh godov XIX veka (St Petersburg, 2006); N. Papastratigakis, ‘Bol'shaia voenno-morskaia strategiia Rossii v nachale russko-iaponskoi voiny’, in O. R. Airapetov (ed), Russko-iaponskaia voina 1904–1905 gg.: Vzgliad cherez stoletie (Moscow, 2004), 111–38; M. A. Petrov, Podgotovka Rossii k mirovoi voine na more (Leningrad, 1926); I. S. Rybachenok, Soiuz s Frantsiei vo vneshnei politike Rossii v kontse XIX v. (Moscow, 1993). The author of this article has also completed a monograph on Russian naval strategy in the decade preceding the Russo-Japanese War, which will be published by I.B. Tauris. 4 D. R. Gillard, ‘Salisbury and the Indian Defence Problem, 1885–1902’, in K. Bourne and D. C. Watt (eds), Studies in International History: Essays presented to W. Norton Medlicott (London, 1967), 237–41; A. Lambert, ‘Part of a Long Line of Circumvallation to Confine the Future Expansion of Russia’, in G. Rystad, K.-R. Bohme and W. M. Carlgren (ed), In Quest of Trade and Security: The Baltic in Power Politics, 1500–1890, (Lund, 1994), i. 323–7; S. Mahajan, ‘The Defence of India and the End of Isolation: A Study in the Foreign Policy of the Conservative Government, 1900–1905’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, x (1982), 168–70; K. Neilson, ‘Greatly Exaggerated: The Myth of the Decline of Great Britain before 1914’, International History Review, xiii (1991), 709–12; Neilson, Last Tsar, 110–13. 5 Germany was the third member of the Triple Alliance. 6 Memo enclosing Admiral Hood's memo, G. Hamilton (First Lord of the Admiralty), 10 Nov. 1888, C. J. Lowe, The Reluctant Imperialists: British Foreign Policy, 1878–1902: The Documents (London, 2002), ii. 77–82; Lowe, Salisbury and the Mediterranean, 2–26, 44–6, 54; N. Lambert, Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution (Columbia, 1999), 18–20; Marder, Anatomy, 120–32, 146–7; J. T. Sumida, In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914 (Boston, 1989), 10–15. 7 The centrepiece of this alliance was a defensive military convention for a land campaign against the Triple Alliance. In 1900–1 France and Russia contemplated certain measures targeting Britain, but these were only superficial in nature and were not complemented by a naval convention. On this consult: W. C. Jr. Fuller, Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600–1914 (New York, 1992), 352–61; T. Ropp, The Development of a Modern Navy: French Naval Policy, 1871–1914 (Annapolis, 1987), 39–43; R. Walser, ‘France's Search for a Battlefleet: French Naval Policy, 1898–1914’ (Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina University - Published in book format: Chapel Hill, 1976), 112–3. 8 Joint memo and annex, DMI and DNI, 18 March and 20 May 1892, Lowe, Reluctant Imperialists, 88–91; Memo, Salisbury, 20 May 1892, ibid., 85–8; Jefferson, ‘Lord Salisbury’, 46–8; Marder, Anatomy, 152–61, 172–82, 189, 209–10, 212–4, 219–24; Wilson, Empire and Continent, 2–3. 9 Memo, Beaumont, 12 Nov. 1895 [Kew, United Kingdom National Archives], ADM[iralty Records] 116/866B; Letter, Goschen to Salisbury, 7 Dec. 1895, Lowe, Reluctant Imperialists, 103–5; Jefferson, ‘Lord Salisbury’, 50–1; Lowe, Salisbury and the Mediterranean, 50–1, 102–5; Marder, Anatomy, 241–8; Wilson, Empire and Continent, 3–4, 7–9. 10 Report, Chermside, 27 Jan. 1896, ADM 1/7464C; Memo, Chapman, 26 Feb. 1896, ADM 116/866B; Memos, Beaumont, 29 Feb. and 28 Oct. 1896, ADM 116/866B; Memo, Ardagh, 13 Oct. 1896, ADM 116/866B; Jefferson, ‘Lord Salisbury’, 52, 57–9; Lowe, Salisbury and the Mediterranean, 91–118; Marder, Anatomy, 249–50, 266–70, 280–1; Wilson, Empire and Continent, 4–6, 9–10. 11 Marder, Anatomy, 303–4, 309–10; I. Nish, ‘The Royal Navy and the Taking of Weihaiwei, 1898–1905’, Mariners Mirror, liv (1968), 39–54. 12 Memo, Hopkins to the Admiralty, 5 April 1898, ADM 1/7376B; Remarks on the Hopkins memo, Beaumont, 3 May 1898, ADM 1/7376B. 13 Memo, Richards, 15 Oct. 1898, ADM 1/7376B; Letter, Admiralty to Hopkins, 26 Oct. 1898, ADM 1/7376B. 14 P. Masson, Histoire de la Marine: De la vapeur à l' atome (Paris, 1983), ii. 170–1; Marder, Anatomy, 320–36; Walser, ‘France's Search’, 74–6. On the Admiralty's views regarding the Far East also consult: Extracts of telegram by the Commander of the China Station, 31 Oct. 1898 and the Admiralty's reply, 2 Nov. 1898, ADM 1/7595. 15 Reports, Paget, 27 Jan. and 8 Feb. 1898, ADM 1/7384. 16 Memo, Goschen to the Cabinet, 6 June 1898 [Kew United Kingdom National Archives], CAB[inet Records] 37/46/60; Lambert, Fisher, 23–4; Neilson, Last Tsar, 117. 17 Booklet on the Russian navy utilizing Jackson's reports, NID, June 1899, ADM 231/29. 18 Minute regarding Jackson's report from 18 Dec. 1898, Beaumont, 24 Dec. 1898, ADM 1/7389B. 19 Noel had temporarily commanded the Mediterranean Fleet from June 1899. 20 Memo, Noel, 24 Oct. 1899, ADM 1/7417. 21 Letter and extracts by an amended private report by Captain W. May, the former Chief of Staff of the Mediterranean Station, from March 1896, Fisher to the Admiralty, 1 Nov. 1899, ADM 121/75. 22 Minute, Custance, 29 Jan. 1900, ADM 1/7417. 23 Memo, Admiralty to Fisher, 9 Feb. 1900, ADM 1/7379B. 24 Letter and attached amendments, Beresford to Fisher, 12 and 19 June 1900, ADM 1/7464A; Memo, Custance, 10 Aug. 1900, ADM 1/7464A; Minute, Kerr, 15 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7464A. 25 Table on Russian naval expenditure for 1886–1900, NID, ADM 1/7417; Minute on the reinforcement of the Russian Pacific Fleet, NID, 6 Dec. 1899, ADM 1/7417; Article by the newspaper Morning Post and NID remarks, ADM 1/7417; Minute, Custance, 12 Dec. 1899, ADM 1/7417. 26 Booklet on the Russian fleet based upon Williams' reports from Dec. 1899 to June 1900, NID, Aug. 1900, ADM 1/7472. Williams' reference to breech-loading guns is confusing, since having this type of guns was not a mark of inefficiency in 1900. 27 Minute, Custance, 10 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7472. 28 Letter on the subject of manoeuvres to be carried out in the Levant, Fisher to the Admiralty, 15 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7450A; Allen, ‘Custance’, 64; Marder, Anatomy, 401–2. 29 Letter, Fisher to the Admiralty, 8 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7464C. 30 Memo, Custance, 20 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7464C; Minute, Kerr, 20 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7464C. 31 Letter, Admiralty to Fisher, 28 Sept. 1900, ADM 1/7450A. 32 Report, Committee of enquiry on the manoeuvres carried out in the Levant, 2 Oct. 1900, ADM 1/7450A; Memo, Custance, 3 Nov. 1900, ADM 1/7450A. 33 Letter, Fisher to the Admiralty, 16 Jan. 1901, ADM 1/7515; Mackay, Fisher, 224, 230–1, 241–4, 246–7. 34 Memo, Custance, 2 March 1901, ADM 1/7516. 35 Notes, Kerr, 19 March 1901, ADM 1/7516; Minute, Selborne, 23 March 1901, ADM 1/7516. 36 Memo, Custance, 26 March 1901, ADM 116/866B. 37 Letter, Selborne to Kerr, 2 May 1901, D. G. Boyce, The Crisis of British Power: The Imperial and Naval Papers of the Second Earl of Selborne, 1895–1910 (London, 1990), 115–8; Letter, Kerr to Selborne, 7 May 1901, ibid., 120–1; Allen, ‘Custance’, 65. 38 Memo, Custance, 29 May 1901, ADM 116/900B. 39 Letter, Fisher to the Admiralty, 8 May 1901, ADM 1/7504; Minute, Custance, 23 May 1901, ADM 1/7504. 40 Letter, Fisher to the Admiralty, 26 June 1901, ADM 1/7504. 41 Memo, Custance, 6 July 1901, ADM 1/7504; Memo, Kerr, 9 July, ADM 1/7504; Minute, Selborne, 9 July 1901, ADM 1/7504. Perhaps Custance's unwavering opposition to the massive reinforcement of the Mediterranean Fleet at the expense of the Home Fleet can also be partly attributed to his preoccupation with the steady growth of the German Navy. On this consult: Mackay, Fisher, 237–8. 42 Letter, Admiralty to Fisher, 1 July 1901, ADM 121/75. 43 Memo, Selborne to the Cabinet, 4 Sept. 1901, CAB 37/58/81; Allen, ‘Custance’, 70–1; J. Chapman, ‘The Secret Dimensions of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1900–1905’, in P. P. O'Brien (ed), The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1902–1922 (London, 2004), 84–8; J. Gooch, The Plans of War: The General Staff and British Military Strategy, 1900–1916 (New York, 1974), 170–3; H. Ion, ‘Towards a Naval Alliance: Some Naval Antecedents to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1854–1902’ in Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 70–8; Marder, Anatomy, 288–300; K. Neilson, ‘The Anglo-Japanese Alliance and British Strategic Foreign Policy, 1902–1914’ in Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 50–2; I. Nish, ‘Naval Thinking and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 1900–1904’, Hogaku Kenkyu, lvi (1983), 5–14; I. Nish, The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: The Diplomacy of Two Island Empires, 1894–1907 (London, 1985), 99–246; Sumida, In Defence, 23–4. 44 Several schemes pertaining to the defence of India were put forward but no satisfactory answer to the problem was found until the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. 45 Gooch, Plans of War, 177–85; Mahajan, ‘The Defence of India’, 170–1, 175–9; J. McDermott, ‘The Revolution in British Military Thinking from the Boer War to the Moroccan Crisis’, Canadian Journal of History, ix (1974), 162–4, 167–70. 46 Reports, Ottley, 23 Nov. 1901 and 1 Jan. 1902, ADM 1/7555. 47 Booklet on the strategic war game carried out by the RNWC in Jan.-May 1902, NID, Nov. 1902, ADM 231/37. 48 Report, NID, Jan. 1903, ADM 1/7621. 49 Booklet on the strategic war game camed out by the RNWC in the early part of 1903, NID, Oct. 1903, ADM 231/38. 50 Minutes of CID conference, 18 Dec. 1902, CAB 38/1/13. 51 Memo, Admiralty, 9 Feb. 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 52 Summary of the conclusions of the CID conference held on 11 Feb. 1903, Arthur Balfour (Prime Minister), 14 Feb. 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 53 Notes, Nicholson, 23 Feb. 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 54 Memo on the garrison of Egypt, Intelligence Department of the War Office, 9 April 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 55 Report, Maunsell, 9 March 1903, CAB 4/1/1; Observations on Maunsell's report, Intelligence Department of the War Office, 4 April 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 56 Remarks on the question of a Russian seizure of Constantinople, Battenberg, 30 April 1903, CAB 4/1/1. 57 Gooch, Plans of War, 173–6; B. J. C. McKercher, ‘Diplomatic Equipoise: The Lansdowne Foreign Office, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and the Global Balance of Power’, Canadian Journal of History, xxiv (1989), 304–9; Neilson, Last Tsar, 238–44. 58 Memo, Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, 4 Jan. 1904, ADM 121/75. 59 Memo, Lansdowne to Selborne, 11 Jan. 1904, CAB 37/68/11; Note, Selborne to Lansdowne, 14 Jan. 1904, CAB 37/68/11; Memo, Kerr, 13 Jan. 1904, CAB 37/68/11; Memo, Battenberg, 13 Jan. 1904, CAB 37/68/11; Memo, Balfour, 18 Jan. 1904, CAB 37/68/11. 60 Memo on the CID conference held on 27 Jan. 1904, Balfour, 28 Jan. 1904, CAB 38/4/7.