The Special Relationship?

[jazzy_dave]

Interesting radio documentary on Radio 4 about the so-called special relationship with the USA.

Peter Hitchens re-examines the relationship between the USA and UK, suggesting that - instead of an intimacy based on their shared histories, cultures and language - the real relationship is one of tactfully-concealed hostility.

Since French military and naval intervention won America its independence, the new Republic has been Britain's most consistent real rival with the Burning of the White House its most potent symbol.

The first half of the 20th century was characterised by unprecedented hostility between the two nations and American support for Britain in both World Wars came at a price. Peter Hitchens argues that Lend-lease during the war was not an act of friendship, but a cynical subsidy, and much was demanded in return - our gold reserves and bases in the Caribbean. At Bretton Woods, he suggests, Britain came under irresistible pressure from the US to abandon Sterling's position as a major reserve currency, ceding it to the US dollar.

After 1945, the 'help' stopped. The post-war years saw the Suez humiliation, brutal (however well-deserved) pressure on Britain to submit to the European Union, and a series of events which show that the United States only observed the Special Relationship when it suited - treating Britain as a junior rather than an equal partner.

With pro-active argument and surprising revelations, Peter Hitchens challenges the received wisdom and attempts to show that Uncle Sam was always out to replace the British Empire with its own global leadership.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0477nrw

Comments

[swordznsorcery.livejournal.com]

There was definitely nothing altruistic about lend-lease! Had they wanted merely to help, they could have supplied equipment at less cost, and it would still have helped their own industry. Not that I blame them, necessarily. It was the obvious way out of the Depression. It placed America centre stage, and created their new position as the most powerful country in the world. I'm sure they could see how things were going for the Old World, increasingly crippled as they were by the costs of fighting. Speaking strictly cynically, if there's going to be a war, I suppose somebody might as well profit from it.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

In fairness, even if Roosevelt had wanted to be altruistic,
he had to get the idea through Congress.
At the time, a simple majority of Americans approved of Hitler's racial policies,
and a somewhat large majority of Americans were unwilling to intervene on Britain's behalf to any extent.

[swordznsorcery.livejournal.com]

Fair points. And in all of that, Roosevelt was no more or less practical than Churchill. They were leaders of a similar stripe, and I'm sure that they understood each other perfectly.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

the real relationship is one of tactfully-concealed hostility

"Since French military and naval intervention won America its independence..."

Case in point.
:)

Seriously, Washington and his army made a substantial contribution to the French effort.

Lend-lease during the war was not an act of friendship, but a cynical subsidy, and much was demanded in return
True. Roosevelt know a bargain when he made one.

After 1945, the 'help' stopped.
Also true. Eisenhower understood better than anyone that once the war was over,
the US would have little use for Britain,
and was therefore willing to infuriate any American under his command with concessions to the British.

I wouldn't say "always out to replace" but certainly willing to seize upon the opportunity when it arrived.

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

Och. Tis true, in many ways, there is no love lost between the US and the UK. We are (as usual) completely oblivious to it, but there is that undercurrent of hostility between the two countries. Meh...

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I agree with his conclusions. By the end of WWII, the U.S. and Russia were the world powers and they never looked back.

[al-zorra.livejournal.com]

Looking at it from the viewpoint of an American historian based here in the U.S., it seems a bit simplistic, particularly with the War of 1812.

New England wanted to secede from the rest of the country when the Southern and Western state war parties forced Madison to declare war on Britain. They even held a secession convention, the first one, though not the last secession convention. Adams, Hamiliton and Washington had always seen England and the new U.S. as natural allies in most matters that involved Europe, and in matters of trade and banking. Jefferson, of course, and the Virginia cabal, had whole other agendas, including a hatred of banks and even cities, as well as internal improvements -- nor were they about mercantilism, as the New Englanders were (as were the Westerners, but it wouldn't be the last time the western states were willing to cut off their own limbs to make some stupid point).

As far as the symbol for the U.S. of the War of 1812, that's the Battle of New Orleans and the Star Spangled Banner, not Madison debacle with D.C. As far as the U.S. is concerned winning the Battle for Baltimore and the Battle of New Orleans (even though the latter was fought after the Treaty ended the war) more than made up for it. Plus it provided great stories of Dolly Madison and Washington portrait.

As for WWII -- about that I can't speak with the same authority. But -- the British monarchs did visit FDR here in the U.S. in hopes they could persuade him to persuade the American people to join in. Which FDR, with the help of Hollywood, was already pretty much working to do, it seems.

Anyway -- you got it all back in the 1960's with the new British Invasion, right? :)

Love, C. -- who has been accused by some of being anglophile ....

[thespian15.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a conviencing arguement to me.
Because of course, you know "We" have no equals. Ugh.....
Hugs, Jon

[davesmusictank.livejournal.com]

LOL, love that!

growing up canadian

[pigshitpoet.livejournal.com]

it's kind of like watching your brother and sisters fight

; ?

[nimnod.livejournal.com]

I've always thought of the "special relationship" as "special" in the same way a priest might have a "special relationship" with an alter boy - one party much more powerful, supposedly guiding and nurturing, but essentially abusive.

[davesmusictank.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

The British think we have a unique special relationship with America, but America replies that sure, it has a lot of special relationships - with Britain, Germany, France, China - whoever suits it the most. There's a reason why Hollywood always hires British actors to play villains, and it is not a pleasant one.

[kabuldur.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...this explains why Britain was so financially strapped after WWII.