Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

'special relationship' rejuvenated??

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 'special relationship' rejuvenated??
    Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 20:19
 
…Hello again… 

..so, is the Anglo-American..er…‘special relationship’ ready to prosper again?..

 

…..a recent meeting between British Foreign Secretary David Millipede and US Secretary of State Hillary Ride’em Clinton appears to suggest that the United Kingdom-United States love-in looks set to continue…

 

Clinton and Millipede talking to reporters in Washington, 3rd February 2009

 

WARNING

HIGH LEVEL OF SYCOPHANCY MAY CAUSE UPSET TO THE SERIOUSLY NORMAL

 

Hillary Clinton:  I’m delighted to welcome back to the State Department a friend and someone with whom we have a very positive working relationship, Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  Our two countries have stood side by side confronting global challenges for a very long time and we’ve just had a substantive broad based discussion about a number of issues that are facing both the United Kingdom and the United States and the world.

 

I think it is fair to say and I would underscore this, that we share fundamental values and important fundamental objectives.  It ranges across the fight against terrorism and combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to working together to solve the current global financial crisis and ensure that the benefits of a renewed global economy are spread widely.  We’ve worked together and will continue to deepen our working relationship in combating poverty and disease and confronting global climate change. 

 

We have pledged again to join efforts to achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in the Middle East and our combined effort and energies will be directed to that end.

 

Now it’s often said that the United States and Great Britain have long enjoyed a special relationship.  Well it is certainly special in my mind and one that has proven very productive.  Whoever is in the White House, whichever party in our country, this relationship really stands the test of time and I look forward to working with the Foreign Secretary.

 

David Miliband:  Well Madam Secretary thank you very much for your very kind remarks and for your hospitality today.  I’m obviously delighted to be here on the day after you were sworn in as Madam Secretary, as Secretary of State, and three months to the day since America voted for change and two weeks to the day since President Obama issued his clarion call not just to the American people, but to the global community to come together to tackle shared challenges.  And now we get down to business and that’s what we’ve done I think today.

 

I’ve come here today with a very strong commitment from our Prime Minister to work with President Obama, to work with you and to work with all of your colleagues across the whole range of issues that bring us together.  And what’s become clear to me reading your confirmation hearing and everything that you’ve said and knowing your own history is that we are joined by very strong shared values and very strong shared objectives and strong determination to find the right means to achieve them.

 

And Madam Secretary on a personal note I hope you know the admiration and respect with which you’re held in the United Kingdom.  The record of public service and achievement that you have built up is a unique résumé to bring to the task of bringing, being America’s chief diplomat.  For many years you’ve not just been an ambassador of America, you’ve been an ambassador for America and everything good that it stands for in the world.  And I look forward to working very, very closely with you in the months and years ahead to make sure that our shared aspirations for a safer, more secure, more just planet are delivered.  Thank you very much indeed.

 

Hillary Clinton:  Thank you so much. Big hugs.

 

David Miliband:  Thank you, thank you. Love and kisses. xxxx

Foreign and Commonwealth Office website

 

 

 

…..here are some additional words on the same subject from Sir Christopher Meyer printed in the Telegraph newspaper, 24th Jan 2009. Sir Christopher Meyer is former British ambassador to Washington. His article is adapted from a lecture given to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies….

telegraph

 

 

No place for yes men in special relationship

Our close ties with the US are well placed to endure if we allow for full debate and disagreement, says Christopher Meyer.

 

“More than any other country, the US has the capacity to impact on, for better or worse, our (British) security and prosperity; our strategic priorities abroad are in many ways filtered through the Anglo-American mesh.”

 

“If we look at our relationship since 1945, we notice two things: first, that it has oscillated extravagantly between good and bad patches; and, second, that this has had nothing to do with which party was in power in London or Washington. It has always been hard issues that have defined the relationship: whether we have seen eye-to-eye on them or not. This is why there is something pitiful about our party leaders trying to claim Mr Obama’s ideological mantle.”

 

“It looks as though Mr Obama is going to pursue a foreign policy that is both ambitious and pragmatic, only lightly coated with American exceptionalism; it will gladden the hearts of Britain’s Foreign Office and the chancelleries of Europe.”

 

“The President will be looking for support from friends and allies for his ambitious agenda. And if we Europeans still look to the US to lead, then the US has every right to look to us for support. The challenge will be to give that support without handing over a blank cheque.”

 

“One urgent and contentious issue is Afghanistan, where things are not going well. The US and Britain have made common cause in demanding a greater military effort from other Nato allies; and the US will in turn demand from us a greater contribution, as British troops wind down in Iraq and US troops “surge” into Afghanistan.

 

“It will be difficult to resist Mr Obama in the first flush of his administration. But the British national interest demands that there should be much greater strategic clarity about what all these troops are for. War is the extension of politics by other means.”

 

Alongside this, most of the speculation about the future of the “special relationship” is so much irrelevant twittering in the dovecotes. Will it survive the transition to Mr Obama? What if, unlike Blair, Gordon Brown isn’t the first foreign leader to get an invitation to Camp David? Will the British be supplanted, heaven forfend, by France in America’s affections? My answer to all this fevered nonsense is “take a cold shower”. The reality is this. The British-American relationship is uniquely close in many areas. Our countries are bound together by a multiplicity of links. This will continue whether the political temperature of the moment is warm or cool.

The notion of a special relationship is fine as a rhetorical device, with its historical and sentimental connotations. But one marvels at the addiction of politicians and commentators to the idea that it brooks no mention of disagreement in public and discourages plain speaking in private. This not only undermines the British national interest; it actually damages the relationship with the US by raising wholly unrealistic expectations of what it can achieve.”

 
..all the best then..AoO..
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 00:10

I've pondered that question for several days and the only conclusion i can come to is... just how important is it to you and the rest of the people in your country? Speaking for myself, i've always held the isles in very high regard, but that is just me!

However... i've read some reports since the US presidential election and if they are anything to go by, then i am afraid Mr. Obama's hopes of domestic and foreign "Change" will sink before it is ever given a chance too swim?
 
Regards,
Panther


Edited by Panther - 07-Feb-2009 at 00:11
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 00:56

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests .” - Lord Palmerston, British PM 1859-65

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 02:12
Originally posted by Panther

I've pondered that question for several days and the only conclusion i can come to is... just how important is it to you and the rest of the people in your country? Speaking for myself, i've always held the isles in very high regard, but that is just me! 

Regards,
Panther
 
..thanks for your reply Panther...in response to you enquiry...yes i am from the UK...but i would generally say that for most, the idea of a UK-US 'special relationship' is not really understood in its historical context, if it is known at all...while it is studied, the popular perception seems generally rooted only in what is immediate, e.g...the Blair-Bush cosying during the Invasion of Iraq...
 
...the trouble is, the the subject is such a vast area to understand, and much of the information relating to Anglo-American political foreign policy relations, is by its very nature, only to be found in the archives or in historical texts, so, the majority tend to view UK-US exchanges in cultural or popular terms.... a fair few will have some degree of the Churchill/FDR Atlantic Alliance in WWII, but not many will appreciate the highs and lows of Anglo-American political/defence/foreign policy relations in such areas as the diplomatic recognition of the PRC, Harold Wilson's lack of practical support during the American war in Vietnam, the Suez crisis, Anglo-Soviet relations, British policy in Europe, for example...
 
..for my own part, in pragmatic terms, i see UK-US relations as a 'when necessary' form of understanding fixed within national self-interest......its perhaps possible to view the ‘special relationship’ in terms of a small platform island permanently anchored in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.....the American and British administrations routinely sail by.On occasion, the United States will pay a visit, at other times Great Britain will disembark. Every so often, both parties will disembark and meet each other and investigate the islands possibilities......
 
...on a personal level, i do sometimes subscribe to the idea of Anglo-American relations in the form of a shared culture/history/language etc and i do believe, on the whole, there is 'a relationship' between Britains and Americans which is mostly positive, for sure, some on both sides of the Atlantic scream  and shout and hurl abuse at each other on the odd occasion, but over all, things generally tick over in the right direction...
 
...all the best...AoO.......
 
 
  
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 13:56
Given that the United States has for hundreds of years held a pronounced anti-Empire foreign policy (despite its feverish attempts to create one of its own ), and has actively and openly sought to dismember the British Empire as was, no sane Briton should ever have anything but loathing and contempt for that wretched country.  However, as we all know, fate makes strange bed-fellows, hence the need for both the US and the UK to align with one another.  After all, who would want to get into bed with any of the other countries, such as France, Germany, Japan or Russia, since this lot make even America and Americans seem attractive....................well, almost !
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 13:58
Originally posted by Act of Oblivion

Originally posted by Panther

I've pondered that question for several days and the only conclusion i can come to is... just how important is it to you and the rest of the people in your country? Speaking for myself, i've always held the isles in very high regard, but that is just me! 

Regards,
Panther
 
..thanks for your reply Panther...in response to you enquiry...yes i am from the UK...but i would generally say that for most, the idea of a UK-US 'special relationship' is not really understood in its historical context, if it is known at all...while it is studied, the popular perception seems generally rooted only in what is immediate, e.g...the Blair-Bush cosying during the Invasion of Iraq...
 
...the trouble is, the the subject is such a vast area to understand, and much of the information relating to Anglo-American political foreign policy relations, is by its very nature, only to be found in the archives or in historical texts, so, the majority tend to view UK-US exchanges in cultural or popular terms.... a fair few will have some degree of the Churchill/FDR Atlantic Alliance in WWII, but not many will appreciate the highs and lows of Anglo-American political/defence/foreign policy relations in such areas as the diplomatic recognition of the PRC, Harold Wilson's lack of practical support during the American war in Vietnam, the Suez crisis, Anglo-Soviet relations, British policy in Europe, for example...
 
..for my own part, in pragmatic terms, i see UK-US relations as a 'when necessary' form of understanding fixed within national self-interest......its perhaps possible to view the ‘special relationship’ in terms of a small platform island permanently anchored in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.....the American and British administrations routinely sail by.On occasion, the United States will pay a visit, at other times Great Britain will disembark. Every so often, both parties will disembark and meet each other and investigate the islands possibilities......
 
...on a personal level, i do sometimes subscribe to the idea of Anglo-American relations in the form of a shared culture/history/language etc and i do believe, on the whole, there is 'a relationship' between Britains and Americans which is mostly positive, for sure, some on both sides of the Atlantic scream  and shout and hurl abuse at each other on the odd occasion, but over all, things generally tick over in the right direction...
 
...all the best...AoO.......
 
 
  
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 14:08
The closing paragraph of the above post declares that both the US and the UK have much in common............not any more we don't   !  Am I not right in stating that Spanish is more widely spoken in California than is English ?   Has not the Irish anti British vote long been allowed to negatively influence against Great Britain on the US East Coast ?  Does Britain now not have so many Muslim immigrants as to sway opinion in the UK against the US ?
The days when Churchill and Roosevelt**, or even Bush and Blair, stood side by side are now long over.......................Heaven help us !!
 
** Not that even FDR was much of an ally of the UK, since his Lend-Lease Agreement was specifically drawn up by his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau with FDR's express instruction that it bankrupt the British Empire  !
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 14:53

Originally posted by nuvolari

Given that the United States has for hundreds of years held a pronounced anti-Empire foreign policy (despite its feverish attempts to create one of its own ), and has actively and openly sought to dismember the British Empire as was

The Americans never sought to undo the British Empire. At most, they (unsuccesfully) tried to seize a territory from it (British North America) and huffed and puffed a bit about it. That's not the same thing as actively seeking the end of the empire as a whole, which implies they were doing some concrete thing intended to bring about the end of the empire.

It's Britain itself that decided to end the empire, and it did it in stages. Around the turn of the century, they decided that they could have all the fun and profit of empire without any of the bother, since British business dominated the economies of all the colonies. They could reap the profits without having to get involved in any of the mess by devolving political power to the colonies and forming the Commonwealth. Which, in the end, Britain decided to destroy as well, by dismantling as an economic union.

If the Commonwealth was empire, then Britain quit so it could hang out with its EU buddies. If Commonwealth wasn't empire, then Britain dismantled the empire for its own reasons with the Statute of Westminster. Don't blame the Americans.



Edited by edgewaters - 08-Feb-2009 at 14:54
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 16:28
nuvolari,
 
How do you figure Morgenthau and FDR either wanted to, or intended to "bankrupt the British Empire?"  How could Lend Lease have accomplished this end?
 
A few points:
 
1)  Great Britain owed the US hundreds of millions of Pounds after WW I, the vast majority of which was not repayed.  That was understandable as G.B. ended WW I as a debtdor nation and with debts owed to her by others that could not be collected.
 
2)  Lend Lease was implemented with NO provisions for repayment for materiel or other resources advanced to G.B. for the duration of the war.  Rather generous terms.
 
3)  Immediately after the war, British debt to the US was set at 10 cents on the Dollar, amortized over 50 years at some nominal rate of interest (2 or 3% IIRC).  Actually, the debt was eventually retired within the last decade.  Not bad payment terms.
 
American politics had been characterized by anti-imperial sentiments prior to WW II, but in the reality of that war, for most of three years, it was Britain that kept open sea lanes for commerce; it was Britain that faced down Germany and Italy pretty much alone from May, 1940 to June, 1941....and in the Med well into the next year until the US made itself ready.
 
Politically, it was going to be a hard sell in the US to keep American forces overseas after the war.  However, policy makers understood that US interests by then could not merely accomodate the folks in Ohio and Kansas.  The US had to become international and interventionist because of those interests.  The British still retained strategically important territories that required Western presence, and for the "special relationship," those certainly were of great value to new US policy realities.
 
Henry Morganthau held some radical views on Germany, but I am not aware of any advice or intention to bankrupt Britain....the war almost accomplished that on it's own, and no help was needed.
 
 
 
 
 
      
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 16:39
I think this topic belongs in Modern History, so I will move it there.
 
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 16:45
In answer to AoO's initial point, I think the record of British policy for six decades has, overall, demonstrated that there has been, and continues to be, a special relationship between the US and Great Britain. 
 
In most cases, and certainly in the most important, the strategic and economic interests of both are more convergent than not.  Governments both Labour and Conservative have demonstrated this convergence.
 
  
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 17:10
I agree with Pike. But, as I said in the other thread, it would be foolish to deny that at the time of empire there were many divergent interests. The war in the Pacific, with pretty much seperate wars against the Japanese displayed that starkly (yes I know that they was cooperation, no where on the scale seen in Europe). Britain fought to retain her interests in the empire in the far east, the US fought to be the dominant power in the Pacific. Clearly contradictory goals. As a result the divergence in US-UK policy seen  at least until the UK's withrawl in the 1960's.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 23:33

Originally posted by nuvolari

The closing paragraph of the above post declares that both the US and the UK have much in common............not any more we don't   !  Am I not right in stating that Spanish is more widely spoken in California than is English ?   Has not the Irish anti British vote long been allowed to negatively influence against Great Britain on the US East Coast ?  Does Britain now not have so many Muslim immigrants as to sway opinion in the UK against the US ?

The days when Churchill and Roosevelt, or even Bush and Blair, stood side by side are now long over.......................Heaven help us !! 

** Not that even FDR was much of an ally of the UK, since his Lend-Lease Agreement was specifically drawn up by his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau with FDR's express instruction that it bankrupt the British Empire  !

 

…all perfectly valid points with truths in all of them, yet, it should be noted that despite all these aspects of UK-US relations, the ‘special relationship’ endures, sometimes more successful in one era than another, but prevail it does……the Muslim’s in Britain do have a voice and it is heard, and yes, there is a large body of anti-British sentiment coming from the United States, but, as can be seen in my very first post, Britain and the United States are once again outlining their future foreign policy, and on the (public) face of it, they are pretty much still in tune with each other like I said though, behind the scenes, alternative views may be discussed …a recent study argues that  It is important to distinguish the ‘special relationship’ as a policy and the ‘special relationship’ as a state of international interaction. ‘Special relationship’ as a policy has always been almost entirely a British affairs(John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq second edition  (Hampshire, 2006) p.12)..that is quite true…but for the sake of Anglo-American unity, the relationship is portrayed by both as being a valuable one, because, despite any differences, over all, it is!!!…

 

…sorry, this is quite lengthy, but by using some primary sources, it kind of gives the story a degree of depth….but to give just one example, there was huge public opinion here in Britain against American foreign policy in Vietnam, we have all seen the footage from America of anti-war protesters and the fervour with which they pushed their objections, but it is easy to forget that the same kind of protests were a regular occurrence in Great Britain…and I think it is too easy to not fully appreciate the intensity of the period regarding the conflict, foreign policy and the potential damage that could have been infected in Anglo-American relations….during that period, anti-American sentiment from Britain was strong indeed, yet, Anglo-American ties once again survived…..even political opinion within the British government was opposed to American actions ….In September 1967, George Brown (Foreign Secretary) reiterated: “The Government did not support the war. They deplored its escalation. They condemned the continued bombing on North Vietnam.” (Cabinet Conclusions, CAB 128/42/Part 2, CC (67) 57th conclusions, 28th September 1967, The National Archives)

 

……and Prime Minister Wilson refused consistently to entertain the Churchillian philosophy of an Anglo-American affiliation……it was in Harold Wilson’s interest to play down the connotations of a ‘special relationship’ with the United States in order to safeguard and promote Britain’s position as a mediator in the Vietnam War….the Prime Minister preferred instead to maintain a ‘close relationship’ based on “a common purpose, common objectives, and as far as can be achieved, community of policy. A relationship based not on condescension or on a backward looking nostalgia for the past, but on the ability of both parties to put forward their strength and their own unique contribution to our common purpose.” (‘Anglo-American Relations: A Special Case.’ Speech given at University of Texas in April 1971, cited in John Baylis, Anglo-American Relations since 1939 (Manchester, 1997) p.165)

 

….and yet, despite having this knowledge, despite  insisting that no there would be no British military commitment, despite huge political and public pressure, despite President’s Johnson’s repeated request for military assistance, and against every Labour fibre in his body, the PM still alluded to the idea of a special relationship by giving some political support and conceding to some American expectations…..and it was appreciated too….a personal telegram in October 1967 from Johnson to the Prime Minister referred to the war in Vietnam…..the President wrote, “I think you understand how much it matters that the Government of the country which means most to me, aside from my own, is lending its support for what we all know is right, despite the storms around us.(Prime Ministerial papers, Johnson telegram to Wilson shortly after the Scarborough Labour Conference, 5th October 1967. The National Archives, PREM 13/2459)…

 

…In addition, in 1965, McGeorge Bundy informed the President that support from the Labour Government was “not only harder get but somewhat more valuable in international terms.” (Memorandum to the President from McGeorge Bundy (Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs) with reference to the British and Vietnam, 3rd June 1965, David M. Barrett (ed), Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Papers, A Documentary Collection (Texas, 1997) p.164)…

 

….Lord Paul Gore-Booth, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office reflected upon the nature of the ‘special relationship’ while he was in office. There was, he said, “a natural closeness of co-operation between people in the American administration and in the machine in the State Department and people doing the same sort of thing in Britain,” adding that “President Johnson entirely understood Mr Wilson’s domestic difficulties,” and was “grateful that…we at least didn’t get pushed over emotionally into an officially anti-American attitude.” (Gore-Booth, 13th July 1970, cited in Baylis, Anglo-American Relations since 1939, pp.154-157)..

 

..so, it is possible to see from this example that even though the US was mired in what was perhaps the most important foreign policy action in American history and a conflict that was both militarily and politically damaging… all this and Britain refused to physically support the United States when it was most needed and called for….Anglo-American relations were damaged for sure, but co-operation and close ties between the two countries survived one of the most potentially destructive periods in United Kingdom-United States association…..even when Nixon and Kissinger took their place in the White House they hoped to develop a closer relationship with the British….when Edward Heath became PM, Washington still hoped British membership of the EEC might bring some benefit to the United States…when Harold Wilson returned to power in 1974, you would have thought that Anglo-American relations would be tarnished by the memory of Britain’s role (or lack of) in the Vietnam conflict, but there was a general improvement in the trans-Atlantic relationship…and finally, most know about the closeness of the Thatcher-Reagan era…  

 

Originally posted by nuvolari

Given that the United States has for hundreds of years held a pronounced anti-Empire foreign policy (despite its feverish attempts to create one of its own ), and has actively and openly sought to dismember the British Empire as was, no sane Briton should ever have anything but loathing and contempt for that wretched country

 

……apart from the answers that Edgewater’s and Pikeshot have offered, I also think perhaps it is precisely that the United States were ‘feverish’ in their attempts to create their own ‘empire’ in all but name, that widespread general criticism from British opinion is not prevalent….after all, it would be pretty hypocritical of British political circles to condemn another powers desire to build an ‘empire’ when the country had done the precisely the same in the past, nor does the statement take into account that there is significant number of British people who object to the country’s colonial history…some ‘objections’ might be there in principle, but it is difficult to find on public record, many government statements condemning United States policy outright….more often than not, behind the scenes, British officials have had to accept United States policy whether they liked it or not, and if they did not, attempts were generally made to modify or moderate Washington’s actions with varying degrees of success and failure…

 

…anyway, I am sorry for the long reply…I know such posts take a lot of effort to work through…

 

..all the best…AoO…

 

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 00:48
There seems to be an impression that the United States was "feverish" to establish an empire for herself.  I cannot agree.
 
The territorial aquisitions of 1898, and the few previously in the Pacific, were not for either the economic bounty of imperial dominion, or for any glorious mission (Manifest Destiny was an exercise in newspaper selling in the 1840s).  Anyone who thinks the Philippines were a market of any consequence for US industry is deluding himself.
 
Puerto Rico was seen as advantageous as a naval base to guard the approaches to the Caribbean.  Hawaii, Wake, Guam and the Philippines were necessary as...COALING stations in 1898.  The necessity was due to the existing marine technology at the time.  Every European nation was also scrambling for the trade of the East, particularly China, and we were hardly going to give away other parts of the Philippines to economic rivals with navies.
 
Cuba, in 1898, was never more vulnerable to being annexed to the US as a territory.  Why did the US not do so for a large island that was 90 miles off Florida and faced an important part of the access to the Gulf of Mexico?   
 
So, the fever in the US was for coaling stations to maintain access to markets in the East, not for imperial posessions.  By the 1910s, coal as a naval fuel was already on the way out, being replaced by much more efficient oil fuel, and by the 1920s, both the War Department and the Navy Department saw the Phillipines as indefensible against the only logical Pacific antagonist, Japan.  After 1935, the Philippines were being prepped for independence.  So, let's see, 37 years of "imperial" domination.  Wink  That hardly seems to match Spain and Britain.
 
The conventional wisdom about American "empire" doesn't hold water.  The important markets for the US up until 1900 were Europe and South America.  I doubt Henry Ford was going to sell many cars in Guam or Puerto Rico, or in the Philippines.  Other than economic advantage, what purpose has there ever been to the concept of empire, at least after the Middle Ages?
 
The US convergence of interests with Great Britain after WW II is, frankly, coincidental, regardless of conspiracy theorists.  
 
  


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Feb-2009 at 16:17
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 01:51

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

The conventional wisdom about American "empire" doesn't hold water.  The important markets for the US up until 1900 were Europe and South America. I doubt Henry Ford was going to sell many cars in Guam or Puerto Rico, or in the Philippines.  Other than economic advantage, what purpose has there ever been to the concept of empire, at least after the Middle Ages?

In a sense, the US is an empire comprised of loosely controlled vassals rather than outright provinces or colonies. That's the direction Britain was headed prior to WW2, the US simply took up the reigns after Britain proved unable or unwilling to continue holding them.

The US convergence of interests with Great Britain after WW II is, frankly, coincidental, regardless of conspiracy theorists.  

Definately, it's why I quoted Palmerston. There is no 'special relationship' merely mutual interests that have continued long enough to give that appearance.

Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 269
  Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 12:06
Thank you all for the detailed and reasoned replies I have received to my thread. I will make an attempt to answer with some salient facts.  If any one feels that I have neglected to respond to a point they raised, I will respond further.
 
Putting to one side the US War of Independence since that issue is one of major complexity and demands it own especial discussion, let me just cite the following points to support my contention that the US is anti Empire, especially that of the UK's.
 
1.   The strategy of FDR to bankrupt the British by dint of the Lend Lease plan has been well documented and reported in several books by respected historians.
2.   Back in 1917 just prior to the entry of the USA into WW1 **, Woodrow Wilson drafted his famous "Fourteen Point Declaration". which specifically stated what the US wanted out of its entry into that war.  One of its key points was the dismemberment of ALL empires, especially that of Great Britain's.
3.   During WW2, the stated policy of the American Chief's of Staff was to prevent the participation by the UK in any significant manner in the Pacific theatre of war.  Our forces were only allowed token representation, despite the existence of a major part of the British Empire (much more than any US national representation in the same area ) in the Pacific region, especially if one includes the Antipodean area.  The fact that the US senior officers in that area (Admiral King, General's Macarthur and Stilwell etc. ) were all rabidly anti British, goes a long way to support this contention.
3.  When in 1956 President Nasser occupied the Canal Zone (which legally belonged to both Britain and France) and was a crucial British lifeline to it's Far Eastern dependencies and its oil supplies, and was of much greater value to her than ever was the Panama Canal to the USA, the USA deliberately withdrew its support at the United Nations, brought about a devaluation of the Pound Sterling, and threatened embargoes on supplies of strategic materials to the UK ( when 20 years earlier the US had done the same to Japan, again to prevent and restrict expansion by a foreign power into the Pacific, Japan then went to war over the actions of the USA ). These action by the USA towards its allies was belligerent in the extreme, and the cause of much humiliation and loss of the global prestige of the UK and France, and led directly to many countries in the British Empire then seeking their independence from that Empire. Given the state of much of Africa and the Middle East etc. now being virtually wholly unstable, whereas previously when part of the British Empire or Commonwealth they hade been both prosperous and politically sound, it is clear that the USA has much to answer for !
 
**  The US's entry into both World Wars can be best described as being similar to that of many police forces around the World when faced with dealing with a serious and dangerous bar-room fight i.e. Let all of the participants exhuast themselves so as not to pose a threat, and then stroll in and separate the enfeebled fighters.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 12:52
nuvolari,
 
Can you advise on FDR's strategy to "bankrupt the British by dint of the Lend Lease plan?"
 
Can you cite sources "well documented" by "respected historians?"
 
Thanks.
 
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 12:59
As far as US policy during the Suez affair, AFAIK, Britain and France acted without the knowledge of the US in their joint intervention.  The result included threats of Soviet action in central Europe which was certainly not in the interests of NATO's membership.  Such an affront to acknowledged US leadership of NATO could hardly go unaddressed.  Eisenhower was pissed at them.  Perhaps they got back at us during Viet Nam....and perhaps AoO can address that.
 
Dismantling European empires would deprive certain states of the resources to wage major wars, and solidify US hegemony in Europe.  This was a conscious policy, frankly, to keep Germany and France from disturbing the peace again.  The policy did not include bankrupting anyone, and even if it had, the Marshall Plan turned that on it's head in short order.
 
Austerity Britain, up into the 1950s, suffered the effects of thirty years of war and the resulting costs of war.  Bankruptcy was a possibility but not because of policies of the US.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Feb-2009 at 14:04
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 14:01
nuvolari, the men of Fourteenth Army or of the Far Eastern Fleet will definatly disagree with you on the issue of "token representation". The main land fighting against the Japanese (after China) was taken by the British in Burma, and the Eastern Fleets submarines helped cripple the Japanese Merchant Marine, while the RAF inflicted some pretty heavy losses on the IJN at Ceylon.
 
It is true that there was a lot less cooperation in the Pacific than in Europe, but was a cause of Geography and different interests, not Admiral Kings noted Anglophobia.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 14:21
Admiral King was not the most tolerant or pleasant personality.  I am not sure he liked anyone or anything outside his family.  He almost got into a fist fight with Field Marshal Brooke at Casablanca, and had his huge disagreements with George Marshall...maybe taking inter-service rivalry well past the Army-Navy football game.  Smile
 
His thesis at the Naval War College centered around democratic government being incompatible with military efficiency and sabotaging it's effectiveness.  One wonders how he lasted as long as he did, and, indeed, he was on his way out in 1940.  However, the war resuscitated his career as it did MacArthur's.
 
King was not fond of the British and looked on the Royal Navy as an "old boy's club" full of snobs, but then, as said, he didn't have a fondness for much of anyone.  He felt the Pacific was a US theater, and that others got in the way.  However, the Australians held him in high regard, and it is important to understand that he worked for the president; not the other way around.
 
  


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-Feb-2009 at 14:33
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.