PDA

View Full Version : The Great War between Britain and America



ShadesWolf
08-29-2006, 21:48
another interesting one, sorry its so long


Amid all this talk of the 'Special Relationship' and of Britain's failure to have any impact on the current attempts to bandage together another short-term stand-off in the Middle East, I find myself wondering why so many British people still imagine that America is our fond friend and perpetual ally.

I have lived in the USA and loved it. I like Americans. I am glad of the help the USA have sometimes given us, and not resentful about the times when they have pursued their own interests at our expense. But in two years in Washington DC I found absolutely no evidence of a 'special relationship' between our countries, and never met an American who had heard of it. Great powers always look after themselves first. We did it when we could, and would again if we had the chance.

But I really get tired of the sentimental assumption that we are bound together, and especially of the idea that America 'saved us' in World War Two and we are therefore permanently morally indebted so that we must support them in all they do. What saving there was, was (quite reasonably) self-interested and limited to ensure that we would never again be a diplomatic, military or economic rival. Soviet Russia also received a great deal of American support, and never showed a flicker of gratitude for it ( or for the help we gave them, as I should know, since my father had to slog between Scapa Flow and Murmansk within range of German aircraft and U-boats in 1943 and 1944, convoying aid through freezing, dangerous seas to an ungrateful Comrade Stalin).

So, in an attempt to undermine this silly, soppy belief, here is an account of the British-American War that was never quite fought, though we came surprisingly close to it many times. The 1812-1815 war doesn't really count, since neither side was ready, and neither side really had its heart in the business either. Britain was still busy fighting Bonaparte's France, while American commercial interests were angrily opposed to the cost, and the loss of trade.

But it is worth remembering that the US national anthem is an anti-British hymn dating from this half-forgotten time. It is an account, in verse, of the Royal Navy's unsuccessful bombardment of Baltimore, Maryland. The 'Star-Spangled banner' still waves proudly despite having been ripped and torn by British bullets. The landing of British marines is described as "their foul footsteps' pollution".

The young US Navy did remarkably well in that conflict, defeating the hitherto unbeaten British on too many occasions. A superb description of the terrible duel off Boston between HMS Shannon and USS Chesapeake (in which the Royal Navy recovered its honour) is to be found in Patrick O'Brian's "Fortune of War", one of his captivating series of historical novels on the Napoleonic War at sea. I doubt if Hollywood will ever make a movie of that, and in fact Hollywood altered the plot of his 'Far Side of the World', in the rather poor film of that name, so that an Anglo-American battle was replaced by a historically impossible Anglo-French one.

On land the honours were more even. Visitors to Niagara Falls, on the Canadian side, can also see a surprising monument, taller than Nelson's Column, just along the Niagara River at Queenston Heights. This commemorates the British General Isaac Brock who died while defeating an attempted American invasion of Canada at this spot. Brock had earlier captured Detroit from the USA. Imagine what would have happened to the car business, or the music trade, if we hadn't given it back later.

Most people have some vague idea that British troops burned the White House and the Capitol in Washington (they did, in reprisal for an American raid on what is now Toronto), but few now have any idea of how extensive this conflict was, or how bloody. Its last gasp was at the extreme opposite end of the country, the pointless Battle of New Orleans, fought after a peace treaty had already been signed but the generals did not know it.

That fierce little war was a sort of re-run of the original breach between Britain and America, now laughed over but very savage at the time. Many people in the American colonies did not support the revolt against King George, and these loyalists were cruelly treated after independence, sometimes murdered and in most cases forced from their homes. They went, mostly, to Canada to start new lives. Some of their descendants, rather like the Arabs driven from Israel in 1948, still keep the keys or deeds to the houses from which their forefathers were driven.

The two countries were at each other's throats many times in the 19th century. Powerful forces in Washington wanted to annexe Canada and much British diplomacy was needed to prevent this. A dispute over the frontier in the far North-West almost led to gunfire in the 1850s. And Britain came close to intervening openly on the side of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. A British shipyard built the Confederate raider CSS Alabama, which did terrible damage to the North's shipping. The victorious North did not forget, and sued Britain for the then enormous sum of £3 million in compensation. There was real resentment and anger over this. Senator Charles Sumner, Chairman of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, said Britain's breach of neutrality was so serious that it had doubled the length of the war, and that Britain ought to hand over Canada to the USA as redress.

The idea that the two great English-speaking powers are eternal friends and allies is quite a new one. British diplomats in Washington (notably Cecil Spring Rice, author of 'I vow to thee, my country") worked night and day to try to get America to intervene in World War One, and Britain later paid the price when President Woodrow Wilson insisted on the right to decide the peace terms, often in ways which did not suit Britain at all, upsetting cosy secret deals we had made in our old-fashioned way.

The Washington Naval Treaty, more or less forced on Britain by the US in 1921, effectively ended Britain's days as the world's greatest sea-power. The Americans made it clear that they could and would outbuild us if we did not agree to stop launching new capital ships. (We fought World War two with ancient or underpowered warships as a result, one reason for the disaster when the Bismarck sank the beautiful but poorly armoured HMS Hood). It also ended the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which had long irritated Washington. Who knows how differently the world would now be arranged, if the British and the Japanese had remained allies and we had never lost Singapore?

Round about this time, American pressure also helped to push Britain into an unwelcome surrender to Irish Republicanism.

Between the wars The USA also looked unsympathetically on the British Empire, and on its special trading arrangements, viewing it as an obstacle and a rival. American 'anti-colonialism' (which conveniently forgets that the continental USA is itself a land empire obtained by conquest or by purchase of the conquests of others), plus Irish-American dislike of Britain, kept relations fairly cool. It was precisely because of this that King George VI visited the USA in June 1939, to try to warm up a frigid relationship as war approached.

Franklin Roosevelt did not help Britain in 1939 out of sentimentality. The Lend-Lease package was an act of hard self-interest, designed to keep Britain in the war and to keep her still-powerful fleet out of the hands of the Germans. The scheme was ended abruptly in September 1945, leaving many goods still in transit. Britain expects to pay off the debt for this aid in December of this year (2006). If Britain had fallen, it is conceivable that the Third Reich would have been able to combine the British and French navies with its own into a major challenge for control of the Atlantic, and eventually the Pacific too. Had Hitler then gone on to defeat the USSR, the USA would have faced a world power quite capable of threatening it on two flanks. Alaska, remember, almost touches Siberia, and there are old Russian settlements even now in California. In those circumstances, isolation would not have been safe or wise for the USA.

Winston Churchill understood this perfectly well, and blatantly used the threat of the Royal Navy falling into Hitler's hands to bargain for help.

The USA did not exactly rush wholeheartedly to Britain's aid. Millions of German-Americans, and plenty of Irish-Americans, with significant votes in important states, were far from sympathetic. Many people still believe that the USA declared war on Nazi Germany. But this never happened. Hitler declared war on the USA, in obedience to his pact with Japan, soon after Pearl Harbor. America, again quite reasonably, fought a cynical and self-interested war, letting Britain and the USSR take most of the burden of the fight against Hitler, while it concentrated on the great sea-battles and land-battles ( largely unknown in Britain) which ensured the defeat of Japan. This is not to deny the valour of the American servicemen who fought in Europe, which was great, simply to point out that they were fighting in their own interests, not in response to some sort of international blood tie. Interestingly, much less is said about the tremendous ( and far more selfless) Canadian contribution in 1939-45, especially at sea.

The great power summit in Teheran in 1943, where Roosevelt snubbed Churchill and sucked up to Stalin, was a warning - which Churchill heeded - that Britain's usefulness to the USA was declining. The two men, Churchill and Roosevelt are supposed to have been great friends. But there is evidence that this was not so, and Churchill, a frequent traveller to the USA, significantly did not attend Roosevelt's funeral in 1945.

After the war, with lend-lease aid cut off abruptly within weeks of Japan's surrender, Britain had to plead with the USA for help - and got it once again, including generous Marshall Aid (much of it unwisely squandered on a Welfare State we couldn't afford), but at a price. The pound sterling had to be devalued, the Empire had to open its markets up to US trade. And it was quite clear that the British Empire had to come to an end as well, not least because under these conditions we simply could not afford to maintain it. The scuttle from India, and the scuttle from Palestine, both happened because we could no longer afford to be an imperial or colonial power.

Our conflict with Iran, over the price we paid for Iranian oil, also arose out of national near-bankruptcy which rather suited the booming USA . This led to the disastrous CIA-MI6 coup against the Iranian leader Mossadeq, which has poisoned relations between the west and Iran ever since.

It is worth remembering that for some years after 1945 the US State Department regarded Britain, not the USSR, as America's principal rival in the world. Churchill, seeing this, sought to alert America to the Soviet threat so as to rekindle the 1939-45 alliance, a great success for as long as the Cold War lasted, but only so long as we behaved ourselves as the Americans thought we should.

And then of course there was Suez. I don't think this was America's fault. I think it was the fault of British politicians who hadn't bothered to understand the post-Teheran world order.

It was an adventure embarked on by a silly, weak, Prime Minister, anxious to prove he was a major world figure, who mistook an Arab demagogue for a re-incarnated Fascist Dictator (remind you of anyone?). In this, Anthony Eden was encouraged by Harold Macmillan, another lightweight who entirely misunderstood President Eisenhower, having believed the wartime alliance was a deep friendship. "Ike will lie doggo", Macmillan wrongly predicted when ministers discussed the likely American reaction to the Suez plan. Macmillan, as Chancellor, later had to tell the same ministers that furious and effective American financial pressure threatened to make us bankrupt unless we abandoned the Suez operation he himself had keenly supported. How did this man become Prime Minister?

Since then, America has put unrelenting pressure on Britain to integrate with the EU, a fact that many neo-conservative Eurosceptics find it difficult to cope with. It has shown little understanding of our historic differences with the Continent and our desire for national sovereignty.

And I was present during the tense months in Washington DC when the supposedly mighty British Embassy was repeatedly humiliated by President Bill Clinton and his staff, who decided to give respectability and political backing to Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams, to pay off domestic political debts which they saw as far more important than any obligations to Britain. Clinton's aides ( as one of them told me) viewed Britain as a sort of Yugoslavia, a backward country where they were entitled to intervene. This intervention led directly to Britain's greatest diplomatic and political humiliation since Suez, the surrender to the IRA at Easter 1998. Antony Blair got away with this because the British media fell for the ludicrous spin that it was a victory for peace and goodwill, and mostly didn't read the agreement and still haven't. It was a grovelling, one-sided capitulation. Would an enemy have treated us any worse than this old friend?

I repeat, I love America, think we have much to learn from her, am endlessly glad that she exists, I like Americans and enjoy many aspects of American culture. My heart always lifts when I arrive there and sinks when I have to leave again. But I do not regard her as a reliable ally of Britain. And why should I expect to? It was the great British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who pointed out that great powers had "no eternal friends, only eternal interests".

InsaneApache
08-29-2006, 22:40
Is this new news?

:shame:

Keba
08-29-2006, 23:47
So the guy finally figured out what politics actually means. Took him awhile ... :no:

Kanamori
08-30-2006, 00:09
British diplomats are still generally welcomed here more warmly than the rest, and as far as national security is concerned we are very close partners. However, it would be unwise for the British to expect a partnership in matters of international diplomacy.

I'm not sure what the far history of our relations has to do w/ the present relation. WWII, basically FDR and Churchill, brought us closer together than anything else had taken us apart... there were Britian's Pinko years that made our governments more distanced though...

I don't think that the American people, generally speaking, see any nation as being a permenant ally.:balloon2:

Strike For The South
08-30-2006, 00:11
Ok if wanna go be like France thats fine.

lancelot
08-30-2006, 01:11
This article isnt accurrate in some points- namely the 'anglo-japanese' alliance was nothing like the franco-russian alliance...a little bit of over-statement there.

2nd- this-
Hitler declared war on the USA, in obedience to his pact with Japan is complete rubbish. Hitler was in no way obligated to declare war on the USA...it is considered one of his major military blunders that he did so, against the advice of much of his staff.

Interesting article, although the author has overlooked at least another 2 example of Anglo-US rivalry that could have quite easily came to war.

Louis VI the Fat
08-30-2006, 02:11
Ok if wanna go be like France thats fine.Sorry to break it to you mate, but Britain is France in this respect.

Brenus and I have said many times before what the British here are too polite to admit: you won't have any more succes with your thick Texan accent in Glasgow or Leeds than in Paris.

I like Americans, honestly. All them well-bred Britons here do to. There's still plenty of love for you. But don't have any illusions about what is said about Yanks on the British streets, eh? :shame:

Incongruous
08-30-2006, 02:26
Very sad.

Strike For The South
08-30-2006, 02:40
Sorry to break it to you mate, but Britain is France in this respect.

Brenus and I have said many times before what the British here are too polite to admit: you won't have any more succes with your thick Texan accent in Glasgow or Leeds than in Paris.

I like Americans, honestly. All them well-bred Britons here do to. There's still plenty of love for you. But don't have any illusions about what is said about Yanks on the British streets, eh? :shame:

Well I never.

Edit: I hate Zizsou :angry:

Divinus Arma
08-30-2006, 03:15
Sad. I genuinely consider GB our closest and most trusted friend and ally. Certainly not our most important, since that is governed by interests exclusively. But that does not mean I don't recognize close ties and friendship. :shame:

Strike For The South
08-30-2006, 03:20
Is this an honest hatred for Americans? And Im guessing Texans although how you could hate us is far beyond what I can chonprehend

professorspatula
08-30-2006, 03:28
It doesn't matter what has happened in the past.

Plans are already afoot for a great British army to retake the former colonies, starting with the US of A. Half a dozen unemployed factory workers armed with currant buns and donuts will assault the East Coast, whilst a special task force consisting of a dozen disgruntled left hand drive Ford car owners will march upon California and rapidly take control of the entire West coast. The rest of America is just too uninteresting to worry about and will be ignored, or possibly allowed to become a client state of the British Colony of America. The entire British operation will be controlled by a modified version of the RTW AI, thus safeguarding the success for the mission. Aside from the obvious language barrier making communication between the new governors and the conquered people difficult (the American's inability to speak English), no further problems are expected.

The invasion begins just as soon as the cucumber sandwiches for the troops are prepared and wrapped in cling film.

Samurai Waki
08-30-2006, 03:33
ughh. I don't really know how much is actually being said on the streets and frankly I don't really care.

I know in the US some people say the French are smug and the Brits are holier-than-thou. Honestly... I don't see it.

I don't think that people in Europe are as close minded as they seem, and likewise for America and I don't care about the general opinion or populace so much as I care about how I'm interacting with the person I'm facing.

If a French guy is being rude to me, I'm going to call him a bastard. Thats not to say I think ALL french people are bastards, just the guy I'm talking too.
Or if I meet an English man/woman and they are very nice, I'm not going to say "I Love the English!" I'm going to say "That person was very nice".

And as far as Politics go, all politicians are self serving and generally do not reflect the populace in Foreign Opinion, just Domestic. Our President, Secretary of State, and Department of Foreign Affairs deal with other countries to suit their over all plan of action. Whether Diplomatically, militarily, or economically. As an average American citizen I don't ever deal with these people on a personal level and so judgement cannot be passed on me... nor can I pass Judgement on any other person in the world for the same reason.

Take Iraq for example, I never personally delt with Iraq. Yeah, I disagree on why we're there. Yeah, I regret what my government is doing there and why we're there. I thought Saddam was a bastard, and I'm happy he's gone, but just because of what he did, or what other people are doing there doesn't mean that I think all Iraqis are bad people. I just think Saddam and his regime were bad.

Duke of Gloucester
08-30-2006, 09:25
I think the article takes truth and overstates things to the point of ranting. Firstly, in discussing conflict between the two countries he dismisses an actual war to play up conflicts of interest.

Then the actual conflicts are spun to make them seem worse than they were. It is true that the USA looked greedily at Canada on its northern border, but the country also looked South and West and actually expanded in these directions. Clearly Canada was not worth damaging relations with Britain over.

You could argue that, given Britain's sympathy with the South and the large cotton industry, the lack of intervention in the Civil War is remarkable. Of course this may be due to British disaproval of slavery. Nevertheless one would expect with two nations at each others' throats one would take advantage of the others split.

Then the Washington Naval treaty is presented as keeping Britain down. In reality the treaty stated that the American and British navies should be equal in size. It did not forbid the UK from replacing older capital ships, and had Britain been prosperous enough she could have replaced the Hood with a more effective ship. The states were much more prosperous and could have outbuilt the Royal Navy had they wished to. You could view the treaty as generously allowing Britain naval parity. I understand that the Anglo-Japanese treaty laspsed, and I am not sure how much this was linked with the Washington treaty.

The author also makes two references to the "Irish Question" to imply that American pressure led to two concessions to "Irish Republicanism". He ignores the fact that a home rule bill had been passed in 1914, presumably without pressure from the US, and this was used as the basis for the 1920 treaty. This did not establish an Irish Republic, but granted the southern counties dominion status, similar to Canada and Australia. He also claims that the Good Friday agreement was forced upon the UK by America and characterised it as a surrender. Since the IRA were fighting for a united Ireland and Ireland is still divided, you could spin the agreement the other way and claim that the IRA had surrenderd under pressure from American friends.

One example he states of a failure of America to support an ally is correct: Suez. However he fails to mention intelligence and logistical support given to Britain during the Falklands War. The US could have done a Suez to us then, yet chose not to.

He then talks about dimplomatic snubs and the fact that US politicians are more concerned about domestic interests than supporting the UK. Of course they are! We can't vote them in and out of office. Our politicians are exactly the same. The idea of a "special relationship" is false, but the image presented by this article is a mirror image of misrepresentation. The US and UK share a lot in terms of language, culture and values, but they are separate nations and the US is far more powerful and after all, Lord Palmerston was right about powers great and small acting according to their interests.

Red Peasant
08-30-2006, 10:12
Good post Duke.

Interests are interests but, all things being equal (which they rarely are, I know), the US and Britain will side together. Sometimes it's a close call (e.g. WWI) but I'm glad of it. I don't know about 'special relationship' as that has always sounded a bit corny and incestuous to me, but there is a linguistic, historic and cultural link that can tip the balance to cooperation and help.

The reality is that the US is a superpower and we may have to occasionally swallow our pride and see things her way which we may not otherwise do, but she is not out to destroy us so I can live with it. We're British, we survive and thrive, always have done, no matter who the top dog is. We've seen them all off, so far. :2thumbsup:

lancelot
08-30-2006, 10:25
Is this an honest hatred for Americans? And Im guessing Texans although how you could hate us is far beyond what I can chonprehend

I dont think true British nationals hate the Yankees at all...its fair to say we have issues with your president and his pet poodle tony but the yankee people as a whole I consider our (wayward ~;) cousins...I in particular have a warm regard for the sunny southerners~:cheers:

JFC
08-30-2006, 11:10
It doesn't matter what has happened in the past.

Plans are already afoot for a great British army to retake the former colonies, starting with the US of A. Half a dozen unemployed factory workers armed with currant buns and donuts will assault the East Coast, whilst a special task force consisting of a dozen disgruntled left hand drive Ford car owners will march upon California and rapidly take control of the entire West coast. The rest of America is just too uninteresting to worry about and will be ignored, or possibly allowed to become a client state of the British Colony of America. The entire British operation will be controlled by a modified version of the RTW AI, thus safeguarding the success for the mission. Aside from the obvious language barrier making communication between the new governors and the conquered people difficult (the American's inability to speak English), no further problems are expected.

The invasion begins just as soon as the cucumber sandwiches for the troops are prepared and wrapped in cling film.

Don't forget the Tea man... the TEA! Oh, and HP Sauce!

Red Peasant
08-30-2006, 11:14
Don't forget the Tea man... the TEA! Oh, and HP Sauce!

Is it British anymore, with production now moved to Holland? :shame:

Al Khalifah
08-30-2006, 12:08
That's because HP Sauce is now owned by Heinz. Hienz is mostly owned by Teresa Heinz Kerry who is the wife of Senator John Kerry. So theoretically, if John Kerry had won the 2004 Presidential Election then the US President would've been in control of the Houses of Parliament (Sauce Company). Conspiracy? :dizzy2:

I dislike the term alliance with regards to the political relationship between America and Britain since 1943. The word protectorate is perhaps more accurate. Alliance implies that the relationship is two sided and more or less equal. The dispicable thing about the post-WW2 era is that America did far more to bolster West Germany and on far fairer terms than it did for Britain, despite the fact that Britain was its ally and Germany was its enemy.

America profitted greatly from WW2, but its an international power, so that's kind of within its rights. Might is right in international diplomacy and if you can exploit a situation to further the standing of your own nation then you should. America used Britain as a shield against Germany while at the same time supplanting it as the world's superpower. All's fair in love and war.

yesdachi
08-30-2006, 15:00
We share the same (although different) language, history, many traditions and religions. Why try and separate us more than we already are. The US isn’t perfect but if you look at your options for allies who is a better one? There aren’t any better ones. You Brits are in a good position, you can have us an as ally and still pick on us about all the dumb things we do (there is plenty to choose from) and at the end of the day we will still like you because you have that sweet accent. Just kidding about the accent, its only part of the (probably overblown) fascination we have with you.

Samurai Waki
08-30-2006, 18:17
I also have a deep appreciation for Anglo-Celtic Culture, as even though you might dislike a person, for the most part, you're still probably the most hospitable culture in the world.

English assassin
08-30-2006, 18:22
America in essentially self interested shock. Film at eleven.

Surely you can be critical when America seems to misunderstand where her best interests lie (her commitment to mercantilism rather than free trade, or her adventures in the middle east) but the fact that she looks after herself first and her allies when it is also in her interests is just the way things are.

Mind you if she did bend over to be royally rogered on our behalf in the same way that she does for Israel I for one would be grateful.