British & U.S relationship during WWII

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 01 Oct 2002, 00:53
Location: DC

British & U.S relationship during WWII

#1

Post by Korbius » 16 Apr 2004, 11:50

Regardless of what movies usually portray, where U.S and British troops worked together happily against the common enemy, just as the Italians with the Germans would usually blame each other as either being too soft or violent, how about the Western Allies, what was their opinion or problems between each other.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#2

Post by WalterS » 17 Apr 2004, 06:07

The US/British alliance had many rough spots and areas of serious disagreement, although FDR and Churchill managed to patch most of them up. The Alliance was a difficult one at best.

An excellent book on the subject is John S.D. Eisenhower's Allies. (Yes, the author is the son of General Eisenhower)


User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#3

Post by Lord Gort » 17 Apr 2004, 19:59

The relationship was a rocky one. On generqal staff levels most senior military officers got on ok, except for the ruffling of feathers that the ego's of either Patton or Montgomery caused.


Essentially Britian was cap in hand to America in 1941. In 1942 the Americans tried to learn as much off the British as possible, while slao casting an eye over the seemingly endless run of British defeats at the time, (the shameful collapse of Britians far east Empire).

Gradually over time American pwoer began to cause problems. British demands in a head to head confrontation were generally not conceded. There was by the end of the war a 3:1 superiority of American troops over British, in terms of numbers at least, add to this that the British were greatly bolstered by the Dominions and Britians position began to deteriorate.

Even the immense prestige of Churchill could not stop the tor, as Britian became in essence a junior partner.

Tragically Churchills urgings at the end of the war were ignored. Roosevelt tried to keep an equidistance at summits between Churchill and Roosevelt, Chruchills hope for concentration on the Italian front and the eventual march on Vienna was ignored by Roosevelt in favour of operation 'anvil'? (I think this may have been its original name) which was a sucess but arguably uneccessary.


As a sidenote, true independent British influence ended with the Suez debacle of 1956, at a four power conference in geneva in the early fifties, the British foreign secretary and future Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden forced a humiliating climbdown by US Secretary of State Dulles (an idiot in my opinion anyway), from his statement that the US might use atmoic weapons as a matter of course in Indo-China.

N.B

Worryingly Eisenhower said that atmoic arms would eventually be accepted like conventional wepaons, that they were just "The Rhien Crossings writ larger".


Sorry if Ive waffled on, but I'll finish with Churchills last speech to the Hosue of Commons in 1954, on the subject of Nuclear war......

"Which way shall we turn to save our lives and the future of the world? It does not matter so much to old people, they going soon anyway, but I find it poignant to look at youth in all its activity and ardour.... and wonder what would lie before them if God wearied of mankind?"


regards,

harold
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 15:25
Location: US

#4

Post by harold » 21 Apr 2004, 18:03

Lord Gort wrote: Tragically Churchills urgings at the end of the war were ignored. Roosevelt tried to keep an equidistance at summits between Churchill and Roosevelt,

regards,
Did you mean between Churchill and Stalin? :? If so, it was part of the price of keeping Stalin in the fold.

There were disagreements between them about the future of the British Empire, but there can be little doubt that Churchill and Roosevelt had a much closer personal relationship with one another than Roosevelt's with Stalin.

Churchill actually persuaded Roosevelt to give first priority to the European war, even though we had just been attacked by Japan. That's a pretty remarkable testimony to the ties between the UK and the US..

User avatar
Korbius
Member
Posts: 1795
Joined: 01 Oct 2002, 00:53
Location: DC

#5

Post by Korbius » 23 Apr 2004, 10:49

harold wrote:Churchill actually persuaded Roosevelt to give first priority to the European war, even though we had just been attacked by Japan. That's a pretty remarkable testimony to the ties between the UK and the US..
In the beginning when the Americans got in the war they were easily persuaded by Churchill, for example in agreeing with Operation Torch in N. Africa, however we see that by later '43-'44, Churchill was against landing troops in Normandy, and by then U.S was more influential on decision making. His plans to land troops in Europe's "soft underbelly," Balkans, or to go and strike through Vienna, was refused by both Stalin and Roosevelt, and this can be seen as a sign of losing prestige.

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#6

Post by varjag » 23 Apr 2004, 13:15

Agree with Lord Gort - but Britain was cap in hand even before 1941. Wasn't Churchills 'destroyers for bases' deal the very first retreat of the British Empire? It may have sounded a good deal to the hard-pressed Brits at the time - but it was a retreat - and a permanent one. Irrespective of the future issues, Churchill gambled the Empire on a war that he rapidly understood Britain could not win unless he, by hook and by crook, could bring the Americans into it. Britains policy after May 1940 was solely aimed at bringing America into the war to scratch the empirical chestnuts out of a fire they could no longer control. Who can blame the Americans for taking a Grandaddy view of their Englishspeaking 'cousins' and the plight they had maneuvered themselves into. From 1940 and onwards the shots were called from Washington - not London. The British hated it - and showed it, whenever they could. But they had started a conflagration that went beyond their wildest nightmares - and had to wear it - as they still do. 'Over there, over there, over there....pass the word..over there, that the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming..and they won't come back until it's over - over there...'

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#7

Post by varjag » 23 Apr 2004, 13:15

Agree with Lord Gort - but Britain was cap in hand even before 1941. Wasn't Churchills 'destroyers for bases' deal the very first retreat of the British Empire? It may have sounded a good deal to the hard-pressed Brits at the time - but it was a retreat - and a permanent one. Irrespective of the future issues, Churchill gambled the Empire on a war that he rapidly understood Britain could not win unless he, by hook and by crook, could bring the Americans into it. Britains policy after May 1940 was solely aimed at bringing America into the war to scratch the empirical chestnuts out of a fire they could no longer control. Who can blame the Americans for taking a Grandaddy view of their Englishspeaking 'cousins' and the plight they had maneuvered themselves into. From 1940 and onwards the shots were called from Washington - not London. The British hated it - and showed it, whenever they could. But they had started a conflagration that went beyond their wildest nightmares - and had to wear it - as they still do. 'Over there, over there, over there....pass the word..over there, that the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming..and they won't come back until it's over - over there...'

harold
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 15:25
Location: US

#8

Post by harold » 23 Apr 2004, 21:39

You're both right about Britain's 'cap in hand' relationship with the US before 1941. It all started during their crisis of a quarter century earlier.

The outward appearances of it lasted through most of WWII, but the politically dominant British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries died of bankruptcy during WWI. The British were forced to borrow from the US to stay in that war. That set the stage for the relationship for the rest of the 20th century.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#9

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Apr 2004, 17:39

I would disagree that it died of bankruptcy during world war I.

It is better to see the great war as a war that ate into British savings rather than bankrupted it.

Interesting section in "The Pity of War" by Niall Fergurson of Oxford University.


It must be remembered that, although Britian borrowed more than $5 billion in the USA during the war, it did not end the war a net debtor, but remained a net creditor. In march 1919 Britians external debts primarily to the USA, totalled £1,365 million; but sh was owed £1,841 million by her allies and the Dominions and colonies, leaving a net balance of nearly half a billion. All that had happened was that Britian had used her own excellent credit raiting to borrow money in New York which she lent on to her much less credit worthy allies.

Hope this helps you Harold. Personal message me if you wish me too send you a useful reading list on the money situation of ww1. :wink: :lol:



Friendly regards,

harold
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 15:25
Location: US

#10

Post by harold » 26 Apr 2004, 21:28

You're right about my boner in describing Britain's condition as bankrupt, Lord Gort. I'm sorry if I stepped on any nerves.

A 'crisis of liquidity' is a more accurate description. It came about for perfectly honorable reasons. :)

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#11

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Apr 2004, 22:43

lol - I agree with the first stament Harold, but the second...borught about through honourable reasons.... :lol: these are nation-states were talking about.!




Friendly Regards,

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

#12

Post by Lord Gort » 26 Apr 2004, 22:53

Just thought that I'd add.

It may seems a stupid notion, but some people believe that that the combined wealth of 100 years of financial and manufacturing supremacy, laid on the foundations of the first ever industrial revolution, was spent almost without second thought by the British in two wolrd wars to defend the ideas of liberty and freedom.

This idea seems stupid too many, after all the British governments of the time acted thinking of the antional interest and on a whole host of other influences.

But ultimatly the decision of weather to go to war rested with the British people, where public opinion had been the deciding factor since at least 1875, and the certainly and on both occasions belived they were fighting for freedom and liberty.

Safe behind the guns of the Royal Navy, Britain is unique in Europe in haveing to justify wars it enters morally, as there have been few occasions when national survival as an independent country have been at stake.


regards,

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#13

Post by varjag » 27 Apr 2004, 13:29

Not being a 'financial person' (yes - had another letter from my bank manager today....) I have read with some interest David Irvings descript of Britains financial plight in 'Churchills War' which (relying on memory only) suggested that Britain as early as 1940 and began 'flogging off the family silver' in the shape of credits and investments - worldwide. Notably in the USA and the Americas but also the last gold reserves in South Africa (did some USN cruiser oblingingly agreed to collect them?) After the Blitz - according to Irving (for whose research I have some ear...) Churchills Britain was fighting with it's frayed credit-card beeing chewed to pieces by the only remaining currency of currency - the US $. On V-E Day Britain, the richest country in the world in 1895, only two world wars and half a century later - stood naked before it's American creditors.

harold
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 15:25
Location: US

#14

Post by harold » 27 Apr 2004, 16:14

Those were times of frustrating changes for the British, so the frictions between them and their US military counterparts are understandable.

However, if anyone but Churchill had been the British prime minister, there would have been far fewer opportunities for second guessing one another about military matters. Without his influence, US-British ground and air cooperation would probably have been limited to the Pacific war.

It's true that Hitler took the initiative and declared war on us after Pearl Harbor, but he did it as a show of support for Japan. There was no immediate threat of a land war between the US and Germany in 1941. From a purely practical standpoint, there was no compelling reason for a European priority here.

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”