Cold War; another "confrontation"

[South]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/grand-impr ... 1539730647

Good morning all,

Above is a book review of Derek Leebaert's "Grand Improvisation".

The reviewer is a history professor at the University of Texas and editor in chief of the "Oxford History of the British Empire".

The review references some key UK and US personalities.

The review's last quote got my attention: "They can invade Sussex and we wouldn't do a damned thing about it."

Well, ...... there goes our own history conference at a seaside resort !

......

Had been busy in my volunteer emergency responder role finishing up Hurricane Michael matters.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in respect to your introductory posting of Wednesday - October 17, 2018 - 8:59pm, from where I stand (or sit for that matter), old yours truly is more than a bit surprised by the historical amnesia of the Wall Street Journal. If I recall, it was Great Britain itself that began the process of dismantling the Imperial British Empire as early as year 1931, when Parliament instituted the STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER which subsequently lead to the formation of the Republican British Commonwealth. As simplistic as this might be, the events that transpired between year 1945 and year 1965 were simply an acceleration of the aims of the STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER. It was essentially the transformation of Colonial Vassals into Dominion Partners. If there had been no Second World War, I think it not too likely that the United States of America would have ascended to superpower status. I rather suspect that the United States of America would have remained a regional power ensconced in the Western Hemisphere if Great Britain had not been bankrupted by the Second World War. In terms of real politic, Great Britain's bankruptcy was the United States of America's financial gain. In short, the era of Pax Americana was now in ascendency. The Anglo-American relationship had come full circle - America was once the colony of Great Britain and Great Britain was now a colony of America. And contrary to the positions of some, the United States of America would never acquiesce to ANY threat poised at Great Britain - NOT THEN and NOT NOW! Confrontations indeed! Well, that is my initial two cents or pence worth on this sojourn down fraternal way - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I am glad that all is well with you after all of the recent unpleasantness over in your neck of the woods in Eastern Virginia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[wm]

No one in 1945 would have believed that the empire would be liquidated in the next two decades.

Is that true? I thought the Americans, Roosevelt especially, were actively trying to dismantle colonialism.
The Other War: FDR's Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire

btw, that staffing of the Colonial Service increased after 1945 wasn't unusual after all some of its people were drafted.

If there had been no Second World War, I think it not too likely that the United States of America would have ascended to superpower status.

But it happened pre-ww2, the entire British Empire versus the US:
1900: $395 billion, $312 billion
1916: $554 billion, $559 billion
1938: $678 billion, $799 billion

[OpanaPointer]

"actively" would be one spin on the American attitudes toward colonialism, I guess.

[South]

Good morning Uncle Bob and OpanaPointer,

"Nothing vast enters the human mind without a curse." Plato

My view;

The UK went into decline after the Great War Part I. Oswald Spengler explained in "The Decline of the West".

The US concurrently ascended to global status because of several macro-economic reasons, to include:

1. The US new central bank, the Federal Reserve System ... with its famous Regulation B that shifted the bulk of world trade financing from London to New York City.

2. The opening of the Nicara ...er.... the Panama Canal in 1914. "Nationalism" as it was defined, placed the Suez Canal on the list of things that London might lose.

3. The US had HUGE economies of scale and, at one time, the place was a free-enterprise zone. Famous companies like Sears maxed out use of the large transport network to allow rural America to get stuff that usually required a trip to the big town. The nation grew.

......

FDR had mixed policies on colonialism. The key was to protect Europe. Thus, for example, French Indochina was tolerated if France would work their European landmass account and place on the front burner those 3 Departments within Algeria.

......

Appreciate well wishes re weather emergency here. Actually, the weather is about neutral. Nothing that unique has happened in the last 400 years. Live on a tidal flood plain, know that flooding will occur and there are dangers re drownings and disease...and know that winds can knock down trees......Reminds me when President Clinton added snowstorms to the list of weather events qualifying for Federal disaster assistance.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in respect to your posting of Thursday - October 18, 2018 - 5:03am, old yours truly was wondering if the genesis and exponential growth of the our Military Industrial Complex is included under your category three of your macro-economic scale OR does our Military Industrial Complex fall into a unique category all of its own? As you know, many products and systems originally developed for the military establishment would eventually spin off into our civilian consumer markets. The same would also apply to our subsequent space program. I will not dwell on the Panama Canal since you are already aware of my inordinate interest with the national security and commercial importance of this maritime crossroads. I have mixed emotions about the Federal Reserve System, but I will defer to your learned insights and perceptions on this incredibly powerful of American institutions. After all, nothing gets done without the availability of hard capital. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this sojourn down GREEN BACK way. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The business of America is BUSINESS - President Woodrow Wilson

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[South]

Good morning Uncle Bob,

I've held to the view that the US military-industrial complex was a hybrid - for the overall politico-economic national development.

Geographically, the large populated military bases (think: payroll; residential real estate) were in the US south to induce economic growth.......coupled to appeasing southern Senators who controlled the key committees.

The manufacturing functions (think aviation-Ontario, California/Reston Washington state/Newport News,Virginia ship yards) mirrored above point.

Note the transfer of traditionally key military headquarters from eg New York City and Chicago to metro Washington, D.C. (as per the $$$ and sinecures).

The commercial shipyards were "given" to the US allies to keep them in the US camp.

Yes ! For example, the B-70 Volkarie was the embryonic SST for Air France, British Air (formerly, prior to merger, BOAC [Bring Over American Cash]), Singapore Airlines, Moscow's TU-144 SST might have had some involvement-not sure. As an aside, Braniff Airlines once flew a SST. It was leased for some hours from BA and flew from New York City to Dallas - although at sub-sonic speeds.

Ref the Federal Reserve System; The Fed's Board of Governors are officially located in Washington, D.C. The system's main bank is FRB New York. I rely on the concept:

Americans are governed from Washington, D.C. Americans are ruled from New York City.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

The UK went into relative (not absolute) decline in the 1860s when industrialization elsewhere (i.e. Germany and the USA) began to close in on the UK's lead.

By the 1890s this was already apparent to the UK public, as some of Kipling's poems show.

WWI was the tipping point for the Empire as thereafter the cost of maintaining its defences adequately against multiple growing threats began to outstrip income from it.

In the interwar years the ties that bound the Old Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa) were loosened, the lessons of US independence having been learnt. This was also true of Southern Rhodesia and Newfoundland.

However, the key point was the India Act in the 1930s, which clearly portended Indian independence at some stage.

WWII virtually bankrupted the UK and it took over 60 years to pay off the debts accrued during it. When the Indian subcontinent went independent in the late 1940s, the financial and military means of garrisoning east of Suez largely went with it. Numerous minor colonies such as Aden or British Somaliland were always loss making and only existed to protect the route to India and so were disposable thereafter. The loss of the Suez Canal after 1956 simply confirmed that the British presence around the Indian Ocean was now time limited in places like Malaya and Ceylon.

After the loss of India, the UK considered using West African (essentially Nigerian) troops to help garrison the residual empire, but by the mid 1950s post colonial momentum was so strong that all Britain's African colonies were granted independence in the next decade. Rhodesia's white settlers held out until 1980.

I agree that nobody foresaw the speed of the UK's withdrawal from empire. This unexpected acceleration of the inevitable was caused by the cost of WWII and its outcome, in which the two super powers, the USA and USSR, were both anti-colonial in their own ways and set the mood music globally.

Perhaps because they were most overextended, the British got the message and withdrew from empire on their own terms without attempting to fight anywhere beyond what was necessary to leave an accommodating regime in power.

By contrast, the French, Dutch and Portuguese all tried to return to, or hang on to, colonies in the post-war era and suffered various degrees of military embarrasment before bowing to the inevitable.

Cheers,

Sid.

[OpanaPointer]

It probably never made the news but the Calcaterra needed help when Cuban "PT" boats were trying to get her off station back in the very early '70s. We heard something about a Soviet sub base...