Breaking Bad

From a jaded point of view it can be argued that the so called "Special Relationship" between the USA and UK seems to be either non-existent, or just a sop to UK politicians when acting as Washington's poodle, so what does it take to break this bad relationship?

Bad relationship examples for the UK would include; forcing the sale of British assets during WWII; withholding atomic bomb information post war; encouraging the end of British influence post war; threatening to destabilise the UK economy in reaction to Suez; discouraging the development of a British space programme; dragging the UK into numerous wars, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and trying to with Vietnam.

Your aim is not for the UK to become an SSR light - left wing socialist workers paradise - just a functioning Western democracy which has a 'proper grown up relationship' with the USA - something like Germany, Australia, or even France.

So what does it take for the UK government to finally declare the "Special Relationship" over? When is enough, enough? Bonus points for plausibility.

The easiest is probably an overreaction by Eisenhower:

In response to Suez the US Government sells a large part of its Sterling Bond holdings straight away, with a threat to sell more if Britain doesn't pull out - Eisenhower wants to show the UK he is serious. The sale cause a collapse of the pound and seriously damages the UK economy - as it becomes known that the US has threatened to sell further holdings the effects are magnified. There are rolling power cuts and rationing returns as fuel and food imports are reduced. Eden resigns due to ill health and an emergency election is called.

The conservatives under Macmillan manage to win, after a quick campaign calling for national unity in the face of US bullying. The Special Relationship is declared over and the future is declared to be a strong partnership with Europe. The UK joins the EEC in late 1957, and the economy recovers quickly aided by a rapid growth of exports fuelled by a cheaper pound. Future British foreign policy is now carried out with a European rather than Atlantic frame of reference, relations with the US recover to become cordial at best.
 
Last edited:
How about the US (rightly IMO) refuses to go along with Britain's scheme to overthrow Mossadegh in 1953? This plus the Suez Crisis could result in a fundamental break in the Special Relationship.
 
How about the US (rightly IMO) refuses to go along with Britain's scheme to overthrow Mossadegh in 1953? This plus the Suez Crisis could result in a fundamental break in the Special Relationship.

No the US backed Mossadegh's overthrow because they were afraid of losing that oil supply and possibly seeing a communist in power.
 

sharlin

Banned
I'd say that the Suez crisis came closest to sinking the special relationship. Perhaps an overreaction from the US or a very strong public and diplomatic reaction from the UK about US actions.
 
Do the Cambridge 5 have any impact on this? Especially seeing how paranoid Angleton was.

Flip side: does this hurt Britain's position in the world? Does it make her seem more a rival to the U.S.?

Further down the road, tho, does this mean the Brits can take a harder line with illegal exports of guns from the U.S. to the IRA?
 

katchen

Banned
France and UK considered 1950s "merger"--end of special relationship

Yes, Eisenhower basically cut off Britain's line of credit over Suez and told the Brits that if the Russians invaded, they and the French were on their own unless they got out of Suez. This was the context in which Britain and France actually considered a merger of the two nations--necessary in order to face down the USSR without US help. If that had come about (and what a timeline that will make) there could be no more special relationship because how could the US have a special relationship with Fritain or Brance. :rolleyes:
All of a sudden, postwar Europe would look a lot more like 19th Century Europe. with a third nculear superpower in existence in 1956:D
France and UK considered 1950s 'merger'

News blog: Fritain? Brance?


eden3128.jpg
Britain's then-prime minister Sir Anthony Eden discussed a 'union' deal with his French counterpart.

Britain and France talked about a "union" in the 1950s, even discussing the possibility of the Queen becoming the French head of state, it was reported today.On September 10 1956, Guy Mollet, the then French prime minister, came to London to discuss the possibility of a merger between the two countries with his British counterpart, Sir Anthony Eden, according to declassified papers from the National Archives, uncovered by the BBC.
A British cabinet paper from the period reads: "When the French prime minister, Monsieur Mollet, was recently in London, he raised with the prime minister the possibility of a union between the United Kingdom and France."
At the time of the proposal, France was in economic difficulties and faced the escalating Suez crisis. Britain had been a staunch French ally during the two world wars.
When Mr Mollet's request for a union failed, he quickly responded with another plan - that France be allowed to join the British commonwealth - which was said to have been met more warmly by Sir Anthony.
A document dated September 28 1956 records a conversation between the prime minister and his cabinet secretary, Sir Norman Brook, saying:
"The PM told him [Brook] on the telephone that he thought, in the light of his talks with the French:
· That we should give immediate consideration to France joining the Commonwealth
· That Monsieur Mollet had not thought there need be difficulty over France accepting the headship of her Majesty
· That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis."
However, this proposal was also eventually rejected and, a year later, France signed the Treaty of Rome with Germany and the other founding nations of the European common market.
"I tell you the truth - when I read that I am quite astonished," the French Nationalist MP, Jacques Myard, told the BBC today.
"I had a good opinion of Mr Mollet before. I think I am going to revise that opinion. I am just amazed at reading this, because since the days I was learning history as a student I have never heard of this. It is not in the textbooks."
No French record of the proposal appears to exist, and it is unclear whether there were any proposals for the name of the new union.
A spokesman for the French embassy said most people had been surprised by the revelation. "We are looking at our national archives," he said. "We cannot comment at this stage."
The idea of a link-up between countries was not unique. Between 1958 and 1961, Egypt and Syria merged to become the United Arab Republic in an initial move to establish a pan-Arab state.
The union broke up following a coup in Syria, but Egypt continued to call itself the United Arab Republic until 1971.
The BBC's Document programme will broadcast an edition on the proposed merger, called An Unlikely Marriage, at 8pm tonight on Radio 4.

daily-email.jpg

S
 
Yes, Eisenhower basically cut off Britain's line of credit over Suez and told the Brits that if the Russians invaded, they and the French were on their own unless they got out of Suez. This was the context in which Britain and France actually considered a merger of the two nations--necessary in order to face down the USSR without US help.

Edward III said:
Better late then never.

:) :) :cool:
 

sharlin

Banned
Got to ask as I don't know much about the whole suez incident but why did the US go FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF about it? Was it some kind of 'Oh my god! Colonialism!!!!!!!!' issue or was it a sudden burst of support for the Egyptians who they may have hoped to woo into being a partner/ally etc?
 
What is forgotten is that the declining UK empire also became a nuclear power in its own right in the early 1950s. Much of the "special relationship" has to do with this reality.
 
Top