Would the USA have supported France in the Algerian War ? And what about Ulster ? Or the Quasi-War of the Sea of China ?
DBWI : No British-American split in Cold War
- Thread starter skarosianlifeform
- Start date
My guess is that the anti-Catholic sentiment in American politics wouldn't have developed as prominently in the GOP. Consider that Kennedy Administrations and their condemnation of the Ulster Defense Force (UDF) drove a wedge through the U.S. / U.K. relationship. It didn't help matters that the U.K. launched its war in the Malvinas without alerting the U.S. President...
Well, for starters, the Soviet Union wouldn't have won the Cold War with the New Left Revolutions of 1989 bringing a collapse of global capitalism. The People's Republic of China and the USSR might not have agreed on many things, but when the crunch came, proletarian solidarity won out over national interests or ideological divides, unlike with the British and Americans, who's split proved the "contradictions" inherit amongst capitalists than Marx talked about not only existed within a single country but between multiple capitalist countries.
Well it didn't help matters when the secessionist leaders of Deseret, Texas, Florida, and Dixie were all members of the "States' Rights" and "Christian Identity" faction of the Republican Party. I find it ironic that the "party of Lincoln" became the party of secessionists...
The US support to Israel was one of the big factors leading to the Split. Because Britain relied heavily on friendly monarchies (in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Oman, and even in Iran) to maintain their influence over the Middle East, and of course, the Israeli victories in the Arab-Israeli Wars undermined Arab monarchies of the Baghdad Pact... And ultimately, the Baghdad Pact was forced to take an anti-US stance, both to appease their own population and because the USA was genuinely acting as their enemy (by supporting Israel).
Then, there was the CIA coup against Mossadegh.
The British themselves had disliked Mossadegh but were working hard on reaching a settlement with him, as Mossadegh wasn't a communist and knew that Iran needed trade with the West to modernize and remain relevant, and there were secret talks between him and British emissaries... And then the CIA and Mossad launched their coup (mistakenly believing Mossadegh to be a communist sympathizer), which ironically led the Tudeh to create the Islamic Popular Republic of Persia after a messy Iranian Civil War. War, that disrupted the British oil supply for a few years.
Seeing the instability in Egypt (as a result of the Israeli problem), the CIA also concluded that the British would be forced to leave (actually the British were ready to stomach the costs of their rising military presence in Egypt), and reasoned that "When the British inevitably leave, Egypt might go Red", so to avoid it, the CIA started talks with the Nasserists and the Muslim Brotherhood... undermining British power as a side effect.
And the cherry on the cake was Saudi Arabia deciding that they wanted to "finish" the Hashemites and launching an invasion of (British-friendly) Iraq and Jordan... while still enjoying their friendship with the USA and petrodollars.
Really, when the British (through their puppet monarchies) dominated the Middle East, there weren't many wars and conflicts, and sure those were dictatorships supported by a neo-colonial power who oppressed their own population (so that London could exploit their resources)... but it was rather peaceful and orderly.
And then, the USA had to meddle and turn everything into a bloody mess, with ethnic and religious and political strife everywhere, refugees all over the place, sinking economies...
The Soviet political victory in the Middle East, as well as the Split, might have been avoided if the USA had stood by Britain (and accepted that the British had more experience in Middle East and knew what they were doing), and not enabled Israeli and Saudi aggression.
Then, there was the CIA coup against Mossadegh.
The British themselves had disliked Mossadegh but were working hard on reaching a settlement with him, as Mossadegh wasn't a communist and knew that Iran needed trade with the West to modernize and remain relevant, and there were secret talks between him and British emissaries... And then the CIA and Mossad launched their coup (mistakenly believing Mossadegh to be a communist sympathizer), which ironically led the Tudeh to create the Islamic Popular Republic of Persia after a messy Iranian Civil War. War, that disrupted the British oil supply for a few years.
Seeing the instability in Egypt (as a result of the Israeli problem), the CIA also concluded that the British would be forced to leave (actually the British were ready to stomach the costs of their rising military presence in Egypt), and reasoned that "When the British inevitably leave, Egypt might go Red", so to avoid it, the CIA started talks with the Nasserists and the Muslim Brotherhood... undermining British power as a side effect.
And the cherry on the cake was Saudi Arabia deciding that they wanted to "finish" the Hashemites and launching an invasion of (British-friendly) Iraq and Jordan... while still enjoying their friendship with the USA and petrodollars.
Really, when the British (through their puppet monarchies) dominated the Middle East, there weren't many wars and conflicts, and sure those were dictatorships supported by a neo-colonial power who oppressed their own population (so that London could exploit their resources)... but it was rather peaceful and orderly.
And then, the USA had to meddle and turn everything into a bloody mess, with ethnic and religious and political strife everywhere, refugees all over the place, sinking economies...
The Soviet political victory in the Middle East, as well as the Split, might have been avoided if the USA had stood by Britain (and accepted that the British had more experience in Middle East and knew what they were doing), and not enabled Israeli and Saudi aggression.
The split was unavoidable from the end of WW2, the USA showed little concern for British and general european interest outside continental Europe and honestly they thought that they were invincible and that they know much better of the old colonial empire crumbling in front of the new deal.
The loss for the USA it was a gain for Europe as i doubt that an UK much friendlier with the USA will have obtained De Gaulle Ok to join the EEC in 1961
The loss for the USA it was a gain for Europe as i doubt that an UK much friendlier with the USA will have obtained De Gaulle Ok to join the EEC in 1961
Your thoughts then on the thesis that the split was caused by "contradictions" amongst capitalist powers and that the reason the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, even with their disputes and ideological differences, never had anything like the Anglo-American split was because of the proletarian internationalism which communism bred?
Honeslty in my opinion it was more due to the fact that Mao had a nasty case of 'sudden death' due to his suicide by 43 stabbing in the back and the following purge of anyone near him that seemed hostile to the Soviet leaderships...plus the humiliating chinese defeat in 'Quasi war'.
USA and UK (and in general european) divergence are rooted in something called: American exceptionalism or we called it in old europe 'our s..t smell of rose'
Well it didn't help matters that the United States was constantly engaged in combat in unpopular wars, propping up former European colonies such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran. Good Lord, you don't want to know what the Draft Riots were like in the 1980s/1990s.
Actually, the USA (with their policy) would have lost their friendship with the UK, but could have kept at least their friendship with France... If France had been motivated.
Indeed, the USA was heavily involved (right from 1946) in safeguarding the French colonial empire, with deployment in Indochina, Algeria, Guinea, French Congo and Madagascar (and they would get involved in Portuguese Angola and Mozambique, and even Belgian Congo, as well). However, while the USA were more than ready to fight for those colonies, France herself was not.
In May 1968, a surprising alliance between the far-left student movement and the Gaullists led to France throwing the colonial towel, because the French left was becoming anti-colonial for moral reasons, and the Gaullists wanted the French state to focus its efforts on developing France herself and believed (rightly, at this point) that the empire was a money sink, and last but not least, De Gaulle was opposed to France depending on the USA. And the general population had enough of young French conscripts dying in droves (for almost 30 years) overseas (especially the students who knew that as soon as they left college, they would be next...).
The 68 events in France, as well as the fall of US-backed authoritarian regimes in Spain, Portugal and Greece in the following years, were what turned the British-US split into an European-US wider split.
If the 1968 US student movement (inspired by their European comrades) hadn't been quelled in blood, the USA might have stopped right then with all its imperial wars in Africa, Latin America and South Asia... And the economic war between the USA and EEC (which ultimately deeply harmed both economies) might have been avoided as well. But it was not to be, and as you said, the USA plunger deeper into their "exceptionalism" bullshit.
Indeed, the USA was heavily involved (right from 1946) in safeguarding the French colonial empire, with deployment in Indochina, Algeria, Guinea, French Congo and Madagascar (and they would get involved in Portuguese Angola and Mozambique, and even Belgian Congo, as well). However, while the USA were more than ready to fight for those colonies, France herself was not.
In May 1968, a surprising alliance between the far-left student movement and the Gaullists led to France throwing the colonial towel, because the French left was becoming anti-colonial for moral reasons, and the Gaullists wanted the French state to focus its efforts on developing France herself and believed (rightly, at this point) that the empire was a money sink, and last but not least, De Gaulle was opposed to France depending on the USA. And the general population had enough of young French conscripts dying in droves (for almost 30 years) overseas (especially the students who knew that as soon as they left college, they would be next...).
The 68 events in France, as well as the fall of US-backed authoritarian regimes in Spain, Portugal and Greece in the following years, were what turned the British-US split into an European-US wider split.
If the 1968 US student movement (inspired by their European comrades) hadn't been quelled in blood, the USA might have stopped right then with all its imperial wars in Africa, Latin America and South Asia... And the economic war between the USA and EEC (which ultimately deeply harmed both economies) might have been avoided as well. But it was not to be, and as you said, the USA plunger deeper into their "exceptionalism" bullshit.
Well, to be fair the British were pretty racist in their pop culture. Just look at half of the villains in the James Bond. You had Dr. No, Oddjob, Kissy Suzuki, Dr. Kananga (a.k.a. "Mr. Big"), etc.,...
Good Lord, they had Jane Seymour play Solitaire, a black Caribbean psychic, and Maud Adams played "Octopussy", supposedly an Indian princess. Watch the films, and you will see how embarrassing those films are...
Good Lord, they had Jane Seymour play Solitaire, a black Caribbean psychic, and Maud Adams played "Octopussy", supposedly an Indian princess. Watch the films, and you will see how embarrassing those films are...
A lot of people seem to attribute the reasons for the split mainly to American actions, but personally I support the theories that the British state was just as culpable for playing out that state of affairs. Even at the time it was fairly obvious that the weaker British economy and geo-political position relative to the USA, would inevitably lead to them being sub-ordinate to American interests, and the break up of the Commonwealth. The successive British governments of the 50s and 60s actively worked to prevent the loss of their freedom of action even if it meant driving the Americans away. Not only that, their stand as an independant pole of the 'west' allowed them to stop the other Anglo-states drifting away from their leadership.
If they had not succeeded in this effort I doubt you would still see the independent and economically strong Britain of today, where socialist policies have been adopted widely in almost every areas beneath an official, but paper thin, veneer of capitalism. (AKA 'British Market Economics'). Instead Britain would have become a mere appendage of American foreign and economic policy, with all it's native industries outsourced to North America, with the commonwealth either broken up or made irrelevant. Though given the tensions between they have with the Commonwealth now, perhaps the Soviets would have preferred that to happen.
If they had not succeeded in this effort I doubt you would still see the independent and economically strong Britain of today, where socialist policies have been adopted widely in almost every areas beneath an official, but paper thin, veneer of capitalism. (AKA 'British Market Economics'). Instead Britain would have become a mere appendage of American foreign and economic policy, with all it's native industries outsourced to North America, with the commonwealth either broken up or made irrelevant. Though given the tensions between they have with the Commonwealth now, perhaps the Soviets would have preferred that to happen.
One of the glaring failures of British foreign policy has to be its failure to develop space technology. The Soviet Union, China, Japan, India, Israel, European Union and the United States have satellites and space stations in orbit.
The fact that the British Empire, whoops , Commonwealth doesn't even have GPS is terribly comedic. If Richard Branson died tomorrow, Britain would have nothing in terms of a presence in space, and that's not counting all the terrible Warhammer films they have made since the 1980s.
The fact that they rely on weather and GPS satellites from Brussels should be embarrassing enough,...
The fact that the British Empire, whoops , Commonwealth doesn't even have GPS is terribly comedic. If Richard Branson died tomorrow, Britain would have nothing in terms of a presence in space, and that's not counting all the terrible Warhammer films they have made since the 1980s.
The fact that they rely on weather and GPS satellites from Brussels should be embarrassing enough,...
Maybe because the British are part of ESA and while they don't have a single national prestige presence in space they nevertheless have one with the rest of the european space assets; as the rest of the continent they have quickly discovered that there is strenght in numbers expecially from the financial pow and frankly unlike all the nation you have named (except Israel naturally), the EU approach to space has been strongly utilitaristic and financially conservative, avoiding as hell any project done only for prestige
They rely on the EU Galileo system because they have been part of his developement from day one and the Commonwealth has not been a serious thing from the 60's with UK accession to the EEC , today it's at most a diplomatic forum that also serve as a bridge between the EU and the former member of the British Empire
Canada, at least, is heavily EU-leaning. Not only because of its link with Britain, but also because it welcomed dozens of US thousands of draft refugees during the US Imperialistic Wars... And the OSS routinely carried "extraordinary renditions" of those refugees, taking them back in the US.
Canadians (both French and English-speaking, left and right wing...) united in patriotism against this violation of their sovereignty.
There were also issues with draft refugees fleeing into Mexico, Cuba and the French/British Caribbean.
Canadians (both French and English-speaking, left and right wing...) united in patriotism against this violation of their sovereignty.
There were also issues with draft refugees fleeing into Mexico, Cuba and the French/British Caribbean.
That seems terribly hypocritical when in the context the First Nations. The Mohawk would certainly have a word or two about the Meech Lake Accords of 1994.
Also it doesn't help matters that the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928 was only applied to Native-Americans, and was never repealed. Heck, we won't even bring up the re-education camps, whoops... Indian residential schools, which separated children from families, and continues to this day.