British folk across the pond, question for you:

[AshtonBlack]

There was some talk months ago about toning down or rethinking the "special relationship", not scrapping it altogether. The support for this relationship is for all intents and purposes nil amongst the general public.

My personal take on it is America tells us to bend over and shut up; and we do. That seems to be the majority opinion outside politics. I often wonder if we hate American politicians more than our own sometimes.

Hmmm... that's interesting to me. My take on the American view, in general, of the UK is very favorable overall. I was not aware that Brits felt abused by the US.

Only occasionally. We do like to look superior, but have no power. I liken it to Greece to Imperial Rome at it's height. Respected, for once being powerful, but now largely unimportant.


(Not that I am suggesting Imperial Rome and the US share facets of similarity . You make better roads.)

[The Red Fox]

There was some talk months ago about toning down or rethinking the "special relationship", not scrapping it altogether. The support for this relationship is for all intents and purposes nil amongst the general public.

My personal take on it is America tells us to bend over and shut up; and we do. That seems to be the majority opinion outside politics. I often wonder if we hate American politicians more than our own sometimes.

Hmmm... that's interesting to me. My take on the American view, in general, of the UK is very favorable overall. I was not aware that Brits felt abused by the US.

I'm sure most Americans think favourably of the UK. Most Brits have no problem with Americans in general (yeah we take the piss, but it's friendly ribbing, not malice), but as a nation we're further to the left than America and as such your politicians court no favour with the average Brit. Obama seems to be the exception, he hasn't been on the receiving end of any sharp criticism in mainstream satire unlike Bush. Even so, the British public feel we should be far more distanced from US foreign policy, which many view as imperialistic.

The whole feeling of being abused came about over the Iraq war. We didn't fight in Vietnam because we protested and the Labour government of the day was socialist. Far more people protested over Iraq (over 2 million) and we were completely ignored; by a Labour government no less. We felt betrayed by our government for kowtowing to US foreign policy, one which we didn't support. Our politicians showed they were accountable to the US, not to us.

[AshtonBlack]

There was some talk months ago about toning down or rethinking the "special relationship", not scrapping it altogether. The support for this relationship is for all intents and purposes nil amongst the general public.

My personal take on it is America tells us to bend over and shut up; and we do. That seems to be the majority opinion outside politics. I often wonder if we hate American politicians more than our own sometimes.

Hmmm... that's interesting to me. My take on the American view, in general, of the UK is very favorable overall. I was not aware that Brits felt abused by the US.

I'm sure most Americans think favourably of the UK. Most Brits have no problem with Americans in general (yeah we take the piss, but it's friendly ribbing, not malice), but as a nation we're further to the left than America and as such your politicians court no favour with the average Brit. Obama seems to be the exception, he hasn't been on the receiving end of any sharp criticism in mainstream satire unlike Bush. Even so, the British public feel we should be far more distanced from US foreign policy, which many view as imperialistic.

The whole feeling of being abused came about over the Iraq war. We didn't fight in Vietnam because we protested and the Labour government of the day was socialist. Far more people protested over Iraq (over 2 million) and we were completely ignored; by a Labour government no less. We felt betrayed by our government for kowtowing to US foreign policy, one which we didn't support. Our politicians showed they were accountable to the US, not to us.

Agreed, only the Lib Dems (A centre party for fuck's sake!) grew some stones, but the system we have made sure THEY were ignored too.

[Coito ergo sum]

What exactly is so special about the US - UK relationship? The US made Great Britain repay every cent - plus interest - that it had spent to help its 'special' friend during WWII.

I'm not sure that's true. But, even so, so what? Before World War 2 the UK was one of most powerful, if not the most powerful, country on the planet and was siphoning treasure from colonies all over the world: http://www.the-map-as-history.com/demos ... /index.php And, nevertheless, being a friend doesn't mean you pick up the tab for everything.

The 'favour' was not reciprocated in Korea or Vietnam.

What favor in Korea and Vietnam? Korea was a United Nations police action, and the United States did not get "repaid" for its contributions either.

Vietnam was part of French Indochina, which the French had been fighting for since the 17th century, until they finally got China to accept defeat and give up their claim to Vietnam in 1885 after an almost 50 year war, and the French finally left in about 1956 when they got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu.

After WW2 Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin decided what would happen to post-war Vietnam at Potsdam. They had agreed that the country would be divided into two, the northern half under the control of the Chinese and the southern half under the British. After WW2 France attempted to re-establish control over Vietnam. In January 1946, Britain agreed to remove her troops and later that year, China left Vietnam in exchange for a promise from France that she would give up her rights to territory in China. The French kept pursuing its claims in the South and in the late 40s and early 50s, the French were fighting the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh. After the French loss at Dien Bien Phu, they decided to pull out of Vietnam.

Then foreign ministers of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France decided to meet in Geneva to see if they could bring about a peaceful solution to the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. After much negotiation the following was agreed: (1) Vietnam would be divided at the 17th parallel; (2) North Vietnam would be ruled by Ho Chi Minh; (3) South Vietnam would be ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem, a strong opponent of communism; (4) French troops would withdraw from Vietnam; (5) the Vietminh would withdraw from South Vietnam; (6) the Vietnamese could freely choose to live in the North or the South; and (7) a General Election for the whole of Vietnam would be held before July, 1956, under the supervision of an international commission.

After that brief period of involvement, as a replacement for French colonial rule in 1945 or 46, the Britain did not fight in Vietnam.

[Coito ergo sum]

(Not that I am suggesting Imperial Rome and the US share facets of similarity . You make better roads.)

I doubt any of our roads will be around in 2000 years.....

[AshtonBlack]

(Not that I am suggesting Imperial Rome and the US share facets of similarity . You make better roads.)

I doubt any of our roads will be around in 2000 years.....

I was using it as an analogy. (Communications.)
Sorry, brain output before re-reading.

[Hermit]

What exactly is so special about the US - UK relationship? The US made Great Britain repay every cent - plus interest - that it had spent to help its 'special' friend during WWII.

I'm not sure that's true.

It is. I'll endeavour to retrieve the links for it.

The 'favour' was not reciprocated in Korea or Vietnam.

What favor in Korea and Vietnam? Korea was a United Nations police action, and the United States did not get "repaid" for its contributions either.

Yes, officially both wars were not wars, and the so-called police actions were formally lead under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation, but who are you trying to kid? Police actions don't involve deaths numbering in the hundreds of thousands. They were fucking wars. Furthermore, both those wars were primarily a power struggle between the two super powers and China. The US put the bulk of the effort in simply because it had the most at stake. Domino theory, and all that. In the process it sucked in as much support as it could from its satraps. Stands to reason, I suppose.

When all is said and done, though, this fact remains: There is no such thing as a "special relationship". Realpolitik reigns supreme. It always has and it always will. As I outlined before, the concept of a "special relationship" is simply one of the components of realpolitik: a lie to deceive / manipulate public sentiment in order to gain an advantage.

[Pappa]

What exactly is so special about the US - UK relationship?

it's a non-existent myth parroted by successive UK PMs. Fuck knows why.

[Trolldor]

The AU-US relation is said to be 'special', but what really happens is the US goes "here boy" and the Australian Government leaps up, all excited for the walk it's about to be taken on. I don't think it's much different from any other country wanting a slice of Merkun 'dream'.

[ED209]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

[Ian]

Since the special relationship consisted largely of us bending over and grabbing our ankles, I'm rather pleased if the cooling of relations means this will no longer happen as much. Maybe we'll get to rip up the entirely one-sided extradition treaty too.

Don't count on it, limey.

[CJ]

What exactly is so special about the US - UK relationship? The US made Great Britain repay every cent - plus interest - that it had spent to help its 'special' friend during WWII.

I'm not sure that's true.

It is. I'll endeavour to retrieve the links for it.

This is true. There was a news item about it I'm 95% sure the last repayment was made Oct 2009 or thereabouts.

If you want an insight into the special relationship, British test pilots had flown the F117 before it went into full production. If you read the story of the development into radar there was a critical moment when we took the first examples of the cavity magnetron to the US The US had poor emitters but as a result had developed better receivers, we had a small very powerful transmitter (the magnetron) and as such had not spent as much effort developing receivers. The result of the union of American receivers and the British transmitters were 10cm wave radar sets that were initially mounted on warships and not long after in aircraft. This was arguably one of a handful of advances that combined to swing the war in the allies favour. The Plan Position Indicator (PPI), the classic rotating radar screen, was another British development shared with the US.

Having spent a few months in the US on business I have found there to be misconceptions on both sides about the other. Our common language disguises a chasm in social attitudes. It took me some months to see it. The US is a society made up of intensely patriotic individuals that will turn selfish quicker than the individual in the UK. I think this is down to the oath of allegiance and it's all pervasive effect throughout the American psyche. Hold to the flag but strive for yourself. I was brought up in a much more 'society first' environment where putting others first was considered a virtue in a way I don't think many Americans understand and see it as rather left wing.

The special relationship between Britain and the US does exist but fell apart a bit during the Vietnam war when Harold Wilson, the British Prime Minister, flatly refused to commit troops to the war.

I have walked the Freedom Trail in Boston and that was an interesting experience as the British are very much painted as the bad guys.

[AshtonBlack]

I don't think we were bad, I think we were stupid, arrogant and selfish when we threw away the american continent.

If only they (The British government/king at the time) said: Ok then representation it is. I think the US would have still declared independence but it could have delayed it and perhaps even have joined it with Canada...... ahhhh dreams of empires lost.

[floppit]

I think the UK has size issues! We could be a successful small country - at least in my opinion, we could play a part without the craving for kudos as some plumped up world leader, which we're not but tried to purchase through a 'special friendship' with the US.

I think Bush did the reputation of America untold harm here, I know people of all political persuasions (bar BNP! ) and a supporter of Bush seemed impossible to find. I like Obama but feel cautious as 'this one the rhetoric is strong in', hell though, he beats Bush!

I'd like to see the special friendship dwindle, I'd like to see the UK begin to work as a small country because our ambition for size from colonies to the war in Iraq seems to only add to the world's troubles! I also think America has embarked on many of the same dumb ass mistakes the UK made in the Empire days - probably with the same results eventually.

[Coito ergo sum]

What exactly is so special about the US - UK relationship? The US made Great Britain repay every cent - plus interest - that it had spent to help its 'special' friend during WWII.

I'm not sure that's true.

It is. I'll endeavour to retrieve the links for it.

The 'favour' was not reciprocated in Korea or Vietnam.

What favor in Korea and Vietnam? Korea was a United Nations police action, and the United States did not get "repaid" for its contributions either.

Yes, officially both wars were not wars, and the so-called police actions were formally lead under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation, but who are you trying to kid? Police actions don't involve deaths numbering in the hundreds of thousands. They were fucking wars. Furthermore, both those wars were primarily a power struggle between the two super powers and China. The US put the bulk of the effort in simply because it had the most at stake. Domino theory, and all that. In the process it sucked in as much support as it could from its satraps. Stands to reason, I suppose.

The domino theory was just a theory that if you let some countries cede to Communism then more will follow. The US did not particularly have more "at stake" in southeast asia than the European colonial powers. The US didn't have colonies there. The French, British, etc., did have colonies there, it was they who sapped the blood and treasure from their colonies, not the US. The reason the US stepped in after World War 2 is because someone had to counter the Soviet Union and China. It was in the US interest to do so in these smaller battles than to delay.

But, once again - Korea was UN auspices war. That was the point. Of course the US provided the lions share of troops after South Korea, but other countries were well represented too, and again - it was a UN approved war (something a lot of people say is necessary)

When all is said and done, though, this fact remains: There is no such thing as a "special relationship". Realpolitik reigns supreme. It always has and it always will. As I outlined before, the concept of a "special relationship" is simply one of the components of realpolitik: a lie to deceive / manipulate public sentiment in order to gain an advantage.

Fair enough.