British attitudes towards the US in WWII

Hi All,

I am a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London, currently working on a 3 year digitisation project. This project will create an online database that focuses on a number of differing UK perspectives of the US during WWII (1939-1945), the key period when the UK passed the baton of power to the US. It is digitising UK government documents, particularly the general correspondence from the UK Embassy in Washington D.C. and reports from the various consulates. Hopefully, these sources will provide understanding of official UK opinions of the US pertaining to its politics, economy, and society. It will also digitise articles from a number of newspapers, including the Daily Herald, a pro-Labour working class and trade-union newspaper and the liberal supporting News Chronicle to investigate their role in interpreting the United States to the British people. Since all kinds of developments in the United States could have an impact on Britain, newspapers set out to report and inform about the emergent superpower. Both tracks are essential ingredients for understanding UK attitudes towards the US.

This project is designed to help us all do our research and I would dearly love to get peoples' thoughts and ideas on what subjects, archives and newspapers should be contained in the database.

Thanks, Matt

 

Hi Matthew,

Sounds like an interesting project. I think you need a Conservative (big-c) perspective to contrast with the Herald and the Chronicle (though as Orwell said, by the 1940s the latter was about as red as salmon paste). How about Beaverbrook's Express? (For that matter, you should probably have the Daily Worker too).

I don't know if this is within your purview or not, but I wonder how literally your project should stick to the chronological limit of 1939-1945. Obviously you have to start and stop somewhere, but I would think that the controversy over the 1946 Anglo-American loan would be vital to a survey of midcentury attitudes. I recall from my own research into the immediate post-WWII period that there was much discussion in the British press about this; the loan was a key moment in which it became clear that the relationship between the two countries had permanently altered, and not to Britain's advantage.

Please feel free to PM me if you have any questions,

Best, Alan

 

I recall those times very well. There was a lot of envy from the British side pre invasion of Normandy. Mainly because the "Yanks" had everything.

But in action we got on very well indeed. Great comrades in arms.

I even captured a Yank in the German army. He stayed behind to give himself up ......Long story...He was not a Nazi...a genuine case...

Great mates
Sapper

 

Over paid, over sexed and over here.

 

One the old proverbs that we oldies occasionally trot out is "Speak as you find".

At the risk of being patronising, I would translate that as one's views on a subject are usually coloured by one's own experience.

The implied question was "What were British attitudes towards the Yanks in WW2.

Until I was posted to North Africa in April '43 I had never seen more than a handful of them at any one time and I certainly never saw them in bulk, as it were, during the build-up to the Second Front as I was in Italy at the time but I met them at Cassino and was impressed with their laid-back manner and their rations (and their open neck shirts !).

My favourite Yank was the lorry driver who gave me a lift in Egypt and forgive me if you've heard the story before. I last posted it on this site under the thread title of "Long live GOOGLE !"


This is a fairly convoluted story, but, if you stay with me till the end I hope you will at least understand the reason behind this thread's title.

It starts with my posting a reply to Drew concerning the ID of some US lorries:
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons...ke-trucks.html

Seeing the picture of the Dodge 3 Tonners set me thinking of the many different types of non-British vehicles I learned to drive in WW2 and others in which I'd merely travelled.

I then remembered having written somewhere a small piece on the internet about getting a lift from a Yankee soldier ferrying, for some unknown reason, a load of peanuts to Cairo.

Being what used to be referred to as a "belt & braces" man I invariably keep a copy of articles I have posted on the internet simply so that I can quote from them at a later stage and I can usually locate these items by using the search facility GOOGLE DESKTOP.

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't use this excellent free facility, once set up it searches the whole of your hard disk for any fragment of text and I've alway rung its praises to others.

I called up DESKTOP, keyed in "peanuts" but to my dismay nothing appeared in the results column. I then decided to use the "normal" GOOGLE to search the internet itself , keyed in "peanuts Ron Goldstein WW2"and up popped this item that I had posted as a comment to the BBC WW2 Archives way back in 2004.

BBC - WW2 People's War - BBC Collaborative Article: WW2 Transport

Message 1 - Was there a form of transport that saved your life?

Posted on: 17 June 2004 by Ron Goldstein</WW2PEOPLESWAR user 16 u520216.shtml>

I will let my reader be the judge.

In July 1944 my regiment (the 49th Light Ack Ack Regt) was in Egypt for re-training and re-equipping.

I had a week's leave in Cairo and decided to try and visit my brother in law, who was then in the RASC and stationed not far from Cairo.

I had found out where his company was supposed to be and thumbed a lift to his unit. S***s law innevitably applied and, to my disgust, when I arrived at his depot, he was away on leave in Palestine.

I immediately tried to get a lift back to Cairo but nothing was going returning that way until later that afternoon. I hung around, got the promised lift but the truck dropped me off at a x-roads with the assurance that 'lots of trucks come this way and you won't have any problems"
The short story is that there I was, stuck at this x-road, in the middle of the desert, with nothing to keep me company but first one arab gentleman, then two and finally at least half a dozen.

They all eyed me speculatively, I was on my own, I didn't appear to be armed or even capable of defending myself and it was getting darker by the minute.

I had given up all hope of survival when out of nowhere a huge lorry and trailer pulled up at my side and the driver,a coloured Yankee serviceman called out 'Where you going to Sunshine?'

I could have kissed him !

His load of peanuts provided a bed for me all the way back to Cairo where I offered to buy him a bottle of scotch for his trouble.

He laughed at me, said 'Be seeing you kid' and roared away into the night.

If it's not too late, and if this same US driver is still around, may I offer him a humble "Thank-you!" for saving my life.

Ron

 

Over paid, over sexed and over here.

Well, the good natured counter phrase to that one was that their hosts only said that because they were 'Under paid, under sexed and most importantly, under Eisenhower."


I saw a pamphlet once that was given to American troops during the voyage to Britain

Some of the lines I remember are:

"The British are beer drinkers and they can hold it."

" You are paid more than the Tommy. Don't rub it in. "

"They are reliable comrades in arms."

Dave

 

That is a great story Ron.

When you said he laughed when you offered him Scotch, it struck me that he might have been a Southern Baptist. I've seen that reaction fairly often when someone offers one a drink. Of course I know many who also drink like fish, too

 

Text to leaflet can be found here:
Britain

Another few refs to it in this very readable website.
Yanks in Britain


Another thread:
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/general/22168-americans-britain-during-ww2.html


Thank you Diane,

Very good. Those are much more detailed than the one I saw.

Dave

 

Hello Matthew and welcome to the forum-I believe we were next to each on table 5 for a week at the National Archives?

Regards
Andy

 

Welcome to the forum Matthew.

I don't know how you condense the subject you seek to opine on into a such a project, it is far too complex; especially the poitical context, and all the twists and turns, to provide any simple answer.

I am not sure that anybody during 1939 to 1945 had the foresight to really understand the transition from British Empire to US global dominance except Churchill.

Was the US happy for the British Empire to cripple itself in a world war and then pick up the global dominance mantle when the former was on its knees thereafter - probably. The US could afford to sit back and be relatively non-committal and wait its turn, which it did until Pearl Harbor. Its current day mutterings about its moral position in WWII falls on deaf ears as far as I am concerned, it was provoked into fighting, it didn't volunteer; even though we Brits still have a hell of a lot to be grateful to the US for.

From what I understand of my reading about the everyday US and British serviceman and woman, I think that despite the differences in cultures there was a mutual respect. This became more blurred when it came to Generals and certainly politicians, and whats more it is likely that the US government would have actually liked the British Empire to collapse; despite the moral justice of the Empires fight.

I am with Alan Allport on this, I think you need to step outside 1939 to 1945 era and look at the 1946 loan situation and then fast forward to 1956 and Suez, when our big US buddy Eisenhower told us to get 'the hell out' or else. If the British Empire thought it was still at the top table up to that date, it most surely wasn't afterwards. Suez was when it all changed in British minds and all the current day rubbish about a special relationship is just that, rubish!

I sometimes think that when Patton suggested in August 1944 that he should turn his Army around and push the Limeys out of France and into the sea, causing another 'Dunkirk', we should have taken the brash, loud mouth up on his offer. Monty kicked the ass of many, many, far superior German Panzer formations in Normandy and I think he would have found Patton easy game by comparison.

The mantle of global dominance was passing at that time and it would have been, I don't have the right words, RIGHT for us British to have put the young pups in their place; at least for one last time - and then explain to them why the White House is white; god bless the Royal Navy!

Anyway, history shows events evolved differently and I am pleased that we have the US as friends, even though it isn't the 'special' relationship our government suggests.

Long live the Redcoats - we were the best once upon a time!

Best,

Steve.

 

A few contentious items there Steve Mac but generally I would agree.

 

We had an Officer in the US Army speak at one our WWII Round-table Meetings.

He shared that unless you were a West Point Officer you often did not get the help and cooperation that existed between many of the West Point Graduates.

There were rectums in all the services of all the countries as well as outstanding individuals in all the services.

 

I even captured a Yank in the German army. He stayed behind to give himself up ......Long story...He was not a Nazi...a genuine case...

Great mates
Sapper

Brian, I'm intrigued to hear more.

Any chance you could post up a thread on it?

 

The Battle of Brisbane
The Battle of Brisbane - 26 & 27 November 1942

 

Matthew we also met at Kew a few weeks back when Andy introduced me to you.

One interesting aspect of the time was perhaps British attempts to influence US public opinion in the '39 - '41 period, especially through the press and lecture circuit.

One of the more bizarre episodes of which was the recruitment of a Hungarian astrologer, Louis de Wohl, by Special Operations Executive. He was sent then to the US to prophesize Hitler's downfall. Apparently he even spread the story that Lindbergh's baby hadn't been kidnapped but sent to Germany for training as a future Führer!

Lee

 

A snippet on the Yanks from my grandfather's memoirs.

This is from the North Africa chapter and describes in part the trip of the 225 Field Company, Royal Engineers to N. Africa and their seeing U.S. troops for the first time.

The following days were filled by “Boat Drill” every morning, PT and lectures followed by the favourite game of Housey-Housey! A lecture by a Medical Officer on hygiene gave the startling fact that every soldier was expected to pass 4oz of excreta per day, the Army thinks of everything! But obviously their experiments did not take into account the effects of dysentery which the Sappers were to experience in the weeks to come. Some excitement occurred during one night as the Convoy sailed through the Mediterranean Sea, the Convoy was attacked by aircraft and one ship, the “Windsor Castle”, was sunk.

It was now obvious that the 4th Division was going to reinforce the 1st Army. The Invasion of North Africa had begun the previous November by the 1st Army, which in the beginning consisted of the 78 Division, of which the 11th Infantry Brigade had become a member, 2 & 6 Commando and a Parachute Brigade. The Germans had reacted very quickly and had flown troops in to build up a very large force which had halted the progress of 1st Army during the winter months.

The SS “Cuba” arrived at Algiers on 23rd March [1943] and 225 [Field Company Royal Engineers] disembarked and then marched 11 miles to a location named “Gare-De-Constantine”. On this march the 225 met the first American troops they had ever seen and were not at all impressed. The Americans in a large column were overtaken by the 225, who were moving in the same direction, they appeared to be a shambles, walking along in a carefree manner with no purpose in mind, what a contrast to the 225 who despite being cramped on a ship for 11 days were marching in step and feeling the effects of the warm climate.



Lee

 

Marcus
Sapper has already posted about this in more detail elsewhere
see http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/105810-post8.html

Back to the topic ...

Cheers Diane.

 

Welcome to the Forum Matthew,

I am somewhat of a newcomer myself and your topic peaked my interest because I find myself caught in the middle of that issue more often than not because of my background. I am English as is mother's side, father side is Dutch--he fought with RAF squad #322, uncle was a Dutch SOE agent. Live in US, married a Yank, father-in-law was a "90-day wonder" in USN in the Med & Pacific. Think you get the gist when I say it's is still a sensitive issue on both sides of my immediate family. Then throw in the US mix…it can be contentious at best.

Even current day issues have brought on heated debates with my in-laws. So I tread lightly and muddle through.

I wholeheartedly agree with ALL Steve Mac said including that "the issue is far too complex; especially the political context, and all the twists and turns, to provide any simple answer. I am not sure that anybody during 1939 to 1945 had the foresight to really understand the transition from British Empire to US global dominance except Churchill."

I also agree with Alan Allport that you need a conservative paper or two and "step outside 1939 - 1945 era." Remember it was an election year for Eisenhower when Suez Crisis hit, and that in and of itself is quite telling as to how the situation was handled……

Lastly it's not only the British that "lost" parts of the Empire so-to-speak, the Dutch were promised they'd have the Dutch East Indies back…..Poland was not ours to give away either…suppose I could go on ad nauseam….but those are my two cents worth. Best of luck!

Cheers,

Suze