British attitudes towards the US in WWII

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.

Hi Suze,

Actually, I would take (friendly!) issue with this. I don't think Churchill exercised any foresight on this at all; indeed, I would say that one of his fundamental misperceptions throughout the course of the war was that a close alliance between Britain and the United States would buttress the strength of the former's Empire. This was unrealistic. The alliance might have been necessary for Britain's survival, but there would inevitably be a cost. The two countries had their own self-interested goals, and these only intersected in certain (albeit important) ways. One of the outcomes of bringing the United States out of its self-imposed exile in the Western Hemisphere was that the reigning hegemonic power in the rest of the world - Britain itself - would be left weaker as a result.

Churchill never seemed to really appreciate this, at least not during the war itself. As he famously complained in November 1942, he had not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. Yet that was an inevitable consequence of his very diplomatic efforts.

Best, Alan

 

Over paid, over sexed and over here.

That quote came to my mind right way. I know there was a lot of jealousy from the British side because of the discrepancy between the pay of the US and Brits. As a boy I remember the generosity of the Americans.

 

Alan -
you may be slightly harsh with Churchill as it come to mind that it was not Churchill who brought the US out of isolation but rather Litvinoff the Russian Ambassador in 1928 when he became a great friend of FDR - and became an advisor to FDR in 1941 - about the same time as when Chiurchill met with FDR for the frist time and after many meetings etc - he asked " is it your intention Mr President to destroy the Britsih Empire ...?

There was no answer to this until in 1943 when at the Casablanca Conference- FDR rounded on his son Elliott and put him straight on Empires - which is included in Elliott's book - "As He Saw It - pub ; Duell,Sloan and Pearce New York 1945 pp 115 -

" don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific to-night, if it hadn't been for the short sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch, Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again ? Your son will be about the right age ,fifteen or twenty years from now ! "

This is to my mind the main reason for their reluctance to accept the weakening strategy of Alanbrooke - the dragging their feet over Italy - the acceptance of Stalin's idea to invade the South of France in order to weaken the forces in Italy to advance to Hungary/Poland to keep him out of Central and Southern Europe- and the halting of Montgomery;s three Armies in taking Berlin and allowing Stalin to rape and pillage - and set down his ideology in Europe for 40 years which we now see manifested in the EU commissions- and their slavish controls over everything.....
Not all Churchill's fault therefore....
Cheers

 

Tom,

You are right and I agree with you completely. I have spoken to Veterans of the Eighth that have no idea of the terrible conditions in the Pacific or the Japanese POW death and medical experimentation camps.

My father returned from the Pacific in 1945. He was at Hickam on 12/7/1941 and he had enlisted in 1937. In 1941 he was one of the older men in his unit already. He made his use of his own experiences as a young soldier looking after the younger men 17, 18, 19 when they would go into town on a Saturday night in Hawaii.

I got his photos, papers and documents after he died. When my mother died she passed them on to me. He never attended a reunion, none of the men he enlisted with and trained with would be there, 99% percent of them were lost over the Pacific or over the islands and NONE was recovered.

When I made contact with his old unit so many of the people were excited because my father had photos of their loved ones who disappeared in the Pacific in 1941/42/43. They were kids flying those bombers.

The few men I have spoken to were drafted in 1943 and he was brought back from the Solomon Islands to train them as replacement Armorers. They told me how he taught them to know the difference between a shell coming down on you and one going over you. By 1943 they had wooden barracks. His group had been living in damp rotten tents with rats and bad water and they lacked everything but death.

I have a number of photos I have sent to families and in everyone photo there are so many who never came back. Nothing was even found to bury when they died in the Pacific.

I have spoken to a LT. John Krey who is in his 90's. He told me they finally ordered my father to stop flying as a Gunner in 1943 because he was their best and most experienced Armorer 911. They needed him as an instructor to train those who came to replace all the men who had been lost in the Pacific. By 1943 the 42 Squadron only had three bombers left and those three and their entire crews were lost and never recovered over the Pacific on 2/1/1943.

They were going to promote him to Warrant Officer had he signed over. But my father said after serving from 1937 to 1945 he had seen enough of death and dying. He just wanted to come home and have a family and live a quiet life if he could.

Tom I mentioned this before before the 11 TH BGH went into the Pacific in 1942 they were shown all the smuggled films out of Nanjing China of the killing and torture by the Japanese. They were told this is what they should expect. Later after one of the battles a dead Japanese soldier had some photos of Nanjing in his pocket as a kept sake.

 

I've never partaken of the great admiration that the vast majority of Americans (and some Europeans) feel for Patton - any admiration is geatly tempered by the knowledge that he, as much as if not more than most, was suckered into the whole "Alpine Redoubt" fiction, a "South German Bubble" that prejudiced U.S. strategy for the last eight months of the war....!

 

I think that the majority of the posts here alone provide a wealth of information for our new friend and seeker, Matthew Hill. Not that I agree with most of them, being an extraction of the object of the subject matter in question here, but I keep in mind that there are always two (and sometimes three or more) sides to a story, and who's to say who is right and who is wrong. The truth is what matters here for Matthew, so be brutal (and truthful) to help him out in his quest. If anyone is privvy to information from other threads that might prove useful, please include links for him. I like to read them too. Knowledge is power you know....

 

Hi Suze,

Actually, I would take (friendly!) issue with this. I don't think Churchill exercised any foresight on this at all; indeed, I would say that one of his fundamental misperceptions throughout the course of the war was that a close alliance between Britain and the United States would buttress the strength of the former's Empire. This was unrealistic. The alliance might have been necessary for Britain's survival, but there would inevitably be a cost. The two countries had their own self-interested goals, and these only intersected in certain (albeit important) ways. One of the outcomes of bringing the United States out of its self-imposed exile in the Western Hemisphere was that the reigning hegemonic power in the rest of the world - Britain itself - would be left weaker as a result.

Churchill never seemed to really appreciate this, at least not during the war itself. As he famously complained in November 1942, he had not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. Yet that was an inevitable consequence of his very diplomatic efforts.
Best, Alan

Hello Alan,

I agree with some of what you say, but certainly not your conclusion.

Britain and its Empire/Commonwealth's (hereafter 'Empire') entry into WWII followed many, many years of Churchill advocating that we should be preparing to do so. However, when war came we were not prepared and we desperately needed assistance.

He knew that the US had to come into the war if 'right' was to prevail, but it was vitally important to him that the Empire would endure. Lots of his famous speeches are about 'enduring'.

He knew during the war that the US and the Soviets had been in secret talks about the shape of the post war world, and that he and the Empire were not party to the carve-up. He/we were powerless to force the position. We were bankrupt, a large chunk of our manpower had been slain or maimed in two world wars; we were on our 'uppers'. Contrast this with the resources of US... He was well aware that our torch as the (once) world power would pass to the US.

If he still harboured any doubts about this, he would have been disabused of them at Yalta. The US's main goal at Yalta was agreement to the birth of the United Nations and they agreed to virtually all Stalin requested to get it - Poland, part of Germany, part of China, etc. Churchill was virtually unable to influence matters, except he did return with the Empire intact.

Yalta was a lesson in folly by the US. Roosavelt should have heeded Churchill's warnings about the real purpose of the Soviets; expansion, domination and enslavement of Europe. Instead, he went to Yalta trusting the Soviets and with no eye on the future implications; the Cold War, arms race, expansion of communism and decades of conflict, which the US has paid a very high price for.

I beleive Churchill was more aware of the power shift and a greater visionary than you give him credit for.

Best,

Steve.

 

Knowledge is power you know....

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." — Albert Einstein

 

Cheers Steve! Totally agree. And Alan just to clear up the matter, my "quote" was from Steve (abot Churchill) and I still agree with him wholeheartedly.

Best,

Suze

 

There isn't a lot we can do about someone's words and actions from 60 years ago. Every country had someone say and do some stupid things for sure.

However we can do something about today and tomorrow. We can work together to protect and provide safety and security for our loved ones now.

For sure there are some folks who believe the only good infidel is a dead infidel. On 9/11/2011 those towers had citizens from a multitude of countries who were killed or injured in the most terrible of ways.

We must work together as Allies and friends to defeat these people who claim to serve the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob by killing the Gentiles and Jews who do not bow to Mecca 5 times a day.

The war was won because of the men and women on the battle fields, in the air and on the oceans who did their job with actions and not words. These veterans were Allies and warriors who did what was asked of them and more. They worked together to get the job done.

We must work together to defeat those who would defeat our way of life, our legal systems and our way of worship to whom we want to worship.

The Axis were defeated in WWII and that is the important issue and it took the efforts of all our countries and their Allies.

Now we must keep our focus on the future, so we even have a future for our loved ones.

 

Hi guys, so sorry for lackadaiscal response to message - hectic last couple of weeks trying to organise trip to US, including getting a visa! Luckily all successful. I will reply to each of your responses in next email, i just wanted to quickly send one now. Matt

Ps. Does anyone know how I can get an email notification that someone has added a response to a message thread I am involved in?

 

Now I was a young lad during WW2, and the Americans were made more than welcome and were great company.
Now America used the war to break down the British Empire..The first few years of the war we had to pay cash for any thing we bought from the States, which is understandable. Once we had handed over all our cash and every share that we held in American Companies then we went over to what was called lend lease, where borrowed on the understanding that all the money would be paid back after the war. Well the war ended and we did not have the cash so one of the conditions was that we should gradually break up the Empire, which we did, and we must have been one of the few countries that paid back every penny we borrowed from America even if it did take sixty years.

 

Hello Mathew;

Your subject is most interesting and I have an opinon about our American Cousins to the south. Having served in their Army and lived amongst them for 6 1/2 years, let me just say the following:

Individually they are OK. Collectively they can overwhelm. Militarily they are good, but not as good as they think. Politically they scare the Hell out of me as I have very little use for Republicanism, being a Constitutional Monarchist. My oldest daughter is a Yank being born in San Antonio. We tend to regard that as an accident as I was stationed there at the time and we couldn't get home to Canada. Overall most Cdns I know tend to be leary of them.

Camac.

 

Sorry for the large postings – I have split them into two to make them easier to scan! I have tried to respond to a number of the posts that are focussed on my project. Please do get back to me and I promise I will email more quickly this time!

@ Alan Allport – the Daily Worker and the Daily Express are definitely papers we have an eye out for, although our difficulty is lack of funds for copyright for all papers, particularly the papers that are still in print. Also, some papers have already done exclusivity deals with companies such as Nexus-Lexus. We are having more luck with the discontinued papers so the Daily Worker may be a good one.

To be honest, I hadn’t thought too much about the dates. After having read a number of UK Embassy documents during 1939 onwards that provide ‘official’ opinions in scribbled margins of papers about the Lend-Lease it would seem silly to arbitrarily cut off the story in 1945 before it gets played out in the Anglo-American Loan. Thanks for this!

Thanks for getting back to me, and I’ll keep you posted of the project. If you have any titbits then please do contact me, and I’ll promise to respond sooner! Matt

@ Ron Goldstein – thanks for the account of your experiences with the American lorry driver! I don’t think it’s patronising to say that experiences are what influence attitudes. Effectively, what the project is hoping to achieve is create a vehicle (database) that allows researchers (both academics and enthusiasts) the opportunity to examine that precise connection between experience and attitude. What, for example, did the multiple voices in the UK establishment understand to be typical behaviour of the American people and government, how did this influence British decision-making in negotiating with the US government in, for example, resolving Pacific Islands sovereignty?

The long-term aim would be to collect individual peoples’ stories and include them into the database so as to make it as complete as possible. An example would be to obtain diaries of British diplomats and other UK officials as well as any diaries

@ Andy. Yes we did sit next to each other. Thank you for recommending this web forum, how are you, and when you next down to TNA?

 

@ Steve Mac. I see your point with regards to the US waiting until they were attacked before they came in but I think it needs more explanation. First, who is the ‘US’ that you refer to? In looking at the documents from the US Embassy during 1939-41 the Secretary of State Cordell Hull and President Roosevelt were very supportive of the fight against the Germany and the Japanese but the domestic political situation was not deemed by them as being an appropriate time for an argument to be made to the public that would legitimise full engagement in war. The political landscape at the time and since the beginning of the US founding has a vein of isolationism. Could it not be argued that it was this vein as opposed to waiting for the UK to be crippled before it moved an equally legitimate argument? This culture of isolationism was reflected through members of Congress and members of the public.

Your points in regards to Churchill and Yalta are fascinating and I look forward to reading the documents from the British Embassy in DC in regards to the Yalta conference.


@ Lee. Thanks for this information it’s really useful but more importantly interesting, I had no idea this was going on. Do you by any chance know how I can get copies of these lecture and media releases and the discussions by the UK government departments behind this policy?

@ Suze. I think all of you are right with regards to there being no simple answer, and this research is not about determining whether the UK government or people at the time recognised whether this shift in power was happening but more for researchers to use this data to analyse this shift. The Institute for the Study of the Americas is in a rather unique position in the Higher Education sector in that we are funded to facilitate the research of others. In practice, what this means, is that we provide databases that enable other researchers to utilise for their own purposes.

@ A-58. Thank you so much for your support. It is true I am seeking all help from all people, and it is not principally for me to use in my research bit to create a resource that everyone can tap into and use.

 

Before 1939, among the general civilian public there was great admiration for America and all things American, which we 'knew' from the cinema

After 1939, our opinions were not so admiring; most of the American population, we knew, came from Europe, yet they showed no concern about the over-running of Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium. We were singlehandedly trying to prevent the Germans crossing the channel and, although the Americans proudly proclaimed the Pilgrim Fathers, they seemed to have no interest outside the US.

We began to receive food parcels from INDIVIDUALS in the States, so we began to see that the national picture was not all-inclusive. Eventually, after Pearl Harbour, an insult to themselves, they at last joined the major war effort. When their troops arrived in this country preparatory to the French landings, there was a degree of suspicion - yes, overpaid, oversexed, and over here. Individually they could be quite charming, if patronising, and we were suspicious of the things we read and heard about the relationships of the leaders and generals.

We were particularly suspicious of lend-lease; When would we ever repay this debt? It sounded like WW1, when the munitions manufacturers made money .............

Churchill being half American, probably saw their best side, but many of us suspected that the Americans had their own agenda, which did not include the British Empire, except where its extent could be of use to them

You can understand why, after the war, we looked with suspicion on the Americans - what were their objectives? They acquired a number of our islands for bases and test centres. So many of their activities excluded us, even for the brain-drain of our scientists. I think you will find a big question mark at the back of the mind of Mr. Man-in-the-street

As a Mrs. Man-in-the-street, my opinions are just that, Everyman, if you like, but be assured many of us do not see our American neighbours as our blood-brothers.

Edna

 

Dear Edna, thanks for your last post. Is it possible to give some colour to your statements by discussing some examples? I'd love to know what were in the parcels you received, and your point about the Americans being predominantly European and recent migrants is important - I wonder how many of these European migrants were sending the parcels? Thanks, Matt

 

Intresting viewpoints. Valuable insight to the experiences of the time