America and Britain are bound together by a shared history, a common language, an overlap in religious beliefs and legal principles, and kinship ties that reach back hundreds of years. Today, large numbers of expatriates live in the other country.
In the early 21st century, Britain affirmed its relationship with the United States as its "most important bilateral partnership" in current British foreign policy,[1] and the American foreign policy also affirms its relationship with Britain as its most important relationship,[2][3] as evidenced in aligned political affairs, mutual cooperation in the areas of trade, commerce, finance, technology, academics, as well as the arts and sciences; the sharing of government and military intelligence, and joint combat operations and peacekeeping missions carried out between the United States Armed Forces and the British Armed Forces. As of January 2015, the United Kingdom was the fifth largest US trading partner in terms of exports and seventh in terms of import of goods.[4] In long-term perspective, the historian Paul Johnson has called the United Kingdom–United States relations "the cornerstone of the modern, democratic world order".[5]
The two countries also have had a significant impact on the cultures of many other countries, as well as each other. They are the two main nodes of the Anglosphere, with a combined population of just under 400 million in 2019. Together, they have given the English language a dominant lingua franca role in many aspects of the modern world.
The Special Relationship characterises the exceptionally close political, diplomatic, cultural, economic, military, and historical relations between the two countries. It is specially used for relations since 1940.[6]
Ahead of a visit to the White House in 2023, Rishi Sunak stressed the need to forge "close and candid" relations with Joe Biden after years of turbulent US-UK relations.[7]
History
Origins
The Mayflower transported the Pilgrims to the New World in 1620, as depicted in William Halsall's The Mayflower in Plymouth Sound, 1882.
After several failed attempts, the first permanent English settlement in mainland North America was established in 1607 at Jamestown in the Virginia. In 1630 the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony; they emphasised not only pure religiosity, but also education and entrepreneurship.[8]
All the colonies had slavery. Most of the slaves were purchased from British colonies in the Caribbean. The colonies attracted British and German immigrants seeking to own a farm. During the 17th century, about 350,000 English and Welsh migrants arrived. After 1700 came even larger numbers of Scots and Scots-Irish migrants.[9]
During British colonization, liberal administrative, juridical, and market institutions were introduced, positively associated with socioeconomic development.[10] At the same time, colonial policy was also quasi-mercantilist, encouraging trade within the Empire, discouraging trade with other powers, and discouraging the rise of manufacturing in the colonies, which had been established to increase the trade and wealth of the mother country. Britain made much greater profits from the sugar trade of its commercial colonies in the Caribbean.[citation needed]
The colonial period also saw the introduction of indentured servitude and slavery.[10] All of the Thirteen Colonies were involved in the slave trade. Slaves in the Middle Colonies and New England Colonies typically worked as house servants, artisans, laborers and craftsmen. Early on, slaves in the Southern Colonies worked primarily in agriculture, on farms and plantations growing indigo, rice, cotton, and tobacco for export.[10]
The religious ties between the homeland and the colonies were pronounced. Most of the churches were transplants from Europe. The Puritans of New England seldom kept in touch with nonconformists in England. Much closer were the transatlantic relationships maintained by the Quakers, especially in Pennsylvania. The Methodists also maintained close ties.[11][12]
The Anglican Church was officially established in the Southern colonies, which meant that local taxes paid the salary of the minister, the parish had civic responsibilities such as poor relief, and the local gentry controlled the parish. The church was disestablished during the American Revolution. The Anglican churches in America were under the authority of the Bishop of London, and there was a long debate over whether to establish an Anglican bishop in America. The other Protestants blocked any such appointment. After the Revolution the newly formed Episcopal Church selected its own bishop and kept its distance from London.[13]
The Thirteen Colonies gradually obtained more self-government.[14] British mercantilist policies became more stringent, benefiting the mother country which resulted in trade restrictions, thereby limiting the growth of the colonial economy and artificially constraining colonial merchants' earning potential. The sums were small but Parliament insisted that it was in final command and could impose taxes at any time. Tensions escalated from 1765 to 1775 over issues of taxation without any American representation in Parliament. Parliament imposed a series of taxes especially the Stamp Act, and the Tea Act of 1773, against which an angry mob of colonists protested in the Boston Tea Party by dumping chests of tea into Boston Harbor.
Parliament punished Massachusetts with the Intolerable Acts in 1774, which were designed to strip away self-government. The other twelve colonies stood together with Massachusetts. They sent militia to Boston and expelled nearly all the Royal officials in all 13 colonies by 1775. The Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 began the American War of Independence. While the goal of attaining independence was sought by a powerful majority known as Patriots, a weaker minority known as the Loyalists remained loyal to the king.
Congress unanimously declared independence in July 1776. The British managed to control New York City and parts of the South, but 90 per cent of the American population was controlled by Patriots. The entry of the French and Spanish decisively hurt British efforts. After two invasion armies were captured in 1777 and 1781, King George III lost control of Parliament and independence was negotiated on terms favorable to expanded bilateral trade. The United States of America became the first colony in the world to successfully achieve independence in the modern era.[15] According to R. R. Palmer the new American nation:
inspired the sense of a new era. It added a new content to the concept of progress. It gave a whole new dimension to ideas of liberty and equality made familiar in the Enlightenment. It got people into the habit of thinking more concretely about political questions, and made them more readily critical of their own governments and society. It dethroned England and set up America as a model for those seeking a better world.[16]
The Treaty of Paris ended the war in 1783 on terms quite favourable to the new nation.[17]
The Americans realised they could get a better deal directly from London, ignoring their French ally. The British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne now saw a chance to split the United States away from France and make the new country a valuable economic partner.[18]
The United States would gain all of the area east of the Mississippi River, north of Florida, and south of Canada. The northern boundary would be almost the same as today. The United States would gain fishing rights off the Atlantic coast of Canada, and agreed to allow British merchants and Loyalists to try to recover their property. It was a highly favourable treaty for the United States, and deliberately so from the British point of view. Shelburne foresaw a highly profitable two-way trade between Britain and the rapidly growing United States, which indeed came to pass.[19]
End of the Revolution
The treaty was finally ratified in 1784. The British evacuated their soldiers and civilians in New York City, Charleston and Savannah in late 1783. Over 80 percent of the half-million Loyalists remained in the United States and became American citizens. The others mostly went to Canada, and referred to themselves as the United Empire Loyalists. Merchants and men of affairs often went to Britain to reestablish their business connections.[20][21] Rich southern Loyalists, taking their slaves with them, typically headed to plantations in the West Indies. The British also evacuated about 3,000 Black Loyalists, former slaves who had escaped from their American masters and joined the British; they went to Nova Scotia. Many found it inhospitable and went to Sierra Leone, a newly established British colony in Africa.[22]
The new nation gained control of nearly all the land east of the Mississippi and south of the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. The British colonies of East and West Florida were given to Spain as its reward. The Native American tribes allied with Britain struggled in the aftermath; the British ignored them at the Peace conference, and most came under American control unless they moved to Canada or to Spanish territory. The British kept forts in the Northwest Territory (what is today the American Midwest, especially in Michigan and Wisconsin), where they supplied weapons to Indian tribes.[23]
Privately printed pamphlet containing the text of the Jay Treaty
Trade resumed between the two nations when the war ended. The British allowed all exports to America but forbade some American food exports to its colonies in the West Indies. British exports reached £3.7 million, compared with imports of only £750,000. The imbalance caused a shortage of gold in the US.
In 1785, John Adams became the first American plenipotentiary minister, to the Court of St James's.[24] King George III received him graciously. In 1791, Great Britain sent its first diplomatic envoy, George Hammond, to the United States.
When Great Britain and France went to war in 1793, relations between the United States and Great Britain also verged on war. Tensions were resolved when the Jay Treaty was approved in 1795. It established a decade of peace and prosperous trade relations.[25] The historian Marshall Smelser argues that the treaty effectively postponed war with Britain, or at least postponed it until the United States was strong enough to handle it.[26] The Americans had a list of outstanding issues regarding British control of border areas and British support of Indian tribes hostile to the United States, as well as British efforts to stop trade with France.[27] The final treaty settled most of the issues.
The Federalist Party led by Alexander Hamilton was pro-British and it worked hard to ratify the Jay treaty. The new Republican Party was vehemently opposed. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Republicans strongly favored Revolutionary France and deeply distrusted reactionary Britain as a threat to American values of republicanism. President George Washington made the decisive intervention so the Treaty was ratified by exactly a 2/3 vote, and the necessary money was appropriated. The result was two decades of peace in a time of world war. The peace lasted until the Republicans came to power and Jefferson rejected a new treaty and began an economic attack on Britain.[28]
Bradford Perkins argues that the treaty was the first to establish a special relationship between Britain and the United States, with a second installment under Lord Salisbury. In his view, the treaty worked for ten years to secure peace between Britain and America: "The decade may be characterised as the period of "The First Rapprochement." As Perkins concludes,
"For about ten years there was peace on the frontier, joint recognition of the value of commercial intercourse, and even, by comparison with both preceding and succeeding epochs, a muting of strife over ship seizures and impressment. Two controversies with France… pushed the English-speaking powers even more closely together."[29]
Starting at swords' point in 1794, the Jay treaty reversed the tensions, Perkins concludes: "Through a decade of world war and peace, successive governments on both sides of the Atlantic were able to bring about and preserve a cordiality which often approached genuine friendship."[30]
Historian Joseph Ellis finds the terms of the treaty "one-sided in Britain's favor", but asserts a consensus of historians agrees that it was
"a shrewd bargain for the United States. It bet, in effect, on England rather than France as the hegemonic European power of the future, which proved prophetic. It recognised the massive dependence of the American economy on trade with England. In a sense it was a precocious preview of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), for it linked American security and economic development to the British fleet, which provided a protective shield of incalculable value throughout the nineteenth century. Mostly, it postponed war with England until America was economically and politically more capable of fighting one."[31]
The US proclaimed its neutrality in the wars between Britain and France (1793–1815), and profited greatly by selling food, timber and other supplies to both sides.
Jefferson as president moved slowly to undermine the Jay Treaty and block its renewal. Amity collapsed in 1805, as a prelude to the War of 1812.
The United States imposed a trade embargo, namely the Embargo Act of 1807, in retaliation for Britain's blockade of France, which involved the visit and search of neutral merchantmen, and resulted in the suppression of Franco-United States trade for the duration of the Napoleonic Wars.[32] The Royal Navy also boarded American ships and impressed sailors suspected of being British deserters.[33] Expansion into the Midwest (i.e. Ohio to Wisconsin) was hindered by Native American tribes given munitions and support by British agents. Indeed, Britain's goal was the creation of an independent Indian state to block expansion westward by the US.[34]
After diplomacy and the boycott had failed, the issue of national honour and independence came to the fore.[35] Brands says, "The other war hawks spoke of the struggle with Britain as a second war of independence; [Andrew] Jackson, who still bore scars from the first war of independence held that view with special conviction. The approaching conflict was about violations of American rights, but it was also vindication of American identity."[36]
Finally in June 1812 President James Madison called for war, and overcame the opposition of business interests in the Northeast. The US strategy called for a war against British shipping and especially cutting off food shipments to the British sugar plantations in the West Indies. Conquest of the northern colonies that later became Canada was a tactic designed to give the US a strong bargaining position.[37] The main British goal was to defeat France, so until that happened in 1814 the war was primarily defensive. To enlist allies among Native Americans, led by Tecumseh, the British promised an independent Native American state would be created in territory claimed by the United States. British and Canadian forces repeatedly repulsed invasions by US forces, which were inadequately prepared, poorly led, and undermined by the unavailability of militia units, whose commanders refused to place them temporarily under federal control. Nevertheless, US forces took control of Lake Erie in 1813, and destroyed the offensive abilities of Native American forces, allied to the British, in the Northwest and South. The British invasion of the Chesapeake Bay in 1814 culminated in the "Burning of Washington", but the subsequent British attack on Baltimore was repelled. A British incursion into New York during 1814 was defeated at the Battle of Plattsburgh, and the invasion of Louisiana that launched before word of a ceasefire had reached General Andrew Jackson was decisively defeated at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Negotiations began in 1814 and produced the Treaty of Ghent, which restored the status quo ante bellum: there were no territorial gains by either side, and the British strategy of creating an independent Native American state was abandoned after strong American pressure. The United Kingdom retained the theoretical right of impressment, but stopped impressing any sailors, while the United States dropped the issue for good.[38] The US celebrated the outcome as a victorious "second war of independence". The British, having finally defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, celebrated that triumph and largely forgot their second war with the US. Tensions between the US and Canada were resolved through diplomacy. The War of 1812 marked the end of a long period of conflict (1775–1815) and ushered in a new era of peace between the two nations.
A strongly worded anti-British handbill handed out in New York City, which was prior to and complicit in instigating the 1849 Astor Place riotThe Oregon Country/Columbia District stretched from 42N to 54 40'N; the most heavily disputed portion is highlighted.
The Monroe Doctrine, a unilateral response in 1823 to a British suggestion of a joint declaration, expressed American hostility to further European encroachment in the Western hemisphere. Nevertheless, the United States benefited from the common outlook in British policy and its enforcement by the Royal Navy. In the 1840s several states defaulted on bonds owned by British investors. London bankers avoided state bonds afterwards, but invested heavily in American railroad bonds.[39]
In several episodes the American general Winfield Scott proved a sagacious diplomat by tamping down emotions and reaching acceptable compromises.[40] Scott handled the Caroline affair in 1837. Rebels from British North America (now Ontario) fled to New York and used a small American ship called the Caroline to smuggle supplies into Canada after their rebellion was suppressed. In late 1837, Canadian militia crossed the border into the US and burned the ship, leading to diplomatic protests, a flare-up of Anglophobia, and other incidents.
Tensions on the vague Maine–New Brunswick boundary involved rival teams of lumberjacks in the bloodless Aroostook War of 1839. There was no shooting but both sides tried to uphold national honor and gain a few more miles of timber land. Each side had an old secret map that apparently showed the other side had the better legal case, so compromise was easily reached in the Webster–Ashburton Treaty of 1842, which settled the border in Maine and Minnesota.[41][42] In 1859, the bloodless Pig War determined the position of the border in relation to the San Juan Islands and Gulf Islands.
British leaders were constantly annoyed from the 1840s to the 1860s by what they saw as Washington's pandering to the democratic mob, as in the Oregon boundary dispute in 1844–46. However, British middle-class public opinion sensed a "special relationship" between the two peoples based on language, migration, evangelical Protestantism, liberal traditions, and extensive trade. This constituency rejected war, forcing London to appease the Americans. During the Trent affair of late 1861, London drew the line and Washington retreated.[43][44]
In 1844–48 the two nations had overlapping claims to Oregon. The area was largely unsettled, making it easy to end the crisis in 1848 by a compromise that split the region evenly, with British Columbia to Great Britain, and Washington, Idaho, and Oregon to America. The US then turned its attention to Mexico, which threatened war over the annexation of Texas. Britain tried without success to moderate the Mexicans, but when the war began it remained neutral. The US gained California, in which the British had shown only passing interest.[45]
The discovery of gold in California in 1848 brought a heavy demand for passage to the gold fields, with the main routes crossing disease-ridden Panama to avoid a very long slow sailing voyage around all of South America. A railroad was built that carried 600,000 passengers but the disease threat remained. A canal in Nicaragua was a much more healthy and attractive possibility, and American businessmen gained the necessary permissions, along with a US treaty with Nicaragua. However the British were determined to block an American canal, and seized key locations on the Mosquito Coast on the Atlantic that blocked it. The Whig Party was in charge in Washington and were unlike the bellicose Democrats who wanted a businesslike, peaceful solution. The United States decided that a canal should be open and neutral to all the world's traffic, and not be militarized. Tensions escalated locally, with small-scale physical confrontations in the field. Washington and London found a diplomatic solution.[46] The Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850 guaranteed equal canal rights to both the US and Britain. Each agreed not to colonize Central America. However, no Nicaragua canal was ever started.[47]
By the late 1890s Britain saw the need for much improved relations with the United States, and agreed to allow the US to build a canal through either Nicaragua or Panama. The choice was Panama. The Hay–Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 replaced the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty, and adopted the rule of neutralization for the Panama Canal which the US built; it opened in 1914.[48][49]
In the American Civil War a major Confederate goal was to win recognition from Britain and France, which it expected would lead them to war with the US and enable the Confederacy to win independence.[50] Because of astute American diplomacy, no nation ever recognised the Confederacy and war with Britain was averted. Nevertheless, there was considerable British sentiment in favour of weakening the US by helping the South win.[51] At the beginning of the war Britain issued a proclamation of neutrality. The Confederate States of America had assumed all along that Britain would surely enter the war to protect its vital supply of cotton. This "King Cotton" argument was one reason the Confederates felt confident in the first place about going to war, but the Southerners had never consulted the Europeans and were tardy in sending diplomats. Even before the fighting began in April 1861 Confederate citizens (acting without government authority) cut off cotton shipments in an effort to exert cotton diplomacy. It failed because Britain had warehouses filled with cotton, whose value was soaring; not until 1862 did shortages become acute.[52]
The Trent Affair in late 1861 nearly caused a war. A warship of the US Navy stopped the British civilian vessel RMS Trent and took off two Confederate diplomats, James Murray Mason and John Slidell. Britain prepared for war and demanded their immediate release. President Lincoln released the diplomats and the episode ended quietly.[53]
Britain realised that any recognition of an independent Confederacy would be treated as an act of war against the United States. The British economy was heavily reliant on trade with the United States, most notably cheap grain imports which in the event of war, would be cut off by the Americans. Indeed, the Americans would launch an all-out naval war against the entire British merchant fleet.[54]
Despite outrage and intense American protests, London turned blind eye to its blockade runners smuggling in money and weapons to the Confederacy (which actually lengthened the war by two years and killed 400,000 additional Americans)[55][56][57][58] and allowed the British-built CSS Alabama to leave port and become a commerce raider under the naval flag of the Confederacy. The war ended in 1865; arbitration partially settled the issue in 1871, with a payment of $15.5 million in gold only for the damages caused by British-built Confederate commerce raiders.[59]
In January 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which was strongly supported by liberal elements in Britain. The British government predicted that emancipation of the slaves in America would create a race war in the country, and that intervention might be required on humanitarian grounds. This prediction turned out to be unfounded, and the declining capabilities of the Confederacy—such as loss of major ports and rivers—made its likelihood of success smaller and smaller.[60]
Relations were chilly during the 1860s as Americans resented British and Canadian roles during the Civil War. Both sides worked to make sure tensions did not escalate toward war.[61] After the war American authorities looked the other way as Irish Catholic "Fenians" plotted and even attempted a tiny invasion of Canada to create pressure for an independent Ireland.[62][63]Irish American politicians, a growing power in the Democratic Party demanded more independence for Ireland and made anti-British rhetoric—called "twisting the lion's tail"—a staple of election campaign appeals to the Irish vote.[64]
The arbitration of the Alabama Claims in 1872 provided a satisfactory reconciliation; The British paid the United States $15.5 million for the economic damage caused by Confederate Navy warships purchased from it.[65] Canada could never be defended so the British decided to cut their losses and eliminate the risk of a conflict with the US. The first ministry of William Gladstone withdrew from all its historic military and political responsibilities in North America. It brought home its troops (keeping Halifax as an Atlantic naval base), and turned responsibility over to the locals. That made it wise in 1867 to unify the separate Canadian colonies into a self-governing confederation named the "Dominion of Canada".[66]
Free trade
Britain persisted in its free trade policy even as its major rivals, the US and Germany, turned to high tariffs (as did Canada). American heavy industry grew faster than Britain, and by the 1890s was crowding British machinery and other products out of the world market.[67] London, however, remained the world's financial center, even as much of its investment was directed toward American railways. The Americans remained far behind the British in international shipping and insurance.[68]
The American economic "invasion" of the British home market demanded a response.[69] British conservatives promoted what they called "tariff reform", which consisted of raising the tariff, especially from countries outside the British Empire. Liberals counterattacked by portraying tariff reform as unpatriotic.[70] Tariffs were finally imposed in the 1930s. Without tariffs to protect them, British businessmen were obliged to lose their market or else rethink and modernise their operations. For example, the boot and shoe industry faced increasing imports of American footwear; Americans took over the market for shoe machinery. British companies realised they had to meet the competition so they re-examined their traditional methods of work, labour utilisation, and industrial relations, and to rethink how to market footwear in terms of the demand for fashion.[71]
President Cleveland twists the tail of the British Lion regarding Venezuela, a policy hailed by Irish Catholics in the United States, as depicted in a cartoon published in Puck by J.S. Pughe in 1895
In 1895 a new crisis erupted in South America. A border dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela caused a crisis when Washington spoke out to take Venezuela's side. Propaganda sponsored by Venezuela convinced American public opinion that the British were infringing on Venezuelan territory. Prime Minister Salisbury stood firm. The crisis escalated when President Grover Cleveland, citing the Monroe Doctrine, issued an ultimatum in late 1895. Salisbury's cabinet convinced him he had to go to arbitration. Both sides calmed down and the issue was quickly resolved through arbitration which largely upheld the British position on the legal boundary line. Salisbury remained angry but a consensus was reached in London, led by Lord Landsdowne, to seek much friendlier relations with the United States.[72][73] By standing with a Latin American nation against the encroachment of the British, the US improved relations with the Latin Americans, and the cordial manner of the procedure improved diplomatic relations with Britain.[74]
The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897 was a proposed treaty between the US and Britain in 1897 that required arbitration of major disputes. Despite wide public and elite support, the treaty was rejected by the US Senate, which was jealous of its prerogatives, and never went into effect.[75]
Arbitration was used to settle the dispute over the boundary between Alaska and Canada, but the Canadians felt betrayed by the result. American and Russian diplomats drawing up the treaty for the Alaska Purchase of 1867 drew the boundary between Canada and Alaska in ambiguous fashion. With the gold rush into the Canadian Yukon in 1898, miners had to enter through Alaska. Canada wanted the boundary redrawn to obtain its own seaport. Canada rejected the American offer of a long-term lease on an American port. The issue went to arbitration and the Alaska boundary dispute was finally resolved by an arbitration in 1903. The decision favoured the US when the British judge sided with the three American judges against the two Canadian judges on the arbitration panel. Canadian public opinion was outraged that their interests were sacrificed by London for the benefit of British-American harmony.[76]
This 1898 depiction of the Great Rapprochement shows Uncle Sam embracing John Bull while Columbia and Britannia sit together and hold hands.
The Great Rapprochement is the convergence of social and political objectives between London and Washington from 1895 until World War I began in 1914. This was despite a large Irish Catholic element in the United States, which provided a major base for demands of Irish independence.[77]
The most notable sign of improving relations during the Great Rapprochement was Britain's actions during the Spanish–American War of 1898. Initially London supported Madrid and its colonial rule over Cuba, since the perceived threat of American occupation and a territorial acquisition of Cuba by the United States might harm British trade and commercial interests within its own possessions in the West Indies. However, after the United States made genuine assurances that it would grant Cuba's independence (which eventually occurred in 1902), the British abandoned this policy and ultimately sided with the United States, unlike most other European powers who supported Spain. In return Washington supported Britain during the Boer War, although many Americans favored the Boers.[78]
The naval blockade of several months (1902-1903) imposed against Venezuela by Britain, Germany and Italy over President Cipriano Castro's refusal to pay foreign debts and damages suffered by European citizens in a recent failed civil war. Castro assumed that the Monroe Doctrine would see the US prevent European military intervention, but at the time President Theodore Roosevelt saw the Doctrine as concerning European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se. Roosevelt also was concerned with the threat of penetration into the region by Germany and Britain. With Castro failing to back down under US pressure and increasingly negative British and American press reactions to the affair, President Roosevelt persuaded the blockading nations to agree to a compromise, but maintained the blockade during negotiations over the details of refinancing the debt on Washington Protocols. This incident was a major driver of the Roosevelt Corollary and the subsequent US Big Stick policy and Dollar Diplomacy in Latin America.[80]
In 1907–09, President Roosevelt sent the "Great White Fleet" on an international tour, to demonstrate the power projection of the United States' blue-water navy, which had become second only to the Royal Navy in size and firepower.[81][82]
The United States had a policy of strict neutrality and was willing to export any product to any country. Germany could not import anything due to the British blockade and British control over exports to neutral countries neighboring Germany. American trade escalated to the Allied Powers, especially in farm products. British purchases were financed by the sale of American assets owned by the British. When that was exhausted the British borrowed heavily from New York banks. When that credit ran dry in late 1916, a financial crisis was at hand for Britain.[83]
American public opinion moved steadily against Germany, especially in the wake of the Belgian atrocities in 1914 and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in 1915. The large German American and Irish Catholic element called for staying out of the war, but the German Americans were increasingly marginalised. Berlin renewed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 knowing it would lead to war with the US. Germany's invitation to Mexico to join in war against the US in the Zimmermann Telegram was the last straw, and the US declared war in April 1917. The Balfour Mission in April and May tried to promote cooperation between the UK and US. The Americans planned to send money, food and munitions, but it soon became clear that millions of soldiers would be needed to decide the war on the Western Front.[84]
The US sent two million soldiers to Europe under the command of General John J. Pershing, with more on the way as the war ended.[85] Many of the Allied forces were skeptical of the competence of the American Expeditionary Force, which in 1917 was severely lacking in training and experience. By summer 1918, the American doughboys were arriving at 10,000 a day, as the German forces were shrinking because they had run out of manpower.
In December 1918 after victory in the World War, President Wilson told a British official in London: “You must not speak of us who come over here as cousins, still less as brothers; we are neither. Neither must you think of us as Anglo-Saxons, for that term can no longer be rightly applied to the people of the United States....There are only two things which can establish and maintain closer relations between your country and mine: they are community of ideals and of interests."[86] The first summit conference took place in London in late 1918, between Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George. It went poorly, as Wilson distrusted Lloyd George as a schemer, and Lloyd George grumbled that the president was excessively moralistic. The two did work together at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, as part of the Big Four. They moderated the demands of French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau to permanently weaken Germany's new Weimar Republic. Lloyd George later quipped that sitting between them was like "being seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon".[87]
John W. Davis (1873-1955) served as Wilson's ambassador from 1918 to 1921. A Southerner from West Virginia, he reflected deep Southern support for Wilsonianism, based on a reborn patriotism, a distrust of the Republican Party, and a resurgence of Anglophilism. Davis proselytized in London for the League of Nations based on his paternalistic belief that peace depended primarily on Anglo-American friendship and leadership. He was disappointed by Wilson's mismanagement of the treaty ratification and by Republican isolationism and distrust of the League.[88]
To the Friendship of English speaking people's monument on Bush House in London. The two men holding a torch represent the United Kingdom (left) and the United States (right).
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the level of mutual hostility was moderately high. The British diplomatic establishment largely distrusted the United States for a series of reasons. They included British suspicion of America's newfound global power, intentions and reliability. Specific frictions included the American rejection of the League of Nations, the refusal to cancel the war debts owed by Britain to the US treasury, the high American tariff of 1930, and especially Franklin Roosevelt's sudden devastating withdrawal from the 1933 London economic conference, In both countries, the other side lost popularity. Americans disliked the British Empire, particularly its rule in India. Though Irish independence removed the main source of Anglo-American tensions, the Irish-American community was nevertheless slow to drop its historic antagonism. Roosevelt himself publicly stated his support for the self-determination of colonized countries.[89]
Despite the frictions, London realized the United States was now the strongest power, and made it a cardinal principle of British foreign-policy to "cultivate the closest relations with the United States". As a result, Britain decided not to renew its military alliance with Japan, which was becoming a major rival to the United States in the Pacific.[90]
President Warren Harding sponsored a successful Washington Naval Conference in 1922 that largely ended the naval arms race for a decade. The rise of American naval power in 1916-1918 marked the end of the Royal Navy's superiority, an eclipse acknowledged in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, when the United States and Britain agreed to equal tonnage quotas on warships. By 1932, the 1922 treaty was not renewed and Britain, Japan and the US were again in a naval race.[91]
In 1924, the aristocratic diplomat Esmé Howard returned to Washington as ambassador. Puzzled at first by the provincial background and eccentric style of President Calvin Coolidge, Howard came to like and trust the president, realizing that he was conciliatory and eager to find solutions to mutual problems, such as the Liquor Treaty of 1924 which diminished friction over smuggling. Washington was greatly pleased when Britain ended its alliance with Japan.[92] Both nations were pleased when in 1923 the wartime debt problem was compromised on satisfactory terms. London renegotiated its £978 million debt to the US Treasury by promising regular payments of £34 million for ten years then £40 million for 52 years. The idea was for the US to loan money to Germany, which in turn paid reparations to Britain, which in turn paid off its loans from the US government. In 1931 all German payments ended, and in 1932 Britain suspended its payments to the US, which angered American public opinion. The British debt was finally repaid after 1945.[93]
The League of Nations was established, but Wilson refused to negotiate with Republican supporters of the League. They objected to the provision that allowed the League to force the United States to join in a war declared by the League without the approval of Congress or the president. The Treaty of Versailles was defeated in the Senate. The United States never joined the League, leaving Britain and France to dominate the organization. In any case, it had very little effect on major issues and was replaced in 1946 with a United Nations, Largely designed by Roosevelt and his staff, in which both Britain and the United States had veto power.[94] Major conferences, especially the Washington Conference of 1922 occurred outside League auspices. The US refused to send official delegates to League committees, instead sending unofficial "observers".
Coolidge was impressed with the success of the Washington Naval Conference of 1921–22, and called the second international conference in 1927 to deal with related naval issues, especially putting limits on the number of warships under 10,000 tons. The conference met in Geneva. It failed because France refused to participate, and most of the delegates were admirals who did not want to limit their fleets.[95] Coolidge listened to his own admirals, but President Hoover did not, and in 1930 did achieve a naval agreement with Britain.[96] A second summit took place between President Herbert Hoover and Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in the United States in 1929. Both men were seriously devoted to peace, and the meeting went smoothly in discussions regarding naval arms limitations, and the application of the Kellogg–Briand Pact peace pact of 1928. One result was the successful London Naval Treaty of 1930, which continued the warship limitations among the major powers first set out in 1922.[97]
During the Great Depression, starting in late 1929, the US was preoccupied with its own internal affairs and economic recovery, espousing an isolationist policy. When the US raised tariffs in 1930, the British retaliated by raising their tariffs against outside countries (such as the US) while giving special trade preferences inside the Commonwealth. The US demanded these special trade preferences be ended in 1946 in exchange for a large loan.[98]
From 1929 to 1932, the overall world total of all trade plunged by over two-thirds, while trade between the US and Britain shrank from $848 million to $288 million, a decline of two-thirds (66%). Proponents of the high 1930 tariff it never expected this, and support for high tariffs rapidly eroded.[99]
When Britain in 1933 called a worldwide London Economic Conference to help resolve the depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stunned the world by suddenly refusing to cooperate, ending Conference usefulness overnight.[100]
Tensions over the Irish question faded with the independence of the Irish Free State in 1922. The American Irish had achieved their goal, and in 1938 their most outstanding spokesmen Joseph P. Kennedy, a Democrat close to Roosevelt, became ambassador to the Court of St. James's. He moved in high London society and his daughter married into the aristocracy. Kennedy supported the Neville Chamberlain policy of appeasement toward Germany, and when the war began he advised Washington that prospects for Britain's survival were bleak. When Winston Churchill came to power in 1940, Kennedy lost all his influence in London and Washington.[101][102] Washington analysts paid more attention to the measured optimism of Lieutenant Colonel Bradford G. Chynoweth, the War Department's military attache in London.[103]
Although many of the American people were sympathetic to Britain during the war with Nazi Germany, there was widespread opposition to American intervention in European affairs. This was reflected in a series of Neutrality Acts ratified by the United States Congress in 1935, 1936, and 1937. However, President Roosevelt's policy of cash-and-carry still allowed Britain and France to order munitions from the United States and carry them home. As ambassador to the United States in 1939–40, Lord Lothian supported Lend-Lease and urged Prime Minister Winston Churchill to work more closely with President Franklin Roosevelt. His success can be attributed to his understanding of American politics and culture, his skills in traditional diplomacy, his role as intermediary between Churchill and Roosevelt, and the efficiency of Britain's wartime propaganda agencies.[104][105]
Winston Churchill, who had long warned against Nazi Germany and demanded rearmament, became prime minister after his predecessor Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement had totally collapsed and Britain was unable to reverse the German invasion of Norway in April 1940. After the fall of France in June 1940, Roosevelt gave Britain and (after June 1941) the Soviet Union all aid short of war. The Destroyers for Bases Agreement which was signed in September 1940, gave the United States a 99-year rent-free lease of numerous land and air bases throughout the British Empire in exchange for the Royal Navy receiving 50 old destroyers from the United States Navy. Beginning in March 1941, the United States enacted Lend-Lease in the form of tanks, fighter airplanes, munitions, bullets, food, and medical supplies. Britain received $31.4 billion out of a total of $50.1 billion sent to the Allies. Roosevelt insisted on avoiding the blunder that Wilson had made in the First World War of setting up the financing as loans that had to be repaid by the recipients. Lend lease aid was freely given, with no payments. There were also cash loans were repaid at low rates over a half-century.[106][107]
Summit meetings became a standard practice starting with August 1941, when Churchill and Roosevelt met in Newfoundland, and announced the Atlantic Charter. It became a fundamental document—All the Allies had to sign it—and it led to the formation of the United Nations. Shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack, Churchill spent several weeks in Washington with the senior staff hammering out wartime strategy with the American counterparts at the Arcadia Conference. They set up the Combined Chiefs of Staff to plot and coordinate strategy and operations. Military cooperation was close and successful.[108]
Technical collaboration was even closer, as the two nations shared secrets and weapons regarding the proximity fuze (fuse) and radar, as well as airplane engines, Nazi codes, and the atomic bomb.[109][110][111]
Millions of American servicemen were based in Britain during the war. Americans were paid five times more than comparable British servicemen, which led to a certain amount of friction with British men and intermarriage with British women.[112]
In 1945 Britain sent a portion of the British fleet to assist the planned October invasion of Japan by the United States, but this was cancelled when Japan was forced to surrender unconditionally in August.
Pre-Independence India
Serious tension erupted over American demands that India be given independence, a proposition Churchill vehemently rejected. For years Roosevelt had encouraged Britain's disengagement from India. The American position was based on principled opposition to colonialism, practical concern for the outcome of the war, and the expectation of a large American role in a post-colonial era. In 1942 when the Congress Party launched a Quit India movement, the colonial authorities arrested tens of thousands of activists (including Mahatma Gandhi). Meanwhile, India became the main American staging base for aid to China. Churchill threatened to resign if Roosevelt continued to push his demands, and Roosevelt backed down.[113][114] Churchill was a believer in the integrity of the British Empire, but he was voted out of office in the summer of 1945. Attlee's new Labour government was much more favorable toward Indian aspirations. The process of de-colonization was highlighted by the independence Britain granted to India, Pakistan and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1947. The United States approved, but provided no financial or diplomatic support.[115][116]
Postwar financial troubles and The Marshall Plan (1945-1952)
In the aftermath of the war Britain faced a deep financial crisis, whereas the United States enjoyed an economic boom. The United States continued to finance the British treasury after the war. Much of this aid was designed to restore infrastructure and help refugees. Britain received an emergency loan of $3.75 billion in 1946; it was a 50-year loan with a low 2% interest rate.[117] A more permanent solution was the Marshall Plan of 1948–51, which poured $13 billion into western Europe, of which $3.3 billion went to Britain to help modernise its infrastructure and business practices. The aid was a gift and carried requirements that Britain balance its budget, control tariffs and maintain adequate currency reserves.[118] The American goals for the Marshall plan were to help rebuild the postwar economy in Europe, help modernize the economies, and minimize trade barriers. When the Soviet Union refused to participate or allow its satellites to participate, the Marshall plan became an element of the emerging Cold War. The British Labour government was an enthusiastic participant.[119][120][121]
There were political tensions between the two nations regarding Marshall plan requirements.[122] London was dubious about Washington's emphasis on European economic integration as the solution to postwar recovery. Integration with Europe at this point would mean cutting close ties to the emerging Commonwealth. London tried to convince Washington that American economic aid, especially to the sterling currency area, was necessary to solve the dollar shortage. British economists argued that their position was validated by 1950 as European industrial production exceeded prewar levels. Washington demanded convertibility of sterling currency on July 15, 1947, which produced a severe financial crisis for Britain. Convertibility was suspended on August 20, 1947. However, by 1950, American rearmament and heavy spending on the Korean War and Cold War finally ended the dollar shortage.[123] The balance of payment problems for the postwar government was caused less by economic decline and more by political overreach, according to Jim Tomlinson.[124]
The Labour government, which was alarmed at the threat of Communism in the Balkans, implored the US to take over the British role in the Greek Civil War, which led to the Truman Doctrine in 1947, with financial and military aid to Greece and Turkey as Britain withdrew from the region.[125]
The need to form a united front against the Soviet threat compelled the US and Britain to cooperate in helping to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with their European allies. NATO is a mutual defence alliance whereby an attack on one member country is deemed an attack on all members.
The United States had an anti-colonial and anti-communist stance in its foreign policy throughout the Cold War. Military forces from the United States and the United Kingdom were heavily involved in the Korean War, fighting under a United Nations mandate. A military stalemate finally led to an armistice that ended the fighting in 1953. During the same year British and American intelligence agencies worked together and were instrumental in supporting the 1953 Iranian coup d'état whereby the Iranian military restored the Shah to power.[126]
The Suez Crisis erupted in October 1956 after Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal. Eisenhower had repeatedly warned London against any such action, and feared a collapse of Western influence in the region. Furthermore, there was risk of a wider war, after the Soviet Union threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side and did invade Hungary to suppress a revolt. Washington responded with heavy financial and diplomatic pressure to force the invaders to withdraw. British post-war debt was so large that economic sanctions could have caused a devaluation of sterling. This would be a disaster and when it became clear that the international sanctions were serious, the invaders withdrew. Anthony Eden soon resigned as prime minister, leaving office with a ruined reputation. The world noted Britain's fall from status in the Middle East and worldwide. Anglo-American cooperation fell to the lowest point since the 1890s.[130][131][132]
However, the new prime minister Harold Macmillan (1957–1963) restored good terms with Eisenhower and President John F. Kennedy (1961–1963). Intimacy and warmth characterized his relationship with the latter who appointed David K. E. Bruce as ambassador.[133]
After Kennedy's assassinationPresident Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969) kept ambassador Bruce but ignored all his recommendations. Bruce sought closer ties with Britain and greater European unity. Bruce's reports regarding Britain's financial condition were pessimistic and alarmist. With regard to Vietnam, Bruce privately questioned US involvement and constantly urged the Johnson administration to allow Britain more of a role in bringing the conflict to an end.[134] The British ambassador was Sir Patrick Dean (1965-1969). Dean was preoccupied with sharp difficulties over Vietnam and British military commitments east of Suez. He promoted mutual understanding but was largely ignored by Johnson because the traditional Anglo-American relationship was decaying and Johnson disliked diplomats.[citation needed] London, furthermore, relied less and less on ambassadors and embassies.[135]
Through the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement signed in 1958, the UK and US resumed military technological cooperation on nuclear weapons, which had been prevented by the 1946 US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (otherwise known as the Mcmahon Act). Britain's independent nuclear programme was increasingly hampered by funding issues, and the cancellation of the British Blue Streak ballistic missile in 1960 necessitated the purchase of the US Skybolt system. In April 1963, the Polaris Sales Agreement established a basis for the sale of the US UGM-27 Polaris ballistic missile for use in the Royal Navy's submarine fleet starting in 1968.[136]
The American containment policy called for military resistance to the expansion of communism, and the Vietnam War became the main battlefield in the 1950s down to the communist victory in 1975. Prime Minister Harold Wilson (1964-1970) believed in a strong "Special Relationship" and wanted to highlight his dealings with the White House to strengthen his own prestige as a statesman. President Lyndon B. Johnson disliked Wilson, and ignored any "special" relationship.[citation needed] He agreed to provide financial help but he strongly opposed British plans to devalue the pound and withdraw military units east of Suez.[137] As the American military involvement deepened after 1964, Johnson repeatedly asked for British ground units to validate international support for American intervention. Wilson never sent troops, but British intelligence, training in jungle warfare, and verbal support was provided. He also took the initiative in attempting numerous mediation schemes, typically involving Russian intervention, none of which gained traction.[138] Wilson's policy divided the Labour Party; the Conservative opposition generally supported the American position on Vietnam. Issues of foreign policy were rarely salient in general elections.[disputed – discuss][139] Wilson and Johnson also differed sharply on British economic weakness and its declining status as a world power. Historian Jonathan Colman concludes it made for the most unsatisfactory "special" relationship in the 20th century.[140]
The tone of the relationship was set early on when Johnson sent Secretary of State Dean Rusk as head of the American delegation to the state funeral of Winston Churchill in January 1965, rather than the new vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Johnson himself had been hospitalized with influenza and advised by his doctors against attending the funeral.[141][142] This perceived slight generated much criticism against the president, both in the UK and in the US.[143][144] Johnson said during a press conference that not sending Humphrey was a "mistake."[144][145]
1970s
Edward Heath (Prime minister 1970–74) and Richard Nixon (President 1969–74) maintained a close working relationship.[146] Heath deviated from his predecessors by supporting Nixon's decision to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong in Vietnam in April 1972.[147] Nevertheless, relations deteriorated noticeably during the early 1970s. Throughout his premiership, Heath insisted on using the phrase "natural relationship" instead of "special relationship" to refer to Anglo-American relations, acknowledging the historical and cultural similarities but carefully denying anything special beyond that.[148] Heath was determined to restore a measure of equality to Anglo-American relations which the United States had increasingly dominated as the power and economy of the United Kingdom flagged in the post-colonial era.[149]
Heath's renewed push for British admittance to the European Economic Community (EEC) brought new tensions between the United Kingdom and the United States. French President Charles De Gaulle, who believed that British entry would allow undue American influence on the organisation, had vetoed previous British attempts at entry. Heath's final bid benefited from the more moderate views of Georges Pompidou, De Gaulle's successor as President of France, and his own Eurocentric foreign policy schedule. The Nixon administration viewed this bid as a pivot away from close ties with the United States in favour of continental Europe. After Britain's admission to the EEC in 1973, Heath confirmed this interpretation by notifying his American counterparts that the United Kingdom would henceforth be formulating European policies with other EEC members before discussing them with the United States. Furthermore, Heath indicated his potential willingness to consider a nuclear partnership with France and questioned what the United Kingdom got in return for American use of British military and intelligence facilities worldwide.[150] In return, Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger briefly cut off the Anglo-American intelligence tap in August 1973.[151] Kissinger then attempted to restore American influence in Europe with his abortive 1973 "Year of Europe" policy plan to update the NATO agreements. Members of the Heath administration, including Heath himself in later years, regarded this announcement with derision.[152]
In 1973, American and British officials disagreed in their handling of the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War. While the Nixon administration immediately increased military aid to Israel, Heath maintained British neutrality in the conflict and imposed a British arms embargo on all combatants, which mostly hindered the Israelis by preventing them obtaining spares for their Centurion tanks. Anglo-American disagreement intensified over Nixon's unilateral decision to elevate American forces, stationed at British bases, to DEFCON 3 status on October 25 in response to the breakdown of the United Nations ceasefire.[153] Heath disallowed American intelligence gathering, resupplying, or refueling from British bases in Cyprus, which greatly limited the effective range of American reconnaissance planes.[154] In return, Kissinger imposed a second intelligence cutoff over this disagreement and some in the administration even suggested that the United States should refuse to assist in the British missile upgrade to the Polaris system.[155] Tensions between the United States and United Kingdom relaxed as the second ceasefire took effect. Wilson's return to power in 1974 helped to return Anglo-American relations to normality.
On July 23, 1977, officials from the United Kingdom and the United States renegotiated the previous Bermuda I Agreement, and signed the Bermuda II Agreement under which only four airlines, two from the United Kingdom and two from the United States, were allowed to operate flights between London Heathrow Airport and specified "gateway cities" in the United States. The Bermuda II Agreement was in effect for nearly 30 years until it was eventually replaced by the EU-US Open Skies Agreement, which was signed on April 30, 2007, and entered into effect on March 30, 2008.
1980s
Ronald Reagan with close ally and personal friend Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s
In many ways they were very different figures: he was sunny, genial, charming, relaxed, upbeat, and with little intellectual curiosity or command of policy detail; she was domineering, belligerent, confrontational, tireless, hyperactive, and with an unrivalled command of facts and figures. But the chemistry between them worked. Reagan had been grateful for her interest in him at a time when the British establishment refused to take him seriously; she agreed with him about the importance of creating wealth, cutting taxes, and building up stronger defences against Soviet Russia; and both believed in liberty and free-market freedom, and in the need to outface what Reagan would later call 'the evil empire'.[156]
Throughout the 1980s, Thatcher was strongly supportive of Reagan's unwavering stance towards the Soviet Union. Often described as "political soulmates" and a high point in the "Special Relationship", Reagan and Thatcher met many times throughout their political careers, speaking in concert when confronting Soviet general secretaryMikhail Gorbachev. During the Soviet–Afghan War, Britain was covertly involved and helped support the US military and financial aid to the anti communist mujaheddin insurgents in Operation Cyclone.
In 1982, the British Government made a request to the United States, which the Americans agreed upon in principle, to sell the Trident II D5 ballistic missile, associated equipment, and related system support for use on four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines in the Royal Navy. The Trident II D5 ballistic missile replaced the United Kingdom's previous use of the UGM-27 Polaris ballistic missile, beginning in the mid-1990s.[157]
In the Falklands War in 1982, the United States initially tried to mediate between the United Kingdom and Argentina, but ended up supporting the United Kingdom's counter-invasion. The US supplied the British Armed Forces with equipment as well as logistical support.[158]
In October 1983, the United States and an Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States coalition undertook Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of the Commonwealth island nation of Grenada following a Marxist coup. Neighboring countries in the region asked the United States to intervene militarily, which it did successfully despite having made assurances to a deeply resentful British Government.
On April 15, 1986, the US military under President Reagan launched Operation El Dorado Canyon, a bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya, from Royal Air Force stations in England with the permission of Prime Minister Thatcher. It was a counter-attack by the United States in response to Libyan state-sponsored terrorism directed towards civilians and American servicemen under Muammar Gaddafi, especially the 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing.[159]
When the United States became the world's lone superpower after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, new threats emerged which confronted the United States and its NATO allies. With military build-up beginning in August 1990 and the use of force beginning in January 1991, the United States, followed at a distance by Britain, provided the two largest forces respectively for the coalition army which liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's regime during the Persian Gulf War.
In the 1997 general election, the British Labour Party was elected to office for the first time in eighteen years. The new prime minister, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton both used the expression "Third Way" to describe their centre-left ideologies. In August 1997, the American people expressed solidarity with the British people, sharing in their grief and sense of shock on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, who perished in a car crash in Paris. Throughout 1998 and 1999, the United States and Britain sent troops to impose peace during the Kosovo War. Tony Blair made it a point to develop very close relationships with the White House.[161]
Sixty-seven Britons were among the 2,977 victims killed during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and elsewhere on September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda was the attacker. Following the attacks, there was an enormous outpouring of sympathy from the United Kingdom for the American people, and Blair was one of Bush's strongest international supporters for military action against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Indeed, Blair became the most articulate spokesman. President Bush told Congress that "America has no truer friend than Great Britain".[162]
The United States declared a War on Terror following the attacks. British forces participated in NATO's war in Afghanistan. Blair took the lead (against the opposition of France, Canada, Germany, China, and Russia) in advocating the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Again, Britain was second only to the US in sending forces to Iraq. Both sides wound down after 2009, and withdrew their last troops in 2011. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair provided sustained mutual political and diplomatic support and won votes in Congress and parliament against their critics at home.[163] During this period Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that "America has no finer ally than the United Kingdom."[164]
The 7 July 2005 London bombings emphasised the difference in the nature of the terrorist threat to both nations. The United States concentrated primarily on global enemies, like the al-Qaeda network and other Islamic extremists from the Middle East. The London bombings were carried out by homegrown extremist Muslims, and it emphasised the United Kingdom's threat from the radicalisation of its own people.
After claims by Liberty that British airports had been used by the CIA for extraordinary rendition flights, the Association of Chief Police Officers launched an investigation in November 2005. The report was published in June 2007 and found no evidence to support the claim. This was on the same day the Council of Europe released its report with evidence that the UK had colluded in extraordinary rendition, thus directly contradicting ACPO's findings.[165] A 2018 report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament found the United Kingdom, specifically the MI5 and MI6, to be complicit in many of the renditions done by the US, having helped fund them, supplying them with intelligence and knowingly allowing them to happen.[166]
By 2007, support amongst the British public for the Iraq war had plummeted.[167] Despite Tony Blair's historically low approval ratings with the British people, mainly due to allegations of faulty government intelligence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, his unapologetic and unwavering stance for the British alliance with the United States can be summed up in his own words. He said, "We should remain the closest ally of the US ... not because they are powerful, but because we share their values."[168] The alliance between George W. Bush and Tony Blair seriously damaged the prime minister's standing in the eyes of many British citizens.[169] Tony Blair argued it was in the United Kingdom's interest to "protect and strengthen the bond" with the United States regardless of who is in the White House.[170] A perception that the relationship was unequal led to use of the term "Poodle-ism" in the British media, that Britain and its leaders were lapdogs to the Americans.[171][172]
On August 20, 2009, The Scottish Government headed by First Minister Alex Salmond announced that it would release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on medical grounds. He was the only person convicted in the terrorist plot which killed 190 Americans and 43 Britons on Pan American Worldways' Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. He was sentenced to life in prison in 2001, but was now released after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, with around three months to live. Americans said the decision was uncompassionate and insensitive to the memory of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. President Barack Obama said that the decision was "highly objectionable".[175] US Ambassador Louis Susman said that although the decision made by Scotland was extremely regrettable, relations with the United Kingdom would remain fully intact and strong.[176] The British government led by Gordon Brown was not involved in the release and Prime Minister Brown stated at a press conference his government had played 'no role' in the Scottish decision.[177] Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died May 20, 2012, at the age of 60.
British policy is that the relationship with the United States represents the United Kingdom's "most important bilateral relationship" in the world.[1] United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paid tribute to the relationship in February 2009 by saying, "it stands the test of time".[178]
John Dumbrell wrote in 2006:
Any confidence in the absence of British anti-Americanism is misplaced. British attitudes towards the US often exhibit cultural snobbery, envy, crude stereotyping and resentment at America's power in the world. Such attitudes do not, as we will see demonstrated in public opinion surveys, amount to a rabid hostility. In many ways, they are understandable expressions of group feeling towards an everpresent and powerful 'other'. Many of these attitudes – that, for example, the US is the land both of rampant, destructive individualism and of homogenized sameness – are inherently contradictory. It is absurd, however, to pretend that they do not exist.[179]
On March 3, 2009, Gordon Brown made his first visit to the White House. During his visit, he presented the president a gift in the form of a pen holder carved from HMS Gannet, which served anti-slavery missions off the coast of Africa. Barack Obama's gift to the prime minister was a box of 25 DVDs with movies including Star Wars and E.T. The wife of the prime minister, Sarah Brown, gave the Obama daughters, Sasha and Malia, two dresses from British clothing retailer Topshop, and a few unpublished books that have not reached the United States. Michelle Obama gave the prime minister's sons two Marine One helicopter toys.[180] During this visit to the United States, Gordon Brown made an address to a joint session of the United States Congress, a privilege rarely accorded to foreign heads of government.
In March 2009, a Gallup poll of Americans showed 36% identified Britain as their country's "most valuable ally", followed by Canada, Japan, Israel, and Germany rounding out the top five.[181] The poll also indicated that 89% of Americans view the United Kingdom favourably, second only to Canada with 90%.[181] According to the Pew Research Center, a global survey conducted in July 2009 revealed that 70% of Britons who responded had a favourable view of the United States.[182]
In 2010, Obama stated "the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries."[183]
On May 25, 2011, during his official visit to the UK, Obama reaffirmed the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America in an address to Parliament at Westminster Hall. Amongst other points, Obama stated: "I've come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest; one of the strongest alliances the World has ever known. It's long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship."[185]
In the final days before the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014, Obama announced in public the vested interest of the United States of America in enjoying the continued partnership with a 'strong and united' UK which he described as "one of the closest allies we will ever have".[186]
During a joint press conference with Prime Minister Theresa May, Obama stated "The bottom line is, is that we don't have a stronger partner anywhere in the world than the United Kingdom."[187]
On June 4, 2017, Trump responded to a terror attack on London Bridge by attacking London Mayor Sadiq Khan for saying that there "was no reason to be alarmed". The comments were condemned by Khan who stated that his remarks were deliberately taken out of context in that he was referring to an increased police presence in the days after the attack, which should not alarm the public. Trump also suggested that, "we must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people".[195]
On November 29, 2017, Trump re-tweeted three videos posted by Jayda Fransen, deputy leader of the far-right nationalist Britain First party. One of the videos, titled 'Muslim immigrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches', was subsequently discredited by the Dutch embassy in the United States. The spokesperson for the Prime Minister said that what the President had done was 'wrong' and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said that 'hate speech had no place in the UK'. In response, Trump tweeted at the Prime Minister suggesting that she worry about immigration in her own country rather than whom he chose to retweet. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said that the President attempted to start a conversation about immigration.[196][197]
May was the first foreign leader to visit Trump after his inauguration, and she invited him to make a return visit. More than 1.8 million UK citizens signed a petition to rescind the invitation, and Parliament debated a nonbinding resolution to that effect in February 2017.[198] The visit was tentatively planned for late February 2018, and would include a ceremonial opening of the new American embassy in Nine Elms.[199][200] However, on January 11, 2018, he cancelled the visit and denounced the new embassy in a tweet saying:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for "peanuts," only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!
This was despite the official reason for relocating the embassy due to the security, as the Grosvenor Square site couldn't accommodate the requirements for being 100 ft (30.5 m) away from the street, and the fact that the move was decided by Obama's predecessor Bush, who approved the relocation in 2008.[202][203][204] It was speculated that the real reason for cancelling the visit was due to Trump's unpopularity and the possibility of large protests against him in London.[205]
Trump made a second visit in June 2019, this time as guests of the Queen and to hold talks with May. Thousands protested his visit, just like they did when he made his first trip.[206][207]
On July 7, 2019, secret diplomatic cables from Ambassador Kim Darroch to the British government, dating from 2017 to 2019, were leaked to The Mail on Sunday. They included Darroch's unflattering assessments of the Trump administration, e.g. that it was "inept and insecure".[208] In response, Nigel Farage said Darroch was "totally unsuitable" for office,[209] and Trump tweeted that Darroch was "not liked or well thought of within the US" and that "we will no longer deal with him".[210] The Prime Minister, Theresa May, expressed support for Darroch and ordered a leak inquiry.[211] On July 10, Darroch resigned as Ambassador to the United States. He wrote that "the current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like".[212] Previously, Boris Johnson, the frontrunner in the election to replace May, had declined to publicly back Darroch. Consensus among political commentators in the UK was that this made Darroch's position untenable.[213] May and the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, praised Darroch's service in the House of Commons and deplored that he had to resign under pressure from the US.[212]
Controversy over American foods
This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(May 2023)
In 2017, US President Donald Trump appointed pharmaceutical heir Woody Johnson, a financial supporter of his campaign, as ambassador 2017–2021. Johnson advocated for more agricultural trade and the deregulation of US food exports to Britain.[214] In March 2019, Johnson wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph promoting American chlorinated chicken as safe, and stating that health fears over hormone-fed beef were "myths".[215] This came after he urged the UK to open up to the US agriculture market after the British exit from the European Union and ignore the "smear campaign" of those with "their own protectionist agenda".[216]
Johnson was criticised by several British agriculture standard boards, such as the Red Tractor Assurance whose CEO, Jim Moseley stated the UK's food standards were "now under threat from ... the United States food lobby".[217][218] Minette Batters, president of the UK National Farmers Union, agreed with Johnson's claims that chlorine-rinsed chicken was safe for consumption, but stated that factors such as animal welfare and environmental protection also had to be considered.[219] George Eustace, former British agriculture minister told the press:
Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects....Whereas we have a 'farm to fork' approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash.[220]
In 2020, while the UK was planning to invest in new 5G mobile telecommunications equipment, Washington was openly lobbying and pressuring the British government, to prevent allowing the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from installing its equipment in the UK.[221] This was over allegations it will allow the Chinese to espionage in the country, and this might be a break in the Five Eyes intelligence programme. Already since 2003 the UK did allow its telecoms operators such as the incumbent BT to install Huawei equipment in its infrastructure backbone. To prevent any concerns about possible hacking after reports of unusual activity in the Huawei equipment, in 2010 Huawei jointly created with the British intelligence agency GCHQ an equipment investigate centre in the outskirts of Banbury called the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre which is also known by its nickname "the Cell".[222][223] In July 2020 after American pressure, the British government announced that it has banned adding any new Huawei telecoms equipment into the British landline and mobile networks, and request that all companies replace the existing equipment by 2027.[224][225]
Biden's first overseas trip and first face-to-face meeting with a British Prime Minister was at the 2021 G7 Summit, hosted in Cornwall, England in June.[226] Johnson stated "there's so much that [the US] want to do together" with us. The first meeting between the two leaders included plans to re-establish travel links between the US and UK, which had been banned by the US since the start of the pandemic and to agree a deal (the New Atlantic Charter), which commits the countries to working together on "the key challenges of this century - cyber security, emerging technologies, global health and climate change". President Biden explicitly "affirmed the special relationship".[227] The revitalized Atlantic Charter would build "on the commitments and aspirations set out eighty years ago" and also "reaffirm" the "commitment to work together to realise our vision for a more peaceful and prosperous future."[228][229]
The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and fall of Kabul in August 2021 had a negative impact on United Kingdom–United States relations,[230] with the British government briefing media against the American government.[231]
On September 15, 2021, the leaders of the US, the UK and Australia announced "AUKUS":
a new security partnership in the Indo-Pacific, building on the longstanding alliance between the three to share intelligence, deepen cooperation and help Australia build a new nuclear-powered submarine to counter China.[232]
Rejection of new trade agreement
On September 21, 2021, Boris Johnson stated that he would not commit to a new trade agreement by 2024, stating that President Biden has "a lot of fish to fry."[233]
The United States accounts for the United Kingdom's largest single export market, buying $57 billion worth of British goods in 2007.[234] Total trade of imports and exports between the United Kingdom and the United States amounted to the sum of $107.2 billion in 2007.[235]
The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. In 2005, American direct investment in the United Kingdom totaled $324 billion while British direct investment in the United States totaled $282 billion.[236]
In a press conference that made several references to the special relationship, US Secretary of State John Kerry, in London with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague on September 9, 2013, said:
We are not only each other's largest investors in each of our countries, one to the other, but the fact is that every day almost one million people go to work in America for British companies that are in the United States, just as more than one million people go to work here in Great Britain for American companies that are here. So we are enormously tied together, obviously. And we are committed to making both the U.S.-UK and the U.S.-EU relationships even stronger drivers of our prosperity.[237]
Trade agreements
In 2020, the two countries opened negotiations for a free trade agreement, however talks have been postponed until 2025 at the earliest.[238]
In 2022, with the administration of President Joe Biden uninterested in further negotiations, the United Kingdom began negotiating economic agreements with individual states.[239] Regulation of international trade is a federal responsibility under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, preventing state agreements from changing customs rules; therefore, the UK has aimed at signing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreements with the US states. MoUs aim to remove market access barriers and increase trade and investment opportunities for UK and US companies.
Former British trade ministerPenny Mordaunt claimed that US state-level deals would pave the way for a full UK-US FTA.[240]
UK-US State Memorandum of Understanding Agreements
In June 2023, Biden and Sunak announced the 'Atlantic Declaration' to strengthen economic ties between the UK and the US.[256] The agreement included a limited trade pact covering critical minerals needed for EVbatteries and a new data protection deal, in addition to easing trade barriers.[257][258] The declaration commits both nations to increase research collaboration in future technologies, such as AI, future 5G and 6G telecoms, quantum, semiconductors and engineering biology.[259] In addition to a commitment in principle to a new UK-US Data Bridge; that facilitates the transfer of data by UK businesses to certified US organisations.[260]
On 3 October 2023, Biden and Sunak were reported to be preparing a "foundational" trade agreement between the two countries which will be modelled on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, however it will not constitute a free trade agreement under World Trade Organization rules as the proposals do not contain market access commitments.[263] The proposed partnership aims to cover subjects such as digital trade, labour protections and agriculture.[264] On the same day, Badenoch reiterated that there was "zero" chance of a free trade agreement under President Biden's administration, citing his attitude to such deals.[265]
Tourism
More than 4.5 million Britons visit the United States every year, spending $14 billion. Around 3 million people from the United States visit the United Kingdom every year, spending $10 billion.[266] With the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19, international tourism in both countries collapsed in 2020.
Both American Airlines and British Airways are founders of the airline alliance, known as Oneworld. BA, TUI Airways and Virgin Atlantic are major purchasers of American-made Boeing aircraft. Flying between the US and UK is at the moment in 2019 supported by the US-EU Open Skies Agreement which came about in 2008, which allows any airline from both countries to fly between each other.
John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City is the most popular international destination for people flying out of Heathrow Airport. Over 2.8 million people on multiple daily non-stop flights flew from Heathrow to JFK in 2008.[267]Concorde, British Airways flagship supersonic airliner, began trans-Atlantic service to Washington Dulles International Airport in the United States on May 24, 1976. The trans-Atlantic route between London's Heathrow and New York's JFK in under 3½ hours, had its first operational flight between the two hubs on October 19, 1977, and the last being on October 23, 2003.[268]
The two main American intercity bus carriers; Greyhound Lines and during the period from 1999 to 2019 Coach USA, plus their subsidiaries are each owned by a major British transportation company FirstGroup with Greyhound[269] and Stagecoach with Coach USA. Coach USA's budget brand Megabus which started in 2006, itself is a copycat of the British version of the discount coach company that started in 2003.[270]
In the 20th century, there were 78 formal and informal summits bringing together the president and the prime minister to deal with an agreed-upon agenda. The first was 1918, the second in 1929. The rest began in 1941, which marked the decline of ambassadors as the key transmitters of policy discussions. In three out of four of the summits, the British delegation traveled to America. Summits have become much less important in the 21st century, with its new communication modes.[271]
State visits involving the head of state have been made over the years by four presidents and two monarchs. Queen Elizabeth II has met all the presidents since Truman except Johnson (Queen Elizabeth II and Johnson had arranged for a private meeting at Buckingham Palace during Churchill's funeral, but it was taken away when his doctors advised him against leading the US delegation to the funeral.[141]).[272][142] In addition, the Queen made three private visits in 1984, 1985, and 1991 to see stallion stations and stud farms.[273]
State and official visits to the United States by the British Monarch[274][275][276]
Paid a state visit to Washington, DC, attended the official ceremonies of the 350th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia, and made a brief stop-over in New York City to address the United Nations General Assembly before sailing to the United Kingdom.
Made an official visit to the United Kingdom, stayed at Buckingham Palace, attended an official dinner, had an audience with King George V and Queen Mary, and made a private visit, called the pilgrimage of the heart, to the ancestral home of his British-born mother, Janet Woodrow.
Paid a state visit to the United Kingdom, stayed at the Winfield House, welcomed during an arrival ceremony in Buckingham Palace Gardens, attended a state banquet, laid a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey, met with Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Theresa May.
The Strategic Alliance Cyber Crime Working Group is an initiative by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and headed by the United States as a "formal partnership between these nations dedicated to tackling larger global crime issues, particularly organised crime". The cooperation consists of "five countries from three continents banding together to fight cyber crime in a synergistic way by sharing intelligence, swapping tools and best practices, and strengthening and even synchronising their respective laws".[281]
Within this initiative, there is increased information sharing between the United Kingdom's National Crime Agency and the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation on matters relating to serious fraud or cyber crime.
The UK–USA Security Agreement is an alliance of five English-speaking countries; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, for the sole purpose of sharing intelligence. The precursor to this agreement is essentially an extension of the historic BRUSA Agreement which was signed in 1943. In association with the ECHELON system, all five nations are assigned to intelligence collection and analysis from different parts of the world. For example, the United Kingdom hunts for communications in Europe, Africa, and European Russia whereas the United States has responsibility for gathering intelligence in Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern mainland China.[282]
Britain and the United States practice what is commonly referred to as an Anglo-Saxon economy in which levels of regulation and taxes are relatively low, and government provides a low to medium level of social services in return.[286]
Independence Day, July 4, is a national celebration which commemorates the July 4, 1776, adoption of the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. American defiance of Britain is expressed in the American national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner", written during the War of 1812 to the tune of a British celebratory song as the Americans beat off a British attack on Baltimore.
It is estimated that between 40.2 million and 72.1 million Americans today have British ancestry, i.e. between 13% and 23.3% of the US population.[287][288][289] In the 1980 US Census, 61,311,449 Americans reported British ancestry[clarification needed] reaching 32.56% of the US population at the time which, even today, would make them the largest ancestry group in the United States.[290]
Particular symbols of the close relationship between the two countries are the JFK Memorial and the American Bar Association's Magna Carta Memorial, both at Runnymede in England.
Another sizable difference between the US and the UK is the piety of followers, as the UK is much more secular than the US. A Gallup poll in 2015 reported that 41% of Americans said they regularly attend religious services,[292] compared to just 10% of Britons.[293] Thirdly, a preeminent distinction amidst the two countries is the declaration of faith. In the United Kingdom, religion, especially those that follow the mainstream Protestant churches, is rarely discussed and the country is a secular society. However, in the US, religion and faith are seen as a major part of the personal being and declarations are much more stronger.[citation needed]
The differing attitudes towards the religion among the US and the UK causes a large schism between the two nations, and much of the general attitude of the society as a whole on fundamental social issues including abortion, minority rights, blasphemy, the role of church and the state in society, etc.[citation needed]
Both the United States and the United Kingdom share a number of followers of other minority faiths, although the numbers and type of faith practice in both countries differ wildly due to the ethnic and cultural makeup of both countries.[citation needed] The other minority faiths that are practiced in both countries include Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Paganism and Buddhism.
Some American foods, like cornflakes, baked beans and crisps (known as potato chips in the United States), have become so entrenched in the UK's food culture that they have completely lost their American roots and are considered part of British cuisine. Breakfast cereals like corn flakes, bran flakes and puffed rice came from the US to the UK in the beginning of twentieth century, and virtually changed the perception of breakfasts locally.[295]
Some British foods have been just as nativised in the US such as apple pie, macaroni and cheese and sandwiches.[296] British cuisine was a major influence on the cuisine of the Southern United States, including fried chicken.[297] British foods like fish and chips, shepherd's pie, Sunday Roast, Afternoon Tea and gingerbread are also entrenched in American food culture. Drinking culture in the US has been heavily influenced by Britain, especially the introduction of whisky and certain styles of beer in the colonial period.[298][299] By the late 20th Century, British cuisine was sometimes stereotyped as being unappealing in the United States, although British cuisine is commonly eaten there.[300] This reputation has been attributed to the impact that WWII rationing had on British cuisine in the mid-20th Century.[296]
Additionally, there are several American restaurant and café chains like McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Domino's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Krispy Kreme,[314] and Starbucks that have enterprises on the other side of the Atlantic. A small number of British chains like Pret a Manger,[315]YO! Sushi and Itsu[316] have operations in the US, principally around New York City. The British catering company Compass Group has several catering contracts in the States, including for the federal government and US military.[317] During the start of 2020, Youtube channel Insider asked their resident American and British journalists Joe Avella and Harry Kersh to compare various chain restaurant menus of both the US and UK, under the title of Food Wars. [318]
Since the 2016 EU referendum, there has been growing concern about whether a possible UK–US free trade agreement would lead to changes in food practices and laws in the UK.[319] The concern is that American food standards laws are much looser than the UK's, such as rules governing cleanliness, the use of antibiotics and pesticides, animal welfare conditions and the use of genetically modified food. Many of these concerns have been symbolised by the production process of American poultry, often known as "chlorinated chicken".[320][321]
Culture and media
Both the US and UK are considered cultural superpowers; both countries having a large scale influence around the world in film, music, literature, and television.[322]
In magazine publishing, the two large American magazine publishing houses, Hearst and Condé Nast, maintain operations in the UK, and British editions of the US magazines Good Housekeeping, GQ, Men's Health, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, National Geographic, Wired and others are available in Britain. On occasion, some American editions are also available for purchase usually next to the local edition or in the international section. In British magazines in the US, Northern & Shell created an American version of OK! magazine in 2005.
There is much crossover appeal in the modern entertainment culture of the United Kingdom and the United States. For example, Hollywood blockbuster movies made by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have had a large effect on British audiences in the United Kingdom, while the James Bond and Harry Potter series of films have attracted high interest in the United States. Also, the animated films of Walt Disney as well as those of Pixar, DreamWorks, Don Bluth, Blue Sky, Illumination and others have continued to make an indelible mark and impression on British audiences, young and old, for almost 100 years. Films by Alfred Hitchcock continuously make a lasting impact on a loyal fan base in the United States, as Alfred Hitchcock himself influenced notable American filmmakers such as John Carpenter, in the horror and slasher film genres.
Production of films are often shared between the two nations, whether it be a concentrated use of British and American actors or the use of film studios located in London or Hollywood.
Compared to music and television broadcasting, radio broadcasting is limited between both sides of the pond. There are several reasons for this. The major one is that the majority of radio broadcasting in the United States is commercial and funded by advertising and the small network of public radio stations are supported by donations, compared to the United Kingdom where the national public broadcaster, the BBC is the major player which funded by the obligatory television licence. This leads to a completely different structure of number and type of radio stations and its broadcasting schedules.
Other factors include differing technical standards of radio broadcasting. This is influenced by their countries' broadcasting authorities which shapes over-the-air radio. In the UK, it is influenced by authorities of Ofcom and the EBU which are working towards DAB and DRM. While in the United States, it influenced by FCC which is working towards HD Radio.
The British international broadcasting station, the BBC World Service is syndicated on various major city public radio stations in the United States such as WNYC, and on SiriusXM satellite radio,[340] through the broadcaster American Public Media.[341] The American international broadcaster, Voice of America has no remit in be needed to be heard in the UK, so it doesn't broadcast there and none of its programmes is relayed on domestic stations. In a resource-saving exercise between the two international broadcasters, Voice of America shares its transmission towers with the BBC World Service to help of shortwave transmissions in remote areas.
Internet radio and streaming services are growing in popularity in both countries, however listening to each other's feeds are hampered by the countries' broadcasting rights. This causes the internet radio feeds of American and British radio stations are sometimes blocked or on restricted bandwidth. For example, BBC Radio 2 is on a 128 kbit/s AAC domestic stream, while internationally it's on a 48 kbit/s AAC+ stream. However both the American and the British international broadcasters Voice of America and the BBC World Service is fully accessible online in each other's countries. Streaming services that are popular in both countries include the American TuneIn, Apple Music and Swedish-owned Spotify. The other major services in the US like Pandora Radio and Radio.com don't operate in the UK, and are inaccessible.
In the past before the Second World War, connections between the United States and the United Kingdom in the radio industry was virtually unheard of. Radio in the UK was not influenced by the US, due to the vast distance, and the only regular services that were heard was the BBC and the "pirate" stationRadio Luxembourg.
When the Americans joined the war as part of the Allies, some soldiers were billeted in the UK in which the BBC provided programming for these people. So the Forces Programme, broadcast many popular American variety shows such as Charlie McCarthy, The Bob Hope Show, and The Jack Benny Program. As the Forces Programme, and the subsequent General Forces Programme, was easily available for civilians they were also heard by domestic audiences.
After the War in 1946 on the Home Service, the BBC started to broadcast the factual programme Letter from America, which was presented by Alistair Cooke, bring informing about the States to British audiences until Cook's death in 2004. It was one of the BBC's longest-running radio programmes, broadcasting on the Home Service, and continuing on BBC Radio 4. It was also relayed on the BBC World Service. The programme itself was based on a similar programme by Alistair Cooke in the 1930s for American listeners about life in the UK on the NBC Red Network. After Letter from America, the BBC continued with a factual programme about the States in Americana from 2009 to 2011, presented by the resident American correspondent.
As of 2019, the BBC co-produced with Public Radio International and WGBH Boston, a weekly factual programme called The World, which is broadcast on various American public radio stations. Parts of the show are put together for a shorter programme called Boston Calling, which is available on Radio 4 and the domestic feed of the World Service.[342] There have been attempts in the past to bring British formats to American audiences, such as the News Quiz USA.[343] From 2005 to 2011, a time-shifted version of BBC Radio 1 was available on Sirius satellite radio.[344] While in the UK, A Prairie Home Companion (called Garrison Keillor's Radio Show) was available weekly from 2002 on BBC7 to 2016, on BBC Radio 4 Extra.[345]
There has been a number of American personalities that have been on British airwaves including music journalist Paul Gambaccini, disc jockey Suzi Quattro and comedians Rich Hall and Greg Proops. While New Zealand-born disc jockey Zane Lowe, who spent much of career in the UK was recruited to Apple'sBeats 1 station in the United States.
The Celtic music of the United Kingdom has had a dynamic effect upon American music.[346] In particular, the traditional music of the Southern United States is descended from traditional Celtic music and English folk music of the colonial period, and the musical traditions of the South eventually gave rise to country music and, to a lesser extent, American folk.[347]
The birth of jazz, swing, big band, and especially rock and roll, all developed and originating in the United States, had greatly influenced the later development of rock music in the United Kingdom, particularly British rock bands such as The Beatles and Herman's Hermits, The Rolling Stones, while its American precursor, the blues, greatly influenced British electric rock.[348]
Despite sports being a major cultural interest in both the United States and the United Kingdom, there is little overlap in their most popular sports. The most popular team sports in the UK are football (soccer), rugby union, rugby league and cricket, while the most popular sports in the US are [American] football, baseball, ice hockey and basketball. The most popular sports in each country are considered minor sports in the other, with growing interest. Both nations are among the strongest in the world in all time sporting success, with the United States being the most successful sports nation in the world.
The United States and England have played thrice at the FIFA World Cup — in 1950, 2010 and 2022 — and remain unbeaten. The United States' 1–0 victory over England in 1950 is considered to be one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history.[349][350][351] The other two games have both ended in draws; 1–1 in 2010[352] and 0–0 in 2022.[353] Additionally, the two have played in nine friendlies, with England winning eight and United States one.[354]
The United States and Wales have played once at the World Cup — in 2022 — in addition to two friendlies. The game ended in a 1–1 draw.[355] The United States have yet to play competitive matches against Scotland and Northern Ireland.[356][357]
Gridiron football, which is known in the United Kingdom as American football, originated from two British sports, association football and rugby union football. It came about in the later part of the 19th century due to the development into a separate code and led to becoming a separate sport from the other codes of football. Gridiron was in the past only known and played in UK by visiting American servicemen; firstly in 1910, by navy crews from USS Georgia, USS Idaho and USS Vermont, and then in the Second World War by UK-based service personnel. (The other gridiron code, Canadian football, is hardly known in UK.)
After Channel 4 started showing the highlights of the American NFL in 1982, the sport became acknowledged by the British sporting world. Due to Britons' unfamiliarity with American football, television guides and newspapers had printed articles explaining it.[360] A year later, the first match between two British teams the London Ravens and the Northwich Spartans was played; the Ravens won. Later in the 1980s, the sport grew and rival teams started to play, which was helped by support from various American players, coaches, and sponsors like Coca-Cola and Budweiser.[361] In 1986, the American Bowl was the first preseason NFL game to be played at the original Wembley Stadium, between the Chicago Bears and the Dallas Cowboys.[362]
By the early 1990s, due in part to the recession, Channel 4 ceased regular broadcasts of the NFL, but the Super Bowl has continued to be broadcast regularly on British television. The NFL has been broadcast by other British networks, including ITV, Channel 5, ESPN UK, British Eurosport, and Sky Sports.
The first recorded writings about baseball came in the mid-18th century when a version of the sport played indoors in 1748 in London, where it was played by then Prince of Wales, George III,[367] and played outside in 1755 in the southern English town of Guildford.[368] It was later brought over to the United States by British immigrants, where it developed in the modern version of the sport in the early 19th century in the creation and fountain of the modern baseball rule book, the Knickerbocker Rules in 1845. Eventually, it suppressed the popularity of the other notable ball-and-bat sport which was played in the US at the time which was cricket, by the end of the 19th century.
Sheffield born Harry Wright was instrumental in the development of professional baseball in the United States, and he brought his touring team to Britain to promote the sport. Later, at the end of the 19th century Francis Ley, a Derby man claimed erroneously to have had 'discovered' the game on a trip to the United States, and Albert Goodwill Spalding, an American former star player and sporting goods businessman who saw opportunities to expand his business across the Atlantic, funded a second tour to the United Kingdom (Spalding had earlier toured under Wright’s leadership). This continued with the establishment of the 1890 National League of Baseball of Great Britain, the first professional league in Britain. Baseball clubs were formed from well-known association football clubs Aston Villa, Stoke City and Preston North End, who were joined by Ley’s own Derby Baseball Club.
John Spinks, leader of the English rock band The Outfield, originally named the band "The Baseball Boys", in a reference to a gang in the film The Warriors. The band members said in 1986 that none of them were knowledgeable about baseball, but they were curious about the sport.[374]
Cricket was one of the major sports in the United States during its time as a British colony and for about a century afterward. Its major decline began with the 1860s Civil War, as it could not compete with the far shorter playing duration of baseball, among other factors. In the 21st century, immigration from cricket-playing countries and the spread of the shortened T20 format have contributed to a minor revival of the game.[375]
Gallery
John Adams, the first American Plenipotentiary Minister to Great Britain being presented at the Court of St James's to King George III in 1785, as depicted in John Cassell's Illustrated History of England, Volume 5, 1865
^Alex Spillius, 'Special relationship Britain and America share fundamental values, Clinton tells Miliband', The Daily Telegraph (February 4, 2009), p. 12.
^David Williamson, "U.S. envoy pays tribute to Welsh Guards' courage", The Western Mail (November 26, 2009), p. 16.
^James Ciment, ed. Colonial America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History (2005) online
^* Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin; Skoggard, Ian A. (2004), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, Springer, p. 49, ISBN978-0-306-48321-9
^ abcMatthew Lange, James Mahoney, and Matthias vom Hau, "Colonialism and Development: A Comparative Analysis of Spanish and British Colonies", The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 111, No. 5 (March 2006), pp. 1412–1462.
^Patricia U. Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America (1986) excerpt and text search
^Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (1972) pp. 121-384 excerpt and text search
^John Nelson, A Blessed Company: Parishes, Parsons, and Parishioners in Anglican Virginia, 1690–1776 (2001)
^A useful survey is Francis D. Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763–1815: A Political History (2008) excerpt and text search; the author is an American based at a British university.
^George Athan Billias, American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-1989: a global perspective (NYU Press, 2009) p. 5.
^Robert R. Palmer, The Age of the Democratic Revolution (1959) 1:282.
^Jonathan R. Dull, A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution (1987); H. M. Scott, British Foreign Policy in the Age of the American Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1990).
^Charles R. Ritcheson, "The Earl of Shelbourne and Peace with America, 1782–1783: Vision and Reality." International History Review 5#3 (1983): 322-345.
^Maya Jasanoff, The Other Side of Revolution: Loyalists in the British EmpireWilliam and Mary Quarterly (2008) 65#2 pp. 205-232 in JSTOR
^Maya Jasanoff, Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World (2011)
^Simon Schama, Rough Crossings: The Slaves, the British, and the American Revolution (2007)
^Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers; the Great Powers and American Independence (1965), the standard scholarly history; Morris, "The Great Peace of 1783," Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings (1983) Vol. 95, pp 29–51, a summary of his long book in JSTOR
^J.C.A. Stagg, "James Madison and the Coercion of Great Britain: Canada, the West Indies, and the War of 1812," William and Mary Quarterly (1981) 38#1 pp. 3–34 in JSTOR
^Kate Caffrey: The Lion and the Union, (1978), p. 270.
^Ralph W. Hidy and Muriel E. Hidy, "Anglo-American Merchant Bankers and the Railroads of the Old Northwest, 1848–1860," Business History Review (1960) 34#2 pp. 150–169 in JSTOR
^Scott Kaufman, and John A. Soares, "'Sagacious Beyond Praise'? Winfield Scott and Anglo-American-Canadian Border Diplomacy, 1837–1860," Diplomatic History, (2006) 30#1 pp p57-82
^Howard Jones, "Anglophobia and the Aroostook War," New England Quarterly (1975) 48#4 pp. 519–539 in JSTOR
^George L. Bernstein, "Special Relationship and Appeasement: Liberal policy towards America in the age of Palmerston." Historical Journal 41#3 (1998): 725-750.
^Howard Jones and Donald A. Rakestraw, Prologue to Manifest Destiny: Anglo-American Relations in the 1840s (Scholarly Resources, 1997).
^David M. Pletcher, The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon, and the Mexican War (1973).
^Richard W. Van Alstyne, "Anglo-American Relations, 1853–1857." American Historical Review 42.3 (1937): 491-500 online.
^Kenneth Bourne, "The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and the Decline of British Opposition to the Territorial Expansion of the United States, 1857-60." Journal of Modern History 33.3 (1961): 287-291. online
^Maureen M. Robson, "The Alabama Claims and the Anglo‐American Reconciliation, 1865–71." Canadian Historical Review (1961) 42#1 pp: 1–22.
^C. P. Stacey, "Britain's Withdrawal from North America, 1864–1871." Canadian Historical Review 36.3 (1955): 185-198.
^Marc-William Palen, "Protection, Federation and Union: The Global Impact of the McKinley Tariff upon the British Empire, 1890-94," Journal of Imperial & Commonwealth History (2010) 38#3 pp 395-418, online
^Simon Mollan, and Ranald Michie, "The City of London as an International Commercial and Financial Center since 1900," Enterprise & Society (2012) 13#3 pp 538-587 online
^Matthew Simon and David E. Novack, "Some Dimensions of the American Commercial Invasion of Europe, 1871-1914: An Introductory Essay," Journal of Economic History (1964) 24#4 pp. 591-605 in JSTOR
^Paul Readman, "The Liberal party and patriotism in early twentieth century Britain." Twentieth Century British History 12.3 (2001): 269-302.
^R. A. Church, "The Effect of the American Export Invasion on the British Boot and Shoe Industry 1885-1914," Journal of Economic History (1968) 28#2 pp. 223-254 in JSTOR
^J. A. S. Grenville, Lord Salisbury, and Foreign Policy: The Close of the Nineteenth Century (1964) pp 54-73.
^R.A. Humphreys, "Anglo-American Rivalries and the Venezuela Crisis of 1895" Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (1967) 17: 131-164 in JSTOR
^Nelson M. Blake, "The Olney-Pauncefote Treaty of 1897," American Historical Review, (1945) 50#2 pp. 228-243 in JSTOR
^David G. Haglund, and Tudor Onea, "Victory without Triumph: Theodore Roosevelt, Honour, and the Alaska Panhandle Boundary Dispute," Diplomacy and Statecraft (March 2008) 19#1 pp 20–41.
^William C. Reuter, "The Anatomy of Political Anglophobia in the United States, 1865–1900," Mid America (1979) 61#2 pp. 117-132.
^Eric Ouellet, "Multinational counterinsurgency: the Western intervention in the Boxer Rebellion 1900–1901." Small Wars & Insurgencies 20.3-4 (2009): 507-527.
^Matthias Maass, "Catalyst for the Roosevelt Corollary: Arbitrating the 1902–1903 Venezuela Crisis and Its Impact on the Development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine." Diplomacy & Statecraft 20.3 (2009): 383-402.
^Henry J. Hendrix, Theodore Roosevelt's Naval Diplomacy: The U.S. Navy and the Birth of the American Century (2009)
^Mark Albertson, They'll Have to Follow You!: The Triumph of the Great White Fleet (2008) excerpt and text search
^Stephen Broadberry and Peter Howlett. "The United Kingdom During World War I: Business as Usual?." in The Economics of World War I (2005): 206-234.
^Ronald Spector, "'You're Not Going to Send Soldiers Over There Are You!': The American Search for an Alternative to the Western Front 1916–1917," Military Affairs (1972) 36#1 pp. 1–4 in JSTOR
^J Ellis & M Cox, The WW1 Databook (Aurum press 2001) p. 245
^Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson: vol. 53 1918-1919 (1986) p. 574.
^Tennant S. Mcwilliams, "John W. Davis and Southern Wilsonianism." Virginia Quarterly Review 64.3 (1988): 398-416 online.
^Kevin Smith, "Reassessing Roosevelt's View of Chamberlain after Munich: Ideological Affinity in the Geoffrey Thompson-Claude Bowers Correspondence." Diplomatic History 33.5 (2009): 839-864.
^C. J. Low and M. L. Dockrill, eds. The Mirage of Power: volume 3: The documents: British Foreign Policy 1902-22 (1972) p. 647
^Norman Gibbs, "The Naval Conferences of the Interwar Years: A study in Anglo-American Relations" Naval War College Review 30#1 (Special issue Summer 1977), pp. 50-63 Online
^B. J. C. McKercher, "'A Certain Irritation': The White House, the State Department, and the Desire for a Naval Settlement with Great Britain, 1927–1930." Diplomatic History 31.5 (2007): 829-863.
^David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy (2012) pp 281-486
^Martin S. Alexander, "'[…] the best security for London is the nine Kennedy children.' Perceptions by US Officials in Washington, DC and London of Britain's Readiness for War in 1939." Contemporary British History 25#1 (2011): 101-123.
^Priscilla Roberts, "Lord Lothian and the Atlantic world." The Historian 66.1 (2004): 97-127 online[dead link].
^Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, "Lord Lothian and American Democracy: An Illusion in Pursuit of an Illusion." Canadian Review of American Studies 17.4 (1986): 411-422.
^Leo T. Crowley, "Lend Lease" in Walter Yust, ed. 10 Eventful Years (1947)1:520, 2, pp. 858–860.
^William Hardy McNeill, America, Britain and Russia: Their Cooperation and Conflict 1941–1946 (1953) pp. 137-50, 772-90
^McNeill, America, Britain and Russia: Their Cooperation and Conflict 1941–1946 (1953) pp 90-118, 129-37
^Paul Kennedy, Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned The Tide in the Second World War (2013)
^James W. Brennan, "The Proximity Fuze: Whose Brainchild?," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (1968) 94#9 pp 72–78.
^John Reynolds, Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942–45 (Random House, 1995)
^Eric S. Rubin, "America, Britain, and Swaraj: Anglo-American Relations and Indian Independence, 1939–1945," India Review (Jan–March 2011) 10#1 pp 40–80
^Nicholas Owen, "Attlee governments: The end of empire 1945–51." Contemporary British History 3.4 (1990): 12-16.
^R. J. Moore, "Decolonisation in India: Towards partition and independence in India." Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 20.2 (1982): 189-199.
^Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1949 p. 846 online
^C. C. S. Newton, "The Sterling Crisis of 1947 and the British Response to the Marshall Plan," Economic History Review (1984) 37#3 pp. 391–408 in JSTOR
^William C. Cromwell, "The Marshall Plan, Britain and the Cold War." Review of International Studies 8.4 (1982): 233-249 online.
^Michael J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952 (Cambridge UP, 1987).
^Henry Pelling, Britain and the Marshall Plan (1988).
^Charles S. Maier, "American Visions and British Interests: Hogan's Marshall Plan." Reviews in American History 18#1 (1990), pp. 102-111
DOI: 10.2307/2702734 online.
^C. C. S. Newton, "The sterling crisis of 1947 and the British response to the Marshall plan." Economic History Review (1984): 391-408 online.
^Jim Tomlinson, "Balanced accounts? Constructing the balance of payments problem in post-war Britain." English Historical Review 124.509 (2009): 863-884.
^George M. Alexander, The Prelude to the Truman Doctrine: British Policy in Greece, 1944–1947 (1982); Lawrence S. Wittner, American Intervention in Greece, 1943–1949 (1982)
^Ervand Abrahamian, A History of Modern Iran (2008)
^Andrew Priest, Kennedy, Johnson and NATO: Britain, America and the dynamics of alliance, 1962–68 (Routledge, 2006) p. 2.
^Jonathan Colman, "The London Ambassadorship of David K. E. Bruce During the Wilson-Johnson Years, 1964–68." Diplomacy and Statecraft 15.2 (2004): 327-352. online
^Colman, Jonathan (2007). "Dealing with disillusioned men': the Washington Ambassadorship of Sir Patrick Dean, 1965–69". Contemporary British History. 21 (2): 247–270. doi:10.1080/13619460600785358. S2CID143361772.
^ abCooper, Zaki (February 6, 2022). "Ahead of Platinum Jubilee, a look at Queen Elizabeth's diplomacy in US and Chicago". The Chicago Tribune. p. 16. Over the seven decades of her reign, she...met with 13 of the 14 presidents...starting with President Harry Truman. The odd one out was Lyndon Johnson, who was prohibited by his physicians from traveling to Britain for the funeral of Winston Churchill in 1965, when he would undoubtedly have met the queen.
^Estabrook, Robert H. (February 1, 1965). "Humphrey's Absence At Funeral Criticized". The Washington Post. p. A8.
^ abLoftus, Joseph A. (February 5, 1965). "Johnson Suspects a 'Mistake' in Not Sending Humphrey to Churchill Rites". The New York Times. p. 14.
^Rossbach, Niklas H. (2009). Heath, Nixon and the rebirth of the special relationship : Britain, the US and the EC, 1969-74. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 85. ISBN978-0-230-57725-1.
^Aldrich, Richard. "Transcript of Nixon phone call reveals depth of collapse of the US UK special relationship in 1973". University of Warwick. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^Julian Glover and Ewen MacAskill (July 25, 2006). "Stand up to US, voters tell Blair". The Guardian. London. Retrieved November 22, 2007. Britain should take a much more robust and independent approach to the United States, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today, which finds strong public opposition to Tony Blair's close working relationship with President Bush.
^Colman, Jonathan (2005). Kaufman, Will; Macpherson, Heidi Slettedahl (eds.). "Summit Meetings". Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. 3: 941–945.
Allen, H. C. Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations, 1783–1952 (1954), 1032pp. online; most thorough scholarly coverage
Bailey, Thomas A. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th edition 1980) online
Burk, Kathleen. The Lion and the Eagle. The Interaction of the British and American Empires 1783-1972 (2018) online review
Burk, Kathleen. Britain, America and the Sinews of War, 1914–1918 (1985), Financial and material support.
Burt, Alfred L.The United States, Great Britain, and British North America from the Revolution to the Establishment of Peace after the War of 1812 (1940), detailed history by Canadian scholar.
Campbell, Charles S. Anglo-American Understanding 1898–1903 (1957)
Collier, Basil. The lion and the eagle; British and Anglo-American strategy, 1900-1950 (1972) online
Cook, James Gwin. Anglophobia: An Analysis of Anti-British Prejudice in the United States (1919) online
Crawford, Martin. The Anglo-American Crisis of the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The Times and America, 1850–1862 (1987)
Cullinane, Michael Patrick. "100 Years of Peace among English‐Speaking People: Anglo‐American Cultural Diplomacy, 1909–1921." Peace & Change 46.1 (2021): 5-34.
Dobson, Alan P. "The evolving study of Anglo-American relations: the last 50 years." Journal of Transatlantic Studies 18.4 (2020): 415–433. major review of historiography
Dunning, William Archibald. The British Empire and the United States (1914) online celebratory study by leading American scholar, written before World War I began.
Ellis, Sylvia. Historical Dictionary of Anglo-American Relations (2009) and text search
Foreman, Amanda. A World on Fire: Britain's Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, 2011), 958 pp.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft, "How the British Nearly Supported the Confederacy," New York Times Sunday Book ReviewJune 30, 2011 online
Hitchens, Christopher. Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship (2004)
Kaufman, Will, and Heidi Slettedahl Macpherson, eds. Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History (3 vol 2005), 1157pp; encyclopedic coverage
MacKenzie, Scott A. "But There Was No War: The Impossibility of a United States Invasion of Canada after the Civil War" American Review of Canadian Studies (2017) online
Masterson, William H. Tories and Democrats : British diplomats in pre-Jacksonian America (1985) online
Mowat, R. B. The diplomatic relations of Great Britain and the United States (1925).online; scholarly survey; 350pp
Ovendale, Ritchie. Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (1998)
Pederson, William D. ed. A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt (2011) pp 493–516, covers FDR's policies to 1945
Perkins, Bradford. The First Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1795–1805 (1955)
Perkins, Bradford. Prologue to war: England and the United States, 1805–1812 (1961) online
Perkins, Bradford. Castlereagh and Adams : England and the United States, 1812-1823 (1964) online
Perkins, Bradford. The great rapprochement; England and the United States, 1895-1914 (1968) online
Perkins, Edwin J. Financing Anglo-American trade: The House of Brown, 1800–1880 (1975)
Peskin, Lawrence A. "Conspiratorial Anglophobia and the War of 1812." Journal of American History 98#3 (2011): 647–669. online
Rakestraw, Donald A. For Honor or Destiny: The Anglo-American Crisis over the Oregon Territory (Peter Lang Publishing, 1995)
Pletcher, David M. The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon, and the Mexican War (U of Missouri Press, 1973) online
Reid, Brian Holden. "Power, Sovereignty, and the Great Republic: Anglo-American Diplomatic Relations in the Era of the Civil War" Diplomacy & Statecraft (2003) 14#2 pp 45–76.
Reid, Brian Holden. "'A Signpost That Was Missed'? Reconsidering British Lessons from the American Civil War," Journal of Military History 70#2 (2006), pp. 385–414.
Schake, Kori. Safe Passage: The Transition from British to American Hegemony (Harvar UP, 2017) excerpt, major study of military relations between the two from 1820s to 1940s.
Spender, Stephen. Love-Hate Relations: English and American Sensibilities (Hamish Hamilton, 1974) online focus on 19th century visitors and writers.
Tilchin, William N. Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft (1997)
Tuffnell, Stephen. ""Uncle Sam is to be Sacrificed": Anglophobia in Late Nineteenth-Century Politics and Culture." American Nineteenth Century History 12#1 (2011): 77-99.
Tulloch, Hugh A. "Changing British attitudes towards the United States in the 1880s." Historical Journal 20.4 (1977): 825–840. online
Watt, D. Cameron. Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's place 1900–1975: a study of the Anglo-American relationship and world politics in the context of British and American foreign-policy-making in the twentieth century (1984). 302pp. online
Williams, Andrew J. France, Britain and the United States in the Twentieth Century 1900–1940 (2014). 133–171.
Woods, Randall Bennett. Changing of the Guard: Anglo-American Relations, 1941–1946 (1990)
Woodward, David R. Anglo-American Relations. 1917-1918 (1993) complete book online
Since 1920, and "Special relationship"
Abrahamian, Ervand. A History of Modern Iran (2008).
Bartlett, Christopher John. The Special Relationship: A Political History of Anglo-American Relations Since 1945 (1992).
Baylis, John. Anglo-American Defence Relations 1939–1984: The Special Relationship (1984)
Baylis, John, and Steve Marsh. "The Anglo-American “Special Relationship”: the Lazarus of International Relations", Diplomacy and Statecraft 17#1 (2006): 173–211.
Beloff, Max. "The Special Relationship: An Anglo-American Myth", in Martin Gilbert, ed. A Century of Conflict: Essays for A.J.P. Taylor (Hamish Hamilton, 1966)
Brinton, Crane, The United States and Britain (1945) online focus on World War II
Bullock, Alan. Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary 1945-1951 (1984) online
Charmley, John. Churchill's Grand Alliance: The Anglo-American Special Relationship 1940–57 (1996)
Coker, Christopher. "Britain and the new world order: the special relationship in the 1990s," International Affairs (1992): 407–421. in JSTOR
Colman, Jonathan. A 'Special Relationship'?: Harold Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson and Anglo-American Relations' at the Summit, 1964-8 (Manchester University Press, 2004)
Dimbleby, David, and David Reynolds. An Ocean Apart: The Relationship Between Britain and America in the Twentieth Century (1988)
Dobson, Alan P. US Wartime Aid to Britain (Croom Helm, 1986); in World War II.
Dobson, Alan P. Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (1995).
Dobson, Alan and Steve Marsh, eds. Anglo-American Relations: Contemporary Perspectives (Routledge, 2013), 10 essays by experts
Dobson, Alan and Steve Marsh. "Anglo-American Relations: End of a Special Relationship?" International History Review 36:4 (August 2014): 673–697. DOI: 10.1080/07075332.2013.836124. online review argues it is still in effect
Dobson, Alan J. The Politics of the Anglo-American Economic Special Relationship (1988)
Dobson, Alan. "The special relationship and European integration." Diplomacy and Statecraft (1991) 2#1 79–102.
Dumbrell, John. A special relationship: Anglo-American relations from the cold war to Iraq (2nd ed. 2006) excerpt
Dumbrell, John. "The US–UK Special Relationship: Taking the 21st-Century Temperature." The British Journal of Politics & International Relations (2009) 11#1 pp: 64–78. online
Gardiner, Juliet. 'Over Here', the GI’s in Wartime Britain (Collins and Brown, 1992)
Gibb, Philip. Bridging the Atlantic: Anglo-American Fellowship and the Way to World Peace (Hutchinson, 1943), compiles public opinion of how each viewed the other.
Glancy, Mark. "Temporary American citizens? British audiences, Hollywood films and the threat of Americanisation in the 1920s." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television (2006) 26#4 pp 461–484.
Hendershot, Robert M. Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship (2008).
Hollowell, Jonathan ed. Twentieth-Century Anglo-American Relations (Palgrave, 2001)
Holmes, Alison R. and J. Rofe, eds. The Embassy in Grosvenor Square: American Ambassadors to the United Kingdom, 1938-2008 (2012)
Hopkins, Michael F. et al. eds. Cold War Britain, 1945–1964: New Perspectives (2003)
Jones, Matthew; Ruane, Kevin (2019). Anthony Eden, Anglo-American Relations and the 1954 Indochina Crisis. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN9781350021167.
Johnsen, William Thomas. The Origins of the Grand Alliance: Anglo-American Military Collaboration from the Panay Incident to Pearl Harbor (2016). 438 pp. online review
Law, Michael John. Not Like Home: American Visitors to Britain in the 1950s (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2019) Online book review
Louis, William Roger, and Hedley Bull, eds The "Special Relationship": Anglo-American Relations since 1945 (1987), 25 scholarly essays by British and American experts.
Louis, William Roger. Imperialism at Bay: The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941–1945 (1978)
Lyons, John F. America in the British Imagination: 1945 to the Present (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
McKercher, B. J. C. Transition of Power: Britain's Loss of Global Pre-eminence to the United States, 1930-1945 (1999) 403pp
Malchow, H.L. Special Relations: The Americanization of Britain? (Stanford University Press; 2011) 400 pages; explores American influence on the culture and counterculture of metropolitan London from the 1950s to the 1970s, from "Swinging London" to black, feminist, and gay liberation. excerpt and text search
Pells, Richard. Not like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated and Transformed American Culture since World War II (1997) online
Ratti, Luca. Not-So-Special Relationship: The US, The UK and German Unification, 1945-1990 (Edinburgh UP, 2017).
Reynolds, David. Rich relations: the American occupation of Britain, 1942-1945 (1995) online
Reynolds, David. "A 'special relationship'? America, Britain and the international order since the Second World War." International Affairs (1985): 1-20.
Reynolds, David. From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s (2007) excerpt and text search
Rofe, J. Simon and Alison R. Holmes, eds. The Embassy in Grosvenor Square: American Ambassadors to the United Kingdom, 1938-2008 (2012), essays by scholars how the ambassadors promoted a special relationship.
Scott, Andrew. Allies Apart: Heath, Nixon and the Anglo-American Relationship (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)
Shawcross, William. Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq (2004)
Thorne, Christopher. Allies of a Kind: the United States, Britain and the War Against Japan, 1941–45 (Hamish Hamilton, 1978)
Watry, David M. Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War. (Louisiana State UP, 2014).
Watt, D. Cameron. Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's place, 1900-1975: a study of the Anglo-American relationship and world politics in the context of British and American foreign-policy-making in the twentieth century (1984) online
Williams, Paul. British Foreign Policy under New Labour (2005)
Wilson, T.A. The First Summit: Roosevelt and Churchill at Placentia Bay (Houghton Mifflin, 1969) in 1941
Woolner, David B. "The Frustrated Idealists: Cordell Hull, Anthony Eden and the Search for Anglo-American Cooperation, 1933–1938" (PhD dissertation, McGill University, 1996) online bibliography pp 373–91.
Primary sources
Blair, Tony. A Journey: My Political Life (2010), memoir by UK prime minister
Barnes, James J. and Patience P. Barnes, eds. The American Revolution through British Eyes 2v (2013)
Barnes, James J. and Patience P. Barnes, eds. The American Civil War through British Eyes: Dispatches from British Diplomats - Vol. 1 (2003) onlineArchived October 23, 2018, at the Wayback Machine
Barnes, James J. and Patience P. Barnes, eds. Private and Confidential: Letters from British Ministers in Washington to the Foreign Secretaries in London, 1844-1867 (1993)
Frankel, Robert. Observing America : the commentary of British visitors to the United States, 1890-1950 (2007) online
Loewenheim, Francis L. et al. eds. Roosevelt and Churchill, their secret wartime correspondence (1975)
Other sources
W. N Medlicott. British foreign policy since Versailles, 1919-1963 (1968)
David Sanders and David Houghton. Losing an Empire, Finding a Role: British Foreign Policy Since 1945 (2nd ed. 2017)
Robert F. Worth, "The End of the Show" (review of James Barr, Lords of the Desert: The Battle Between the United States and Great Britain for Supremacy in the Modern Middle East, Basic Books, 454 pp.; and Derek Leebaert, Grand Improvisation: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945–1957, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 612 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no. 16 (October 24, 2019), pp. 44–46.
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped)_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
