Did America Bring Down the British Empire?

Pajamas Media ^ | Jan. 9 | Carol Gould

[AJKauf]

On Christmas Day I spent lunch and tea listening to a long discourse about the demise of the British Empire.

This discussion did not derive of my own choosing; I had been invited to a neighbor’s flat for a festive meal and had hoped politics and history would not creep into the proceedings. Sadly my hopes were dashed when the hostess decided to launch into a lecture about the origins of the end of empire. She posited that the United States had been the driving force behind the collapse of British imperial ambitions.

This dear lady is a cultured and well-read individual and can be a formidable debater. I kept quiet as she explained that a succession of American administrations had set out to dismantle British hegemony in the world. Be it India, Africa, Palestine, Suez, Northern Ireland, or lands further afield, she said the Americans had been hell-bent on making sure the centuries-old colonial structure was undermined and then brought to an end wherever it may lurk.

What I found so implausible about this assertion is the notion that American presidents, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens were sitting in their respective homes deliberating on the obliteration of an ally’s interests around the globe....

[MNJohnnie]

Read the history of the Brenton Woods Conference which set up the post WW2 economic system.

We sure did destroy the British empire, and we did it on purpose.

[blackie]

The British Empire brought down the British Empire!

[Marty62]

Is she kinding.
America didn’t force Britain to provide safe haven for the likes of Karl Marx.
I believe if m’lady takes a close look at the policies that Britain has embraced, therein lies the answer.

[DTogo]

What I found so implausible about this assertion is the notion that American presidents, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens were sitting in their respective homes deliberating on the obliteration of an ally’s interests around the globe

Not so implausible these days.

[GeronL]

American independence might have caused them to rethink their colonialism but it was their losses of their best and brightest in two world wars that deprived the country and all of Europe of their vigor and ambition.

Their nation and continent seems about played out.

[AnAmericanMother]

If you spelled "Bretton Woods" correctly, it would be much more convincing.

And that system, iirc, suffered an ignominious collapse back in the early 70s.

Without more supporting evidence, this sounds like the usual Illuminati/CFR/Federal Reserve/Bohemian Grove conspiracy theory stuff.

And Obama's high-handed treatment of the British has evoked so much ire, I find it hard to believe that the U.S. set out so many years ago to destroy its oldest ally on purpose.

[VanDeKoik]

FDR hated the British Empire, and worked with Stalin to..help along it’s downfall.

Not that it want already dying, in part because Britain was broke.

[muawiyah]

Actually, American Independence CREATED the British Empire. With the signing of the Treat of Paris the Brits no longer had to waste money on ruling the 13 colonies, nor deal with their ever growing struggle with the Indians over the mountains regarding expansion. Instead, the Brits were able to focus their attentions on India, and then Africa (in turn). The French were edged out of South Asia entirely and forced to console their losses there with Viet Nam.

The new United States proved to be a distraction for the competing Spanish and Ottoman Empires since it opened up new opportunities for the marketing of hand tied rugs as well as Puerto Rican and Cuban rum and cigars!

[4rcane]

America and the Soviets were responsible for most of the collapse of previous empires e.g British, French and German, which is how they both emerged as the strongest during the Cold War. Then ever since 1990 with the collapsed of the Soviet system, America emerged as the sole superpower of the world.

[ex-snook]

Those who live by Empire, die by Empire. They get too big to not fail. Demographics rule.

[Perdogg]

No world war 2 did. America's influenced grew and Britain just reoverying from the war, could no longer maintain her colonies.

[UCANSEE2]

America emerged as the sole superpower of the world.

Too bad that's over with.

[Gen.Blather]

The British Empire was destroyed by a confluence of events, not just one nation’s policies. But, I’d day the biggest contribution was the fact that they went socialist. You can’t support socialism and a huge military and the vibrant economy that military requires. Therein lies the danger American is facing right now. We’re Great Britain and China is the new America. If we don’t recover financially (by dumping socialism) then we’ll follow the Empire into history’s dusty pages.

[x]

I searched for core material and could not find much academic work that could back up this theory, although it is accepted that President Eisenhower hung Britain out to dry during the Suez crisis of 1956. France, Israel, and Britain took on the Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser when he nationalized the Suez Canal; the three nations were abandoned at the crucial hour by the United States. It is said Americans could not buy a drink in British pubs and were refused service in other establishments.

It's said that Ike's objection was not having been told in advance. He didn't have time to figure out an alternative course of action, so he condemned the attacks. The fact that 1956 was an election year, and the year the Soviets crushed Hungary didn't make him any more likely to support Britain's action.

Probably the empire was doomed anyway, but when you have something like Ike's refusal to back up Britain, it's natural that Britons would pin the decline on that. Otherwise a lot more thinking and soul-searching would be required.

My hosts took me back to the partition of India; the closest material I can find on this theory is an article comparing the plight of Confederate President Jefferson Davis to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Subhash Sharma observes that Davis is never referred to as a “great American,” but that Jinnah is revered as a “great Indian” amongst a great swathe of historians even though he facilitated the division of the Indian continent.

I found that hard to believe. But you do find articles by BJP politicians calling Jinnah a "great Indian." And why not? Jinnah was against Nehru and the Congress Party (the BJP's main opponent) and he took a lot of Muslim's with him when he founded Pakistan. So what's not for them to love?

You do hear praise of Davis as a "great American" from some quarters, and if we had a party like the BJP here you might hear more of it, even from politicians.

Did the United States covet the oil in Africa, the Middle East, and the Gulf controlled by Britain? How could it not? Can I find documentary evidence of a succession of American presidents making a concerted effort to destroy British hegemony?

More likely the sheikhs and emirs figured out on their own that the US was more powerful than Britain and took account of that when they made their deals.

[DallasDeb]

Great Brittain lost its empire because it couldn’t protect its claims worldwide during WWII. The end of the war brought independence to many countries from their European empires.

[MNJohnnie]

Very good, you know how to spell yet seem to be completely ignorant of US history. Read and learn.

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

You don't have to take my word for it. Read Henry Kissinger's.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/42675.html

We wanted access to the markets in the British colonies for out goods, the Brits wanted money from us to help them pay down their massive war debts. We got the access then denied to extend Lend Lease to help them pay off their debts.

Roosevelt and the new Dealers around him were feverish anti colonialists. They viewed Soviet Russia as less a threat to the USA then the Conservative British Establishment.

[Siena Dreaming]

Britain's own Fabian socialists went around the world tearing down Britain (ex: Annie Besant in India).

But that being said, the US sure didn't help Britain when American Catholics supported the IRA...

[MNJohnnie]

Yes, but when they were standing on the bring of the abyss, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his regime gave them the shove.

[Cold Heat]

No.....

Absolutely not...

They became overextended, and after a series of conflicts, the people became disillusioned. Soon they lost India and others, and it all came crashing down.

We had nothing to do with it except that we were just one of many.