How America Broke the British Empire: The Other Great Game 1941-1947

Patreon: / oldbritannia
Between 1941-1947 the British & American Empires engaged and defeated the Axis power in the Second World War. But whilst America emerged from the conflict as a global hegemon, thanks to the newly created Bretton Woods system, the power of Imperial Britain was for ever broken.
#BritishEmpire, #USA, #History.

[@OldBritannia]

I hope you enjoy the 5th part in this series on Anglo-American relations. Obviously the negotiations over Bretton Woods and so forth are very economic intensive, at type of history I don't think translates particularly well to video (though in part that may be my less than stellar abilities of explanation). I'd be interested to know how you found it anyway. As a bit of housekeeping, a few of you have kindly asked about donating to a patreon, which I have now finally set up. Obviously no pressure. If I ever end up making a small amount from it everything will really just go towards licensing better images and so forth to make the videos better. Thank you for watching whatever the case, please point out any corrections I need to make.

[@explodingwolfgaming8024]

Great video, as always!!!

[@R-nd9]

I would note the amusing misspelling of "prostrate" at 3:32!

[@Liberater4589]

I WILL be there as one of the first patrons

[@dragosdragon7515]

Another great video you make such great work worth waiting for

[@e.lectric9990]

As far as corrections go, I will note that at 14:43 while your audio correctly places D-Day in 1944 the on-screen placard puts in in 1942. Which I mostly sat up to notice because not long prior you discussed the potential of a 1943 invasion to be a disaster.

[@lonelychameleon3595]

“You cannot treat a great nation as if it were a bankrupt company.” “Just watch me.”

[@treehugger3615]

Down went the British Empire, and up went the new American Empire.

[@RoadmanRob8]

Won’t last. There be long gone before we ever do. You can say a lot about us brits A HELL OF A LOT but one thing we always do is stay in the game.

[@alexandros27.]

​@@RoadmanRob8no you don't my friend your ancestors were the greatest. I have no hope and see no future with the current people running the country. What was once the greatest empire has now become an American vassal

[@justachilldude8426]

@@RoadmanRob8I heard that without London the GDP per capita of the UK is the same as the state of Mississippi. A saying exists for this state: “Thank God for Mississippi” because they are the worst at everything from education to economy etc, other states know they won’t be in last. That is how far your country has fallen, due to being mined out continuously by your upper classes for generations, who continue to exploit you and dismantle the country while you vote them into office.

[@fromfareast3070]

@@RoadmanRob8 Sorry but you are out of game. Especially with all the Brexit fiasco. You just have hard time to admit it.. Now UK are effectively became a lapdog of the US.

[@jimslickens2325]

"Churchill was not perturbed, convinced that if the programme was insufficient, Roosevelt would come through with another 'brainwave', as he called it. The President had other ideas, suffering not a brainwave, but a brain hemorrhage, a few months later." That was a stone cold line.

[@christopher9727]

Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Holy Spirit Can give you peace guidance and purpose and the Lord will John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus

[@globalsurfer1]

It was military aid, not economic. Roosevelt hated the Empire and wanted it destroyed. Today's world mess is traced back to him.

[@joseagreda9753]

Damn 💀

[@thisisgoingtopain]

I had to double take this part. I was contemplating if what I read was legal.

[@chef4025]

That is what he said🤣🤣🤣 😅

[@rickjensen2717]

Britain was bankrupted by the first world war along with most of Europe, and saw a massive transfer of money, currency and gold from Europe to the US. The same thing happened again in WW2. Both wars were an utter disaster for almost all European countries and most have not fully recovered from it even now.

[@righteousviking]

You're not wrong. In 2021: USA nominal GDP 23 trillion EU nominal GDP 17 trillion

[@thomasfort2051]

Add in China, which is bigger than both. So who won WWII is China, and the future. This is the fault of the United States. The State Department. Infiltrated with Communists then and now.

[@thedualtransition6070]

Corelli Barnett with "The Audit of War" detailed the sheer incompetence of the British elite in not developing the advanced industry required to fight a modern war. After desperately building up the machine tool industry in WW1 the UK let it go to waste and was once again massively dependent upon imports that used up its reserves. Germany was much more able of fighting without such help, as it possessed the advanced industries required. It is forgotten that in both world wars Germany was under an absolutely brutal trade blockade, much worse than the U-boat war against Britain. At the end of WW1 the German population was literally starving.

[@anteeko]

All war in Europe profit the US enormously. The same goes for the current war in Ukraine. The crazy thing is the US don't particularly want the Europe to be at war, they want stability.. we put that on ourself. For whatever reasons Europe has been at war at some point or another for millennia's sadly no end in sight.

[@rickjensen2717]

@@thedualtransition6070 absolutely correct.

[@CMitchell808]

“Your empire is a relic of a bygone era, an oppressive regime over Asia and Africa!” “You’re racist.” “You’re not wrong.”

[@someguy3766]

@@danbatesy5492 The first line is America addressing Britain. The second is Britain addressing America. The third is America responding to Britain.

[@deadpan_delivry7476]

​@@danbatesy5492referring to segregation in response to the US accusations.

[@Jacob-df5hr]

"I'm a patriotic globalist, I support slavery worldwide"

[@duckpotat9818]

​@@deadpan_delivry7476which is ironic because British India was also segregated, there just wasn't anyone in Britain itself to segregate.

[@Rynewulf]

@@duckpotat9818im not sure we can blame the British for the Indian caste system

[@frankjennings4489]

“Let me see, Mr. President. That was about the time of the Mexican war wasn’t it?” Lol that is a pretty sick comeback.

[@nodinitiative]

Yup, pointing out US hypocrisy.

[@rexmonte1683]

“It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.” ― Henry Kissinger

[@invisibleman4827]

He would know, the damage he did to the Middle East is colossal.

[@Yantrajaal]

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan .. only Israel seems to be bucking the trend

[@cannabislife1688]

@@YantrajaalHenry Kissinger fucked over Cambodia dude

[@beasley1232]

@@YantrajaalVietnam and the usa have a very friendly relationship, in fact, I’d say that US-Vietnam relations are currently stronger then US-German relations for example. This year the USA and Vietnam upgraded their relations to a comprehensive relationship the highest level of relations in Vietnams government putting the USA on the same level in Vietnams government as China, India and Russia. Also Vietnam is the most pro American country in the world with 84% of Vietnamese being pro American or having a positive view of the USA, while only 8% of Vietnamese have a negative view of the USA. There are 2.2 million Vietnamese Americans and they are some of the fastest growing Asian immigrant groups in the USA. Vietnam is also the 10th largest trading partner of the USA while the USA of Vietnams 2nd largest trading partner. The Vietnamese hold less favorable views of China with more then 70% of Vietnamese having a negative view of China

[@dfdf-rj8jr]

In case you're interested in facts, the full quote is: "Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Kissinger was trying to protect Vietnam against Soviet interests, but whatever floats your boat.

[@johnpijano4786]

This video has to be your Masterpiece. When WW2 has been romanticized, summarized and talked about a hundread times over you manged to bring a New topic in the overly saturated field of the History of WW2. I love your focus on Geopolitics, International Relations, and the personalities of the Politicians, beurocracy and diplomats. You have given me a new lens to see WW2 (which again have been romanticised) while being factually correct. I hope that ylur Channel blows up and in a few weeks you have 100k subscribers and in a few months have 500k. Please keep it up. You have a gift that is very special even to other KZbin Edutainers.

[@mateistoian726]

Was just about to comment this. This video is phenomenal and offers a shockingly unbiased view on what is perhaps the most propagandized series of events in history. Truly praiseworthy.

[@proof4469]

One of the biggest and most widely believed myth of wartime diplomacy is that the US and Britain were very close, unconditional friends. I don't think any other channels really talked about this topic in depth, so I appreciate these videos

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

WW2 is only romanticized by the ignorant who still fall for 80 years old propoganda.

[@anomonyous]

What do you mean "new topic"? Any historian, or history nerd even, worth even a sprinkle of salt, knows that the US got rich off of the misery of Europe. History is literally everything that happened in the world. Except in the past. There is no such thing as a "new topic". Only the neverending search for more knowledge and understanding and learning.

[@anomonyous]

@@proof4469 About 80 years of American propaganda will do that.

[@Gamenetreviews]

The US gave about 12x as much aid to the UK as USSR so it makes sense that much more would have conditions.

[@ChevyChase301]

Also Britain never had its capital truly threatened…

[@duckpotat9818]

​​@@ChevyChase301and wasn't targetted in a racially motivated genocide, directed by a racist and genocidal ideology

[@VociferousMallard]

That's like saying a bank is being generous for giving a bigger loan while making you put up 12x as much collateral

[@SterbsMcGurbs]

@@VociferousMallard he didn't say the US was being generous. But generally the bigger the loan the bigger the down payment so still makes sense.

[@MissionControlTet]

@@duckpotat9818 Britain brought those meaningless destruction themselves, not so hard America saw they’re less important in dealing with the Nazis than conducting business with Russia

[@ethanwmonster9075]

Ultimately it was the existence of the soviet union that made the US not want to go back to isolationism. A great boon for the military industrial complex indeed.

[@SpazzyMcGee1337]

And now it seems we can't dare to end the expenditure due to the continued threat of Eurasian violent authoritarianism.

[@icrushchildrensdreams4556]

@@SpazzyMcGee1337 never forget superduper evil 1984 milliontrillion deaths in siberia! how dare evil communis seeseepee spread out food :(((((

[@ChevyChase301]

Existence? No it was just the nuke and the fact British spies gave it to the soviets. Had the US been the only ones with nukes the world would be a more peaceful place.

[@pax6833]

It wasn't just the USSR. US became paranoid of a repeat of the world wars. Twice now it had become isolationist, and seen the rise of militant european authoritarianism threaten to end its ability to conduct safe worldwide trade. Even without the USSR I am convinced US would never have abandoned its new defense policy, ex: NATO was not disbanded after the USSR dissolved.

[@shorewall]

@@pax6833 By the time the USSR dissolved, generations had been born with NATO. It was easier to keep it than get rid of it. Until Putin's invasion of Ukraine, people didn't even know what it was for anymore. However, I agree that the US had learned not to walk away anymore. And since WW2 gave them a once in a lifetime opportunity to usurp the role of World Hegemon, they wisely took it.

[@CentralAftermath]

Ah yes, "special relationship" indeed. Finally a video stating how the British Empire was truly defeated; behind the scenes and not just what is considered in the popular mindset.

[@MrEnric98]

Very insightful comment. The master of behind the scenes was beaten with its own medicine. Fascinating

[@CentralAftermath]

@@MrEnric98 That is the way she goes, the only shame is that this has largely been forgotten about. I thank Old Britannia for bringing it to light and I hope more come to realise the true extent of American involvement in the end of the British Empire.

[@michaelhart7569]

The British Empire was done for, probably before the first World War. That war just set the ball rolling in terms of the huge cost in terms of both money and human lives and resources. You cannot squander the lives of a generation of young men and not expect to pay a heavy price. I'm a believer in that empires are built upon domestic strength and wealth, not the other way around. The reason the British could build a world-dominating empire was the steam engine, advanced metal work and machinery, navigation, a disciplined globe-spanning navy, etc. A stable prosperous economy run by a competent governing class is also important, but not as much as the technical reasons, IMO. Around the end of World War two the United States comprised roughly 50% of worldwide economic capacity. They were the early adopters of the internal combustion energy and were the domestic suppliers of most of the world's oil. (That was a large part of the reason the Japanese felt driven to the brink.) The US population growth and economic prosperity had left European nations as relative minnows. US domination was a complete certainty, it only being a matter of time. Two world wars just made it happen sooner rather than later. As somebody with a foot in both camps (by birth and upbringing) I just wish that the US could have been a bit more honest with themselves about not being imperialists. They were really just replacing the British Empire with an American Empire.

[@MasterGhostf]

@@michaelhart7569 If you look at presidents during the world wars, they were mostly isolationists. The American public were isolationists up until the cold war when they were required to protect europe from the soviets. This militarization would instil imperialistic attitudes. But, the US has always been protective of the america's and sees it as its backwaters. What you call imperialism is also hegemony. There are always hegemonic powers. China wishes to be one. Russia is and was one. Brazil is one as well. I don't see imperialism as a bad thing. Its a fact of life. The only way to stop abuse of others is to lift people up.

[@orangecream3340]

Good riddance, America was right in not artificially extending an empire already in decline.

[@iamfromtheusamerica]

The videos on this channel are legendary.

[@thomasbergman6903]

Literally one of the best history channels in the world.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

So true!

[@logangustavson]

A quick note : The Philipines was more than a mere protectorate of the US, like Liberia was. The Philippines was a full fledged colony of the United States that gained independence in 1946.

[@dv4497]

The Philippines were well on their way to independence before the war.

[@logangustavson]

@@dv4497 true. There was never intention of holding onto the P.I. indefinetly. But the war sped it up by about a decade or so.

[@jamesharding3459]

@@logangustavson Rather defeats calling it a colony, no?

[@willevensen7130]

@@jamesharding3459but by technicality it was

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

​@@jamesharding3459well not necessarily. a colony denotes a specific political state but it doesn't say anything about what comes before or after. The fact that a child is your legal dependent at 17 doesn't change the fact that they won't be in one year.

[@markaxworthy2508]

The UK's peak of relative power was probably in the 1860s. Kipling's poem Recessional of 1897 shows that even Imperialists knew the Empire's days were numbered. The India Act of the 1930s showed that Westminster knew it as well. WWII just accelerated something that had been in progress for some 80 years.

[@robertewing3114]

3 Sept 1939, beginning the most successful war in history. The war was never meant to preserve the empire, but Churchill was naturally outraged at US insensitivity and anti-empire determination.

[@markaxworthy2508]

@@robertewing3114 "the most successful war in history" for who?

[@robertewing3114]

@@markaxworthy2508 for who declared it

[@robertewing3114]

@@markaxworthy2508 I think you refer to money and military power, HMS Warrior and trade follows the flag, and the hey day of security, rather than political influence. Even in 1860 it would have seemed like landing on the moon to guarantee Poland - if it existed, or some other Eastern country.

[@robertewing3114]

@@markaxworthy2508 PS And I think no political leader or monarch would regard themselves diplomatic if they were to say so, other than what was said in Aug 1945, silence is surely the right policy for those in power. Historians, however, are obliged to be realistic in what they say, a unique obligation concerning politics.

[@patrickjeffers7864]

Moral of the story, beggars can't be choosers

[@scottanos9981]

Also, there is more prestige in gracefully divesting than totally collapsing globally.

[@behoover]

Another moral is never trust the americans as they only look out for themselves

[@larkop6504]

You should say that to all the immigrants who aren't happy with anything they are given and constantly want more

[@MilesStratton]

This video is an absolute delight. Your content has been consistently even handed which is no small feat and your coverage of the economic disputes between the US and Great Britain is an aspect that had only been hinted at in the many histories ive read. Thank you for your hard work!

[@vatsal7640]

" To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be it's friend is fatal" Famous saying

[@dfdf-rj8jr]

"Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." That is the actual quote, in case you're interested in facts. Kissinger was trying to protect Vietnam from Soviet interests.The United Kingdom, France, Japan, South Korea, and America's other allies have done quite well, but thanks for your concern!

[@achaeanmapping4408]

Your work is incredible. I never knew about the squabbles between the British and Americans during the war, let alone their conflicting visions for a post war economic system, I only really had heard about the US' post anti-colonial efforts but that's about it. I've certainly learned a lot through this series and there is certainly a lot more for me to learn in my own time. Could you possibly share some reading material for this aim?

[@OldBritannia]

Sources are at the end of the video. But the two best ones for economics/ anti-colonialism I’ve read are Steil’s ‘Battle of Bretton Woods’ which has been an absolute life saver for this video, or Kathleen Burke’s ‘The Lion and the Eagle’.

[@davylongshanks525]

@@OldBritanniaDerek Leebaerts book The World After The War is also excellent

[@gordonipock9385]

History is dumbed way down for the American masses, ie.: We fought WW II because Hitler wanted to kill six million Jews and Murica had to stop him. The war with Japan was a minor side show because Jews weren't involved.

[@contemptuoushomer6136]

Excellent, no-nonsense video on a topic rarely discussed among WW2 history buffs: how the USA supplanted Britain as the world hegemon. I've only come to the realization this year that while the British /Allied victory over the Axis was a great thing, it definitely was a pyrrhic victory for the British Empire. This video helped solidify this realization. Though I suppose WW1, was in a sense, the real beginning of the end of British hegemony. The USA benefitted in either case by walking away from both wars relatively unscathed while many of its allies' and enemies' economies were devastated and exhausted from the wars. Anyways, great work and look forward to your future content! All the best!

[@RMProjects785]

Not many people realise that Britain lost both wars. World War I marked the beginning of the collapse of the British Empire. Dominions became independent, UK suffered prolongued political and economic instability. World War II marked the fall of Britain as a world power, a title it had enjoyed since the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. The empire completely fell apart in the 50s and 60s, the UK became too weak to fight on its own and went bankrupt. The winners of both wars were really the Americans and the Soviets. The US in World War I asserted itself as a great power able to massively influence global affairs, and in World War II became the most powerful country in the world. The Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War I managed to establish Communism as one of the most dominant ideologies in the world rather than an obscure political theory, and in World War II asserted itself as a superpower with massive global influence. The World Wars were really the death of the Old World and birth of the New in a sense. From Britain and France to the US and Russia.

[@StewartWalker-hy1eo]

@@RMProjects785the USA had a jolly as they weren’t in the War zones , only involved and then shit on the UK afterwards because of things like the Atomic bomb and the Suez Crisis & the USA couldn’t even fight the Vietnamese so don’t tell lies about being world warriors as you don’t dare go without the UK

[@michaellammert8084]

In way shape or form was the USA obligated to protect the British empire. We did help protect Britain. Not sure who said it but the quote “countries don’t have friends, they have interests” that comes to mind right away.

[@villiamo3861]

A Pyrrhic victory? What, helping to save the world and itself from Nazi-ism? Shouldn't have bothered, then? Hardly. And by the way, we were already giving up the empire upon the decision to start granting Dominion status to countries well before WWII - and yes, even before WWI (which itself, far from being entered by Britain for the sake of keeping an empire, was more directly and perhaps prosaically embarked because neutral Belgium had been waltzed over by Germany on its way to France: were we trying to protect their empires, too? Or actually seeking to avoid expansionism in a similar way to how the Monroe Doctrine would be applied by the US in Latin and South America? Sorry. Of course, the US's motives are wholly pure, and ours wholly colonial. Always.)

[@gordonipock9385]

Germany and Britain were indeed the big European losers in the two world wars. Interestingly, Hitler foresaw this outcome in his book "Mein Kamph." Before the war he earnestly sought an alliance with England, whom he saw as a brother nation. He sent his chief foreign minister, Ribbentrof, to England with orders to get him an alliance with Britain. Hitler openly admired the British and their great empire, and he offered to help Britain defend their empire. Hitler did not want a war with France or Britain; rather, he sought to conquer Russia and expand Germany eastward. But Churchill was playing checkers and could see only one move ahead. He and his supporters saw Germany as a growing economic and political rival and thus used WW I to cut Germany down to size, and WW II as a means to finally eliminate Germany as a rival. Only a few of the British elites could see the logic of a partnership with Hitler's Germany. Thus they fell into the clasp of the Americans who drove a hard bargain at every turn. The Roosevelt administration was staffed with men who -- if not communists themselves -- were highly sympathetic to it, while at the same time they were ideologically opposed to the British Empire and wanted to see it gone. The FDR agents were like today's wokesters. Had the British been looking two or three moves (and decades) ahead, they would have accepted Hitler's offer of a political and military alliance. Together they would have defeated the Stalin and built a great empire that would stretch from Canada across Europe and through Siberia. The US would have had to eventually come to terms with Germany and England and joined the global Aryan alliance. I think the British, consumed by their ideas of royalty and rule by aristocracy, wanted nothing to do with Hitler's national socialist revolution, just as they opposed Napoleon's France, seeing it as an anti-monarchist movement. England could have continued to rule much of the world if they had only been willing to share part of it with the Germans.

[@NexusApollo]

You deserve more subscribers. The quality of these videos is outstanding.

[@Robert-xy4xi]

Well have to give the French some credit! They understood what the US was all about!

[@conqueroryt9639]

I was literally feeling so bored and opened KZbin wishing you released a video and here you are. Thank you for all the effort you put in to create these videos .❤

[@Joshiiiiiiiiiiiii]

One of the best creators for more modern history out there! Keep up the great work! As someone studying history in university I was basically forced to contribute to this content by becoming a (the first? 🤔) Bismarck 😅

[@johnhanamy9795]

The Atlantic Declaration in 1941 with its two clauses, 'Self Determination' and 'Free Trade' effectly started the countdown on the end of the British Empire.

[@jacobzolna9705]

The fact you upload this quality this quickly is insane

[@kyledabearsfan]

Very well written and researched video. I know there is some tension here but realize that our countries were hardly close at this point. It was business, but when US and British soldiers fought together and returned to their homes after WW1 and definitely after WW2 those ties got incredibly sharp. It was there on the battlefields that we found the brotherly bond we feel now, and I for one am very glad for our long-term friendship.

[@easterworshipper730]

The irony of ironies. Hitler wanted to the british empire existed and rosenveld wanted to break the british empire.

[@SupremeNoob3231]

The facts and your great narrator voice just make this an awesome experiences. Cheers mate

[@dogukan127]

Such as underrated, under-explained topic yet it is what created the world we live in today. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

[@robertward8035]

I knew some of the history, but, the way you communicated it here, filled some gaps I was unaware of. Thank you 😊

[@emperornapoleon6204]

This series has been phenomenal. I eagerly await its conclusion!

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I can't tell you what a joy your videos are for me!

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Excellent documentary as always, keep it up!

[@augustvonmackensen3902]

The “Special Relationship” has always just been Britain doing pretty much whatever the US says and the US figuring out ways to make Britain less and less powerful and more and more dependent on them. Even now plenty of US politicians openly support the Republic of Ireland annexing Northern Ireland. It’s allowed British governments to maintain a facade of international status and influence to the British public whilst the nation’s actual influence declines.

[@AntiFurry927]

UK is still a strong country. Expecting a European island to be able to hold such an empire is unrealistic

[@cr-jj1nr]

Yeah how dare those irish want to govern themselves.

[@lilestojkovicii6618]

​@@AntiFurry927 you are murican puppets now cope with it

[@dynamitrix1006]

@@cr-jj1nr northern ireland u clown

[@silverhost9782]

​@@cr-jj1nrNorthern Ireland currently wants to be a part of the UK. Your reply there did, in only a few words, show how little you understand about the situation in Ireland

[@ArcticTemper]

Hey man, I am a big fan of your videos. I was wondering if you might cover British domestic wealth, that is to say, GDP Per Capita or the period equivalent post Napoleon and through the period you cover? The reason is that I have otherwise been told that a major reason for Brtiain being the ultimate Free Trade enthusiasts was because of the incredible wealth it produced for the average Brit compared to our continental cousins. Your channel tends to focus on the state power, the national wealth, and compare countries and judge their policies off that basis (particularly in this series). So I was wondering if these other factors and motivations may cast different light on your analysis?

[@danraes5661]

Outstanding video! Thank you for creating it!

[@bismarck8960]

Could you possibly do a video on the imperial preference system or the whole how Britain's economic empire flourished during the 18,19 and 20th century? Epic video this covers an important but underdiscussed part of the war

[@twojacksandanace3847]

"A friend who is broke" lol that cracked me up.

[@user-si2vb3yg3u]

I am proud to be here at your Channel from the beginning! The best from the newest history geopolitics Channels. Well go one.

[@nathanlesueur9312]

Hey great video, keep up the good work, every time you post a video it make my day its always so well made with so many good information!

[@Lengovision]

Thanks for this ❤

[@davylongshanks525]

An excellent upload - really first rate. From Britain’s point of view, WW2 is best understood as an imperial war, rather than just being a war of national survival (which it also was, for a time at least). Britain ‘won’ the war, but only on America’s terms.

[@jamesharding3459]

Britain was never going to win the war, if you define winning by remaining a dominant European and imperial power. The economic and political drain of the empire was unsustainable even in peacetime, the war merely accelerated the process. FDR and Truman weren't stupid, they knew what a disordered collapse would entail, and sought to order the process as much as possible.

[@davylongshanks525]

@@jamesharding3459fair point, i think I’m right in saying some around Eisenhower regretted pushing back so strongly against Suez because it speeded up the end of the empire dramatically, which led to further instability

[@leaveme3559]

​@@davylongshanks525wait a second what nonsense what instability did pushing too hard on suez cause Ussr was starting to get involved not pushing back would have led to catastrophe

[@davylongshanks525]

@@leaveme3559have a wonderful day

[@heofonfyr6000]

It wasn't a war of National survival for Britain by any stretch of the imagination. Britain was never threatened.

[@josww2]

Great stuff, love your channel! Keep 'em coming!

[@Longlius]

I think Keynes was smart to not even acknowledge the Wall Street loan. FDR's New Deal government had shown that it was not afraid to completely dismantle private finance if necessary to achieve its goals and Keynes likely realized that even if he took the Wall Street loan, Washington would find a way to block it and then force him back to the negotiating table with even more humiliating terms.

[@orleanist]

Thank you, great job

[@freetolook3727]

This is the back door politics that isn't taught to us in school! Very interesting and enlightening!!

[@joeshmoe8345]

Great video, thanks for sharing it with us big dog!

[@KaiserLandsknecht]

Excellent video like always!

[@cheflije]

Fantastic video! Both educational and engaging, and provided a useful summary of an under discussed element of WWII in the tensions within the Anglo-American alliance. Looking forward to the next installation!

[@historiaprotempore938]

Mate, your videos are so good

[@rem26439]

Just found your channel with this one, you've earned a subscriber! I've always been fascinated by Bretton Woods and all the missed opportunities it represents both for Britain and the world financial system. It was a good summary and a very interesting video!

[@Saleh-994]

Well done as always, i didn't think it was possible but your videos just keep getting better. Would you consider covering in detail the Soviet approach to Britain and France for an alliance in the 30s?

[@OldBritannia]

Thanks. Certainly could make for an interesting video. Especially if framed in relation to the German threat. Soviet foreign policy isn’t generally an area of interest for me though, so I’d have to do a lot more research on it.

[@Saleh-994]

@@OldBritannia if you ever get interested, a great book would be Alexei Vasiliev's from Lenin to putin: Russian policy in the middle east, it's beautifully written, and I think you'll find the chapter on Soviet decion making in foriegn policy fascinating, I'd recommend reading the chapter even if you're not interested in the middle east.

[@mikeym1479]

Absolutely adore this series about a side of history sadly overlooked

[@icaricc]

26:05 had me rolling Great video as always, you never disappoint with anything you make

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

Fantastic stuff. Great job at impartiality.

[@AMEENHAI]

highly informative, many thanx

[@AFGuidesHD]

6:31 cue the "OAAAAHHH" from supa hot fire meme

[@igoralekseyev3347]

Amazing video, a fresh approach to a period of history that is usually romanticised and stale.

[@MrDroiduser]

Thank you for the breton woods part Made me understand more.

[@davidprosser7278]

Thanks for this. It was very interesting.

[@eklezia2829]

I’ve already commented this once before, but will again - your content keeps getting better and better with every video. Well done!

[@rodjohnson596]

Outstanding content on a fascinating but shamelessly overlooked part of the war. Just masterfully done.

[@explodingwolfgaming8024]

Ayyy great to see you again!

[@mattybus]

These are brilliant videos. They are very even handed and do not seem to lean any direction except what happened.

[@MartinKuek]

Makes you realise that everything you think of as "normal" was decided by diplomats decades ago. The scary thing is the implication that "normal" could change at any time if there were a sufficient global catastrophe to trigger the re-negotiation of what is "normal".

[@oshodipesamuel2230]

The powerful few who rule over the many, shows how financial power is highly crucial.

[@MartinKuek]

@@arisnotheles that's why I put normal in quote marks. The scary thing is the people negotiating and inventing "normal" aren't necessarily smarter than you or I, they're just in the right place at the right time and have the right connections to be able to influence policy that will affect all.

[@MartinKuek]

@@arisnotheles I don't think it's problematic either. I would not wish for anarchy. I just wish the design of the social contract could be "better" (I.e. Benefit me more LOL).

[@user-vg8ok3bh2x]

@@arisnotheles the proverbial ''war of all against all'' is much more preferrable than the victory of one over many. The imbalance of power between one and many encourages acts of violence against many as the process of evaluation of power ensures the vision of no risks for one which encourages harsh and aggressive, exploitative tactics, while the situation of relative equalness of power potentials ensures pacification as the most predictable result for both parties in this situation is their mutual destruction or exhaustion.

[@carrickrichards2457]

The US Navy were very hostile to any positioning that might aid post war reoccupation in SE Asia. In this Dutch, British and French policy was blocked in many ways. That opposition was USN policy without US State department input. Max Hastings 'Nemesis' is a helpful account. This US policy persisted long after. In 1957 the US used the Anglo-French Suez intervention to destroy their Middle East influence. Not a policy they can be proud of, and the consequences of which still echo.

[@freebeerfordworkers]

in retrospect Suez as was the best thing that ever happened. Britain had half a dozen aircraft carriers three different kinds of nuclear bomber and a conscript army equipped with obsolescent weapons from WW 2. Contrary to modern opinion Britain did not make anything from its colonies. In the 1890s at the height of Empire an academic took a serious look at it and decided it was a charity to give employment to the middle classes whose education was unfit for them to enter industry and commerce. When the bankrupt labour government looked at what could be got out of them in the late 1940's they concluded there was nothing there but rapidly breeding blacks living on the edge of subsistence. Getting out of what was left of the empire at last freed up money to deal with the appalling conditions in British cities and build up the infrastructure. There were still bomb sites in the centre of British cities and serious rebuilding did not get going until the early 1960's

[@justonecornetto80]

@@freebeerfordworkers Agreed. Most of the empire was retained for strategic purposes and prestige. The main reason Churchill was kicked out of office in 1945 was because he droned on about restoring the empire to its former glory while demobbed troops were returning home to find their families living in conditions barely fit for animals. As my grandfather once said, common British folk didn`t fight WW2 and suffer rationing so the toffs could continue to lord it over the world, they fought it because Hitler was an evil bastard who wanted to turn the world into his lapdog.

[@Makeyourselfbig]

@@freebeerfordworkers So why did France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Russia, etc all have empires if it was just to give employment to the middle classes? What was the name of this "academic" you mentioned? Was he published? How did he reach his conclusions? I would also point out the UK used five carriers in the Suez operation. They had jet bombers on board. Hardly obsolete. The troops were put ashore by helicopter. The first time this method had been used. The army were using Centurion tanks. The best we had. To say weapons used in WW2 were obsolete is ridiculous. WW2 had only ended 11 years previously so I doubt their weapons were anymore obsolete than those used by any other 1st world nation.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

​@@MakeyourselfbigI remember this book called "Wars of Empire" by Douglas Porch that discusses the rationale of the major imperial country's empire building in the first chapter (aptly titled "Why Empire?"). Simply put, empires are more liability than benefit to the countries that have them. In the case of the British Empire, while their empire is built on trade they got nothing much out of it compared to the money they sink in making it livable for them. Extending the empire's borders gradually became a hard sell even in the British Empire's zenith as with the Fashoda Crisis (like, should Britain really want to risk a war with France over a sandbar in Southern Egypt?) and the 2nd Boer War (is invading free countries a way to expand the empire?)...

[@montecarlo1651]

@@theotherohlourdespadua1131You should be wary of apologists for Empire. It is a huge mistake to think that Empire wasn't an enormous scheme for shifting wealth from possessed territories to the imperial centre. There were many ways to do it. Britain was not in the imperial game for altruism, it was in it for the cash. That it became unprofitable at the end, is another story. It was fabulously profitable for a very long time.

[@robertsansone1680]

Excellent again. Thank You

[@lima153330]

Great video like always Counting the days til part 6!!!!!

[@guyh9992]

If Churchill really wanted to save the Empire he would have followed an Empire First strategy instead of Europe First. He was well aware that his plans meant leaving millions of British subjects under Japanese occupation for almost four years. The British never regained their imperial prestige after the war, neither did the French and Dutch.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

As if you can fight the Japanese in the far east without the US. You followed Europe first as that was where the imperial british citizens lived. The colonies were just that.....lands and peoples to be extracted and used, to be abandoned if they serve their purposes.

[@28pbtkh23]

Being British I can only say ‘thank goodness all that guff about prestige has gone.’ Looking back in time, the Empire often seems like a job opportunity programme for the upper classes. My father remembered going to an Empire Day exhibition at some point in his teens (when many people start to question things) and wondered what it was all for. Many people felt the same. Some groups were actively against imperialism. Perhaps most didn’t care or think about it.

[@MrSimplyfantabulous]

"And yet it moves." Galileo.

[@esteban8592]

​@@28pbtkh23 That's why you're a colony now

[@WackyIraqi777]

​@28pbtkh23 and now you just import Indians and Pakistanis by the boatload until your culture had been destroyed. You were much better off being the colonizers and not the colonizees.

[@fallenphantomx7804]

I love this series, very interesting

[@josephc9963]

Excellent video! Lots of behind the scenes insight that I never knew about. I also can't help but feel some disdain for the way my countrymen treated Britain in her hour of need.

[@Nikola2006]

Great videos, I’m enjoying your channel even though these aren’t the topics that I’d typically be interested in

[@GarfieldRex]

Economically, is almost the same as the treaty of Utrecht did to the Spanish.

[@polishsmolish19]

22:55 "The President had other ideas, suffering not a brain wave but a brain hemorrhage a few months later..." Jesus he's already dead, you don't gotta do him dirty like that.

[@rat_king-]

He was a bastard. and should remembered as such.

[@invisibleman4827]

Sounds like the two most recent US presidents. 😂

[@waylaidsavant]

Incredibly insightful

[@coloniser.-]

i really love your videos

[@Redpilled_Retribution]

Are we going to see a part 6 and 7 in the future? Would love to hear about the Suez crisis and all that

[@Brian-----]

Brilliant video. From 15:00 and 17:00 - IIRC, the United States economically surpassed the UK in the 1920s, but fell behind the UK again in the 1930s before World War 2 propelled the United States ahead. Given the circumstances of his Presidency and its drivers I'm sure FDR was sensitive to this economic dynamic. You're also right that Soviet sympathies existed in the American administration : recall Wallace at Magadan in 1944.

[@CantusTropus]

Sympathisers, or spies? It's uncontroversial that America was riddled with Soviet spies in the late 40s and early 50s, who's to say it wasn't also the case during the war?

[@justinsutton5005]

The US economically surpassed the UK in the 1870s

[@behoover]

@@justinsutton5005no it didnt?

[@justinsutton5005]

yes it very much did@@behoover

[@behoover]

@@justinsutton5005 by wich metric ?

[@SandMan_86]

Excellent video.

[@joshhoffman1975]

Very interesting, thanks!

[@rkarcade7417]

It’s quite interesting how the U.S. intentions to topple Britain as a world dominant and a colonial power were gradually executed in a meticulous way throughout the decades. And how Suez Crisis also was one of the bricks of doing so. I also loved how you pointed out a quick diplomatic argument about HK and Mexico. A very good one 😂

[@BB-xx3dv]

Secretly, the US would have backed swift action in Suez.

[@Radonslur]

Sometimes you let others do what they're known to do aand leverage to to your favor (like Judo). Today, we see the Russians invade Ukraine to "stop NATO expansion", the result? Two new NATO nations. See my point? Diplomacy = chess, not checkers

[@invisibleman4827]

Suez massively backfired. The Americans made the miscalculation of trying to win over the Arabs from siding with the Soviets by turning against the British, French, and Israelis and pulling the rug out from under them. It didn't work, and it resulted in all three countries turning against the US for quite a while. Politically Britain and Israel forgave them, but France didn't.

[@SoaringNato]

That quote of Stanley firing back at Roosevelt had me in stitches what a response!! I wonder what, if anything, the President said back.

[@miggypeso909]

He told him,” Don’t make pick up my foot and put up your ass you limey prick!!”

[@gaiusoctavius6107]

Maybe the British should have talked to the Mexicans instead, we all remember how well that went for the Kaiser

[@SoaringNato]

@@gaiusoctavius6107 the irony being that the Californios, being so far away from Mexico City and the bulk of the population and worried about American immigration into the province, did actually consider asking for help and joining Britain. Can you imagine?!

[@HeWhoLaugths]

Hello again Great video

[@silphonym]

What a great video!

[@yourroyalchungusness]

I always wonder why British empire fell off really fast after WW2 and then i saw this video and now i know why

[@supereero9]

America mercy killed it

[@iattacku2773]

@@supereero9true that. Better the British empire went out the way it did then through a firy death like the Portuguese and French

[@WillmobilePlus]

Britian was either going to be broke after 45 and lose it all with grace, or they would have sued for peace in 40-41 and lost it all from an imperial civil war. The fact that they were able to transition the empire to the Commonwealth and got a lot of these places on their own without the massive mess that came from the French and Portuguese empires falling (the former STILL causing problems today), is a blessing as it brought Britian into the post war world as a lower-case P "power", with its prestige and reputation 90% intact.

[@enderman_of_d00m24]

in the end, they came to realize they couldn't keep it, and started giving up the empire piece by piece voluntarily

[@The_Alt_Vault]

Oh yeah if Britain really wanted to they could have left the empire going for a few decades. They proved it by how Britain was able to deal with what cod have become its own Vietnam in Malya and how the rebels in Kenya were crushed. Add siding and supporting a few questionable regimes in southern Arfica and the Empire could have made it to the 60s mostly intact. Not a chance of holding India though.

[@21rhocke]

The geopolitical and economic implications of WW2 always get glossed over in favor of the flashy (but much less impactful) military campaigns. You show a mastery of both.

[@alanurwin7619]

Fantastic video thank you I've now given your channel a follow amd look forward to future video

[@peterpayne2219]

This was fascinating!

[@Random-om8rq]

Can you link the books that you have used for this episode in the description ? btw great work !

[@OldBritannia]

Yeah sorry, keep meaning to but always forget. I do always list them at the end, but I should add them in the description as well.

[@michaelnewton1332]

England: "You cannot treat a great nation as if it were a bankrupt company." America: "I can do whatever the f--k I want."

[@haroldflashman4687]

you need to release these programs as podcasts, please!

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is still watching this very informative content cheers Frank

[@flamaster1757]

There's something hilarious about referring to policy of the British Empire as "internal matters"... Bestie you own a quarter of the planet

[@BigBoss-sm9xj]

lol

[@nicka1279]

Commenting for reach cuz this channel is insanely good

[@NicolasOliva17]

Great work, new subscriber here

[@brianwolle2509]

super excellant. fills in all the blanks ive had all these years.

[@davidanalyst671]

Roosevelt did this in order to build up the Russians. The Russians were the ones who took all the losses of life in WW2 after all, but mostly because they had a terrible military. The other reason Roosevelt was so extra to Britain was because he knew that if he didn't shrink the british empire, the USA would have to deal with competing interests sooner or later, so Roosevelt chose to slow down the brits like the Romans did the Greeks. The founding fathers of the USA literally said they didn't want to get engaged in the Endless wars of Europe, so what Roosevelt did was rely on the British to be a bunch of idiots and let hitler build up his war engine, and then write England out of the post WW2 europe. As you remember, the iron curtain divided Europe into two, there was to iron curtain between English and USA administration in Europe. Thats because after ww2 there were two sides, russian and USA

[@michaelmccomb2594]

Harold MacMillan first made the Greek-Romans comparison. With the British as the more experienced calmer wiser Greeks and the Americans as the young, violent, expansionary and boisterous Romans. Also, I am not sure why you would really blame the UK for the rise of Hitler. US would have been unlikely to enter the war if not for the survival of the UK

[@eiriven459]

Hi. I just wanted to say I really appreciate your content, I think for me it has been a breath of fresh air and all of your videos are incredibly fascinating to watch and study. I wanted to say I particularly appreciate your video on Felix Schwarzenberg, it got me into my own research on him for a school project and I ended up writing a 9 page paper on him. Great content, keep up the great work and I can't wait to see what you make next!

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you. Hearing such stories is one of the best things about making these videos. Glad you’re enjoying them. Yes, Schwarzenberg is a fascinating character.

[@matejurkovic7967]

Great video

[@concept5631]

Very informative