The Other Great Game: Britain vs The United States, 1914-1922 (Documentary)

In 1914, Anglo-American relations were finally on a firm footing, as Britain began to accept the US as a Great Power in its own right. The First World War would see a revolution in the power dynamic between the two. Over the course of the conflict, Britain came to rely on the immense resources of the United States to fuel its war effort. The consequence was an enormous amount of borrowing from Wall Street, which would give the US President, Woodrow Wilson, a great amount of leverage in his aims to establish America as a global power.
This video aims to be a short documentary looking at Anglo-American relations from the start of the First World War to the Treaty of Washington.
#History, #BritishEmpire, #WW1,

[@Henners1991]

People go on and on about German missteps in WW2 but, the more you look into it, WWI really takes the cake for... absolutely baffling behaviour.

[@pax6833]

Germany invested all of its intellectual might into military power and left its diplomatic corps a dearth. WW1 could've been won by Germany if it had not been so bafflingly stupid about international relations, going beyond its American relations.

[@draphotube4315]

Indeed, even more when you realize that if they hadn't done those little missteps... they would simply have won.

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

They were so bafflingly bad that even Hitler was disgusted at the stupidity of the German leadership and bent over backwards in order not to provoke the US before 1941, letting them get away with a lot of stuff that no one else would have.

[@draphotube4315]

@@secretname4190 Hindsights helps always, but the Germans were in literal every position winning until they somehow just tried to ruin it in the most retarded ways ever.

[@mikefay5698]

Born in 1944 and of course totally subjected to the notion that the British won the War and all Germans apsolutely beyond the Pale. Nonetheless very few Western Counries were anti Hitler. Since Hitler at least was anti-Communist this giving Capitalists in all lands nightmares. But a Hitlerite victory would mean Germany could export to all lands as it easily topped the British in production. Todays horror in the Ukraine is mainly due to the US freaking out at any notion of Russia becoming a trader with the rest of Europe. Thus uniting with Russia and even China and the USA down to number three. But a Russian victory in Ukraine brings back a US nightmare. A declining Imperial power is very dangerous never the less. Glad I moved to New Zealand and we have no Nuclear bases. War is horrifyingly depressing! History is always cruel!

[@OldBritannia]

I hope you enjoy the next part in this series on Anglo-American relations. After making this, I can see why economic history tends to be avoided on KZbin - trying to find a way to visually represent economic statistics is not particularly easy. So apologies if the video pace seems a bit slower than normal this time. Correction: The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 rather than April. Apologies.

[@rasorguy98]

You do a good job regardless bud, don't worry too much about it, your content generally is of a very high quality so just keep doing what you're doing!

[@JoanieAdamms]

If that's all you need to apologize for, I say it's a fairly light exchange. endlessly I find these ones particularly enthralling, so please continue in all your good will.

[@empireoffreedom]

"Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics." Or in this case, "Amateurs talk wars, professionals talk economics". Keep up the good work!

[@enderman_of_d00m24]

WILSOOOOOON!

[@ianluebbers5492]

How many more parts do you expect to make on this series? Its been really good so far and I would like to see more, if there is any more to talk about

[@tomflynn8651]

As a British-born American I love anything that covers relations between the two countries. In many ways the US to the UK what Rome was to Greece.

[@cardenuovo]

That’s actually a great way of putting it tbh 😂 Maybe even Rome to Byzantium

[@JTD317]

Well, US didn't invade and conquer the British empire like Rome did to Greece but I like the imagery of your comparison

[@gregandy4277]

Are you more of a tea or coffee man?

[@tomflynn8651]

@@gregandy4277 Tea all the way.

[@kaneinkansas]

More like US is to all of Europe what Rome was to Greece, with UK clearly being part of Europe. This analogy is clouded by the fact that US and UK are both "anglo-saxon" nations, using a system of civics based upon "Anglo-Saxon Common Law". One could go so far as saying WWII was the Anglo-Saxon Nations + Soviet Union verses the Napoleonic Law nations that had succumbed to rogue ideological rule (something Napoleonic law systems are vulnerable to because that system doesn't allow for Judge made law).

[@big_2361]

This feels similar to Ottoman economic dependency on Germany during WW1. After the war and during the Turkish War of Independence Talat Pasha in exile mentioned in an interview that even if the Central Powers won the war the Empire would still in be tremendous debt to Germany, something that would be very hard to recover from, and Germany itself losing the war had been somewhat good for Turkey’s position.

[@losisansgaming2628]

Well tbh it was never In the turks best interests to get involved in the war.

[@big_2361]

@@losisansgaming2628 It was inevitable after Germany failed to end the war in the West in 1914

[@obiwankenobi4252]

“As always though, OHL could be relied upon to astonish the world with its almost mystical ability to always pick the completely wrong option” is such an unnecessarily protracted roast of German strategy that I love it

[@lordkfc1297]

In WW1 Germany needed another Bismarck but instead they had the Kaiser

[@obiwankenobi4252]

@@lordkfc1297 if Bismarck had been in charge, there wouldn’t have been a Great War. After German Unification, Bismarck worked tirelessly to ensure peace and to avoid a major war between the European powers

[@obiwankenobi4252]

@@lordkfc1297 if Bismarck had been in charge, there wouldn’t have been a Great War. After German Unification, Bismarck worked tirelessly to ensure peace and to avoid a major war between the European powers

[@lordkfc1297]

@@obiwankenobi4252 A war would have been inevitable no matter who was in charge, now the nature of the war… that would have been different. Oh and you posted it twice

[@obiwankenobi4252]

@@lordkfc1297 probably

[@4realm8rusirius]

Britain does love it's Great Games

[@sergeant_chris6209]

She is quite the Great Game Enthusiast

[@theMOCmaster]

A gamer one might say

[@sandraleiva1633]

Worst Race to have ever raped most of the World. Unfortunately we're writing in English now because of mass murder, genocides, wars of conquest, greed and retributions. And still the evil monarchy stands and it's propaganda so great that people admire an institution built on the blood of hundreds of millions.

[@mikefay5698]

Thought the British didn't like sex except on Sunday afternoons!

[@mikefay5698]

British Aristocrats and Bourgeoisie are down to tiddlewinks these days. With tales of daring do of decrepit Woyalty! Who still rake in the money!

[@empireoffreedom]

I always love these videos! The maps and flags are gorgeous! And the study of the history of the British Empire is sadly mostly ignored in most of the world. Always interesting to see how these two powers who shaped the modern world interacted in different times.

[@ethanwmonster9075]

I think you should continue this series after WW2 it get's interesting as USA fully replaces the British Empire but does global hegemony in a fundamentally different way.

[@mharley3791]

How so? Can you talk about the difference?

[@ethanwmonster9075]

USA post world war two played a completely different game than the one that Britain pre ww1 played.

[@mharley3791]

@@ethanwmonster9075 How so?

[@ethanwmonster9075]

@@mharley3791 Way more informal meddling/bipolar world rivarly. US expanded it's intelligence to cover the planet at the expense of a lot of countries internal stablity.

[@mharley3791]

@@ethanwmonster9075 are you saying things were more stable under the British Empire? The big difference I see is territorial expansion. The British Empire ruled through its vast colonial and land holdings. The US rules less through actual colonialism but more “soft” power (with the occasional CIA coup)

[@ante5544]

I am still amazed that this channel doesn't have more subscribers. You're probably in my top 3 channels right now and your uploads are always one of the first I click on when I have the time to watch. Keep up the amazing work!

[@TimZandbergen]

Excellent video! It is exactly the 'non-obvious' mechanations behind the scenes that make these videos so rare, but so good!

[@nickmacarius3012]

FANTASTIC! Thanks for the video. I would love to see a future video on the Paris Peace Conference! I read Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan several years ago. It provided very fascinating insight to the Peace Conference negotiations amongst the great powers.

[@Brian-----]

🙂One great video after another here! Thank you

[@gabedejongh4767]

Another amazing video, I’ve really been enjoying learning about the history of Anglo-American relations.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

German naval policy in this war caused tensions with a number of other neutral states too. It is worth adding that the blockade also provoked diplomatic spats with the Netherlands also, for obvious reasons if one inspects the map. It is a measure of German diplomatic ineptitude that they were unable to exploit these tensions. If anything the Dutch were more inclined to fear a German invasion and so co-operated extensively with the Allied powers. And unrestricted submarine warfare also had a negative effect on Spanish shipping, that made the government there more inclined to allow the country to become a cheap sweatshop for the mass production of French armaments, equipment and ammunition. 2:56 I did not know about this forced purchase. I always assumed the death knell for Britain's 'informal empire' in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile was the Ottowa agreement in 1932 but this forced purchase must have had a dramatic impact long before that. One thing I would say is that there seems to be this idea the European map was rewritten on the basis of Wilsonian idealism. Whilst a war up to maybe early 1916 could have reverted to a status quo ante the nationalist questions in France, Italy and Serbia would not have gone away and it seems they would have remained as a spark for another war. French irredentism towards Alsace and Lorraine was perhaps the mainspring of French political disputes from 1871 onwards. It was the coeur de cri of the French Catholic right such as Maurrais and played a key role in the great political dramas of the early Third Republic, such as the rise of Boulangisme and the Dreyfus affair. Europe had repeatedly been crossed with nationalist crises in the 19th century, from Greek independence, the Polish revolts, the Eastern Question, German and Italian Unification, the Hungarian compromise, the Balkan wars, even the independence of Norway in 1905. It was becoming increasingly clear that the suppression of nationalist feelings was becoming harder and harder (as suggested by both internal Ottoman and Austrian politics over the previous 50 years) and that nationalist movements were becoming increasing sources of tensions and flashpoints between countries, especially after the likes of Bismarck or Cavour had shown quite what a powerful tool it could be when used by a Machievallian statesman, or later as the century closed, by manipulative demagogues. Even with a status quo peace it seems hard to imagine, given the horrors of the Balkan wars in 1913, that these nationalist questions would not have eventually provoked the kind of orgy of violence later seen in the Second World War. It is a bitter pill to accept, but there is, to my mind, more than a degree of truth in the statement that the greatest architects of the post-1945 peace were Hitler and Stalin in using their wicked ethnic cleansing methods to create stable monoethnic states, far more than what was achieved at Versailles - although around that time the Greek-Turkish ethnic exchange perhaps suggested where this was all heading to. I am skeptical about Wilson's supposed prime role in the outcome because whilst his loud promotion of the policy was highly symbolic in 1918, it seems to me that once the war reached a certain level of intensity this was almost an inevitability. His ideas were just grapsed onto by movements circiling like sharks long before the US was involved. Germany and Austro-Hungary in their creation of the puppet Kingdom of Poland and the various splinter states of the Russian Empire were already using nationalist projects for realpolitik aims by now. France had long succored Polish national ambitions as a means of weakening and distracting Prussia and later Germany and their military support for Polish actions in Silesia proved critical for the formation of the new Polish state. Italy's whole entry in 1915 was predicated on nationalist motives over various parts of the Austro-Hungarian empire as the culmination of their long unification wars. Britain and France had clearly already agreed to the dismantlement and partition of the Ottoman empire long before US involvement. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire can be traced more forcifully to the British blockade and the economic paralysis of the empire by 1918 than to vague notions of self-determination and France had a clear interest in seeing the empire collapse and be replaced by a ring of friendly 'Little Entente' allies to keep Germany in check. The creation of Yugoslavia had little to do with self-determination (as the response of the Croats to the new state demonstrated) and a lot more to the kind of Greater Serbia nationalism that was one of the triggers of the war in the first place. Unshackled by the Ottoman structures Ataturk's nationalist movement was capable of achieving far more than the Young Turks could within the Ottoman system and saved the country to boot. Looking at it dispassionately, the peaces of 1919 owed far more to Entente realpolitik than they did to Wilsonian idealism, which played a form of window dressing that provided a justification for a very similar peace that the Germans had forced on Russia in Brest-Litovsk. And a big reason for this was that Wilson was a terrible diplomat who found himself continuously isolated and outplayed at the conference, especially by the masterful Clemeanceau (who got the crippling reparations and the demilitarisation of the Rhine he sought), to the point that not only did Republicans in Congress consider the LoN a threat to US security but they considered the whole peace treaties as a betrayal of that which the what the US had entered the war originally. Wilson was derided for his weakness. Perhaps only the Italians among the Allies felt more deceived by the final outcome. And this naturally played a large part of the US's position towards Europe right up until 1941, a sense that the war which was unleashed in 1939 was at least in part due to British and French greed and ambitions from this conference, for which the US would not have anything more to do. It also explains why they were so quick to use their financial pressure to relieve Germany of much of its real reparation burden continuously during the 1920s - unfortunately also dangerously coupling the German financial system to the US one in the process, which was to prove disastrous after the crash of 1929.

[@weeewoooooooo]

I think you are far too easy on America's foreign policy which had always been an attempt to defang British influence, to which the British would gradually concede within reason reflecting American interests as well as their own. A responsible global power not just concerned with their own interests but also that of the concerned belligerent in order to restore a balance of interests, the crux of British success more sloppily identified as a balancing of powers which is enshrined in the making of England. You are right on where wilsonianism should be spared that being the national and social Machiavelli games already at hand however these were confronted by the imperial states with reform or in ways entirely specific to their countries, people's and institutions for example Austria Hungary and ottoman empire, to which I would disagree with your view of Britain and France signing them off as it remained integral for central and eastern European stability. The problem with wilsonianism was that it was a universal attempt to enforce American ideology (British democracy draped in French philosophy of L'État, c'est moi, roman civil service and liberties with German militarism) without muscle that's why the league of nations fails, the question really should be why would he have wished this without the support of his nation? Was it another ace to play on a divided Europe? We cannot also ignore the questionable bargaining of it's 'stumbling' financial hegemony, the reason why the British cabinet was torn towards a limited approach to Versailles and empire for example Ireland (long tool for American interests to dismantle British ethnicity and more directly influence government policy in it's colonies for example Canada, disguised as close blood relations)and Germany (wilsonianism, France) . So I would completely disagree with the idea of British greed in Versailles as the British would be the greatest loser towards French foreign policy of European hegemony and American hand over fist bargaining that stripped the commonwealth of it's securities that combined with universal wilsonianism and disastrous financial management would empower these fanatics to overturn and reinvent the same old struggles. For example, the issue of British interest in south America to which you were previously unaware was not just a market for British goods but of importation of agricultural and other raw materials that fueled the economy in return (not Africa)British capital would fuel development specifically infrastructure still in use today. The American strategy was to take away these securities and make Britain dependant on their far inferior and cheaper agricultural goods essentially as a bargaining chip or more specifically a direct threat to starve the population like they did post war 1945 with rationing leading to Israel other decolonization efforts.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

​@@weeewoooooooo "A responsible global power not just concerned with their own interests but also that of the concerned belligerent in order to restore a balance of interests, the crux of British success more sloppily identified as a balancing of powers which is enshrined in the making of England." British foreign policy was not directed towards some kind of Platonic ideal of 'the balance of power' - it was directed as avoiding the military and economic preponderance of any one state in Europe, for reasons that are, I would suggest too obvious to list. Britain was perfectly happy to partition most of the Ottoman Empire with France (and originally Russia), without any US involvement when it no longer served its interests as a buffer against Russian encroachment into its imperial domains, or at least when this risk became secondary against Germany's threat. Unfortunately Britain's interests in preventing European domination meant that it sought financial and military aid from the US, who, as any other state would (as Germany had it won the war certainly would have, as one sees in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), used the circumstances to their own advantage. International Relations is a tragedy of undesriable choices not a morality tale. Although you seem to be conflating 1918 and 1945 - the US had no means nor the will to pressure decolonisation in 1918 when the British Empire was still in fairly hale health.

[@weeewoooooooo]

@@forthrightgambitia1032 your first point I agree with however I don't get how you reached platonic ideals from my already describing it as 'sloppily identified' , England wasn't forged and it's parliamentary system (republic with hereditary head of state) by morals alone but from the regression of continental empire and most importantly the expansion and use of Parliament by strong monarchs for taxation and legitimacy i.e Edward I and Henry viii. The ottoman empire never lost its use as a buffer for European aggression, the Suez and Cyprus only further British interests in the area that not being platonic but of maritime defence. 'most' of the ottoman empire wasn't auctioned off not even close, the European approach was one of urgent reform in the face of Russian re encroachment, European powers recognized the danger of isolation and necessity of a balancing act required for securing the Balkans, securing the Dardanelles, not isolating Russia, and ensuring the ottoman state survived. A diplomatic approach where all were treated as equals with each interest respected neither party hand over fist. I didn't get the dates confused you still seemed to insist on the USA being in a dormant state, Wilson's 14 points weren't original but set up on already campaigned calls for further international laws restricting British maritime influence that primarily being of blockade and free trade. Britain's wealth wasn't gained from extracting resources from it's colonies but from the shared power of London which provided credit and the navy which secured trade hubs. America's hand over fist bargaining destroyed Britain as a creditor nation and that with it the modern world it created, whilst it's push for international treatises that in no way compromised with Canada, Japan, UK on naval limits left the commonwealth effectively modernism, unprotected. America's bargaining stance was entirely irresponsible to the leadership position it had so long felt entitled to and mocks the title leader of the free world against 300yrs of British ascendance.

[@isaaclemmen6500]

Great video. Its hard not to see the ominous shadow of Bretton Woods in almost everything that happens as the American Financial system started to contrict around the British Empire.

[@garrettallen7427]

Ominous? I suppose an old empire would feel that way about Breton Woods…

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

Sometimes this is presented as entirely a story of British defeats but... the creation of the Eurodollar market and later Petrodollar market* and then later taking advantage of the conditions in which Bretton Wood collapsed in 1971 suggested that Britain still had some aces up her sleeve. * The two were intertwined, and Britain took advantage of its long standing formal and informal imperial connections to the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in terms of oil and defence to benefit from these shifts.

[@MattCellaneous]

It didn't have to be that way. If Britain would have kept its free trade of the late 19th century throughout the empire for the US there would have been no need. Kind of like right now. Britain wants a great trade deal with the us but doesn't want to give what it takes to get it.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@@MattCellaneous Free trade was unstatainable in the post-war period, for various reasons, but primarily because Sterling lost its status as the reserve currency. (The dollar took until after WW2 to achieve the same, some of the financial instability of post-war period is due to the lack of a clear reserve currency.) Under these circumstances a British investment in say, Chile, no longer had a premium associated with the fact that people wanted Sterling to transact other international contracts. This meant mostly in this era open free trade for industrialists gave them a competative advantage against foreign firms, and was part of why Britain remained the workshop of the world (even though it was not great for its agricultural sector). Given that there was far less benefit to British businesses of free trade as the investments outside the Empire after WW1, the basical calculus of the Victorian period had evaporated and with it support for free trade.

[@MattCellaneous]

@@forthrightgambitia1032 what is the argument for connecting a reserve currency to the success of a free market economy? I don't quite understand why it takes one for the other to be beneficial. The trading value of your currency is certainly pertinent but there are many nations with strong currencies that aren't the reserve currency. Your really implying that a free market economy is only ever beneficial to a hegemon. And I don't know that that's true.

[@josephb7594]

Another fantastic upload! Quickly becoming one of my favourite channels.

[@jackoofman2560]

One of my favorite KZbin channels ever. Keep up the great work!

[@charliestoops8815]

As an American, I always appreciate any unfavorable portrayals of Woodrow Wilson. A self-righteous racist at home and an idealistic fool overseas.

[@lovablesnowman]

The extent to which some Americans hate Wilson is always amusing to me

[@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@lovablesnowman Wilson was an awful individual and a terrible president.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Average progressive

[@mharley3791]

His idealism/ideas would go on to be the basis of creating the UN and alliances to prevent future World Wars, which has largely been effective. Great powers have not fought each other since 1945

[@FelipeJaquez]

Still better than most WW1 Era leaders. That's not saying much.

[@nord_anon4406]

Excellent as usual

[@dylanparsons8394]

Really engaging and extremely detailed in a relatively short period of time, keep it up!

[@Anthony-jo7up]

Phenomenal video. Thank you!

[@NGBRADLEY1991]

Really enjoyed this, would like to see another part covering 1922-1945 and then a final 1945 to 56 (Suez Crisis, the end more or less of Britain being a major power along with the US and Soviets)

[@mikefay5698]

I had little idea about Suez except my Dad saying King Farouk was not much use but at least he didn't cause such a fuss!

[@chemicalman53]

An excellent video. Perhaps the only critique I could offer would be the lack of any kind of summary or outro for this series. I understand ~1922 being the endpoint of knowledge you feel comfortable sharing. But even just 90 seconds summarizing how at the start there literally was conflict between Britain and United States and yet by the end both had shared interests and therefore allied and these shared interests continue today would have been nice. If you ever do wish to go past 1922 do let me know. The Washington Naval Treaty in itself shows Britain as the hub in which all the other nations connected with.

[@OldBritannia]

I probably didn’t make clear that the series will continue until roughly the Suez Crisis. So that’s the reason this part ends rather abruptly.

[@noobii4208]

Please keep making vidoes. Great Work bro!

[@spcxplrr]

i seem to keep finding that theres always more to learn about the world wars.

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Great video as usual!

[@Smog104]

Excellent videos

[@granddukethedan7029]

I love the maps you make. Could I ask what program do you use to make them?

[@OldBritannia]

Just Photoshop. Learnt using Dr Ludwig’s tutorial here on KZbin and then picked a map style based on example I looked at online.

[@georgelonghurst2672]

Thank you so much for this !! Really love these videos

[@gianlucasimi5133]

Cam you do the relationship during ww2 and the cold war next?

[@JoanieAdamms]

Oh glory be with us tonight, thank you dearly sir for providing us with such stimulating content. May there be more and more.

[@ilFrancotti]

Brilliant video. The breakdown of the financial and diplomatic consequences of World War One's victory was remarkable. The conclusion makes me think of the old relationship-rivalry between the Hellenic City States of Athens and Sparta in Ancient Greece. As the saying goes "if Athens cries Sparta doesn't laugh" in this case it was the other way around: if Sparta (Germany) cries Athens (Great Britain) doesn't laugh.

[@Ezra3x3]

Mate you gotta tell me how you make these great videos! Your maps are greatly made. Would love to see a tutorial.

[@whitesocks0299]

I would love to see that as well tbh!

[@OldBritannia]

Haha, honestly I wish I could claim my editing process was more fancy than it really is. Once you’ve learned how to use the scale feature in Premier Pro and a wipe effect you’re more or less there. My map tutorial would pretty much be a carbon copy of Dr Ludwig’s on KZbin since that’s where I learned. But for the map style I use specifically ill look at making one at some point. Thank you very much.

[@whitesocks0299]

@@OldBritannia I'll wait till that video is out. Thank you!

[@aaronkelley8909]

Another top notch history discussion. Thank you.

[@historatorpolitics7661]

Are you going to make another series on the rise and fall of an empire, similar to the ones you made about the British and German Empires.

[@OldBritannia]

At some point yes, I’ll do similar for Austria Russia and France. Honestly though I’ll need to work through them thoroughly. The two series you mention are by far the worst on the channel currently imo, as they play like a basic Wikipedia article come to life. Not saying I want to get esoteric with future projects but I want them to go much more in depth.

[@StoicHistorian]

Awesome video, great series

[@jeg5gom]

As a US citizen, I’m simultaneously proud of America’s “general” historical leadership, and yet sometimes frustrated with the apparently everpresent assumption that WWI was militarily decided by USA’s last minute intervention. Yes, it was an important and timely morale boost, which helped with some weighty battles (though minor when compared to the enormity of Verdun and the Somme). However, here clearly explained is the true magnitude of America’s main contribution, one of behind the scenes financial intervention which, while completely self interested (nations have interests, not friends), was truly the imperative item (outside of manpower, with the greatest admiration and respect) as far as propping up the Entente’s ability to continue waging war throughout. Wilson’s diplomatic efforts always strike as piously arrogant and self-promoting, not to mention almost laughable (Clemenceau’s 10 vs. 14 comment is classic). Great video, wow. Thank you. Newest subscriber

[@micahistory]

very interesting, I never really heard much of this time period

[@Ghost-df4og]

Another great video.

[@johnwright9372]

An excellent piece. Pope's Epistle to Lord Bathurst "On the Use of Riches" is a brilliant exposition on how "credit, blest credit, last and best supply!..." determines the fate of nations. It overthrows Kings and Queens and "wafts Senates to a distant shore." History is full of 'what ifs'. In hindsight Britain should never have become embroiled in a major European Continental war which was the death knell for its Empire and financial strength. The Royal Navy had argued that Britain should occupy and fortify Antwerp to threaten the German right flank which would probably have stopped their advance into Belgium and France, but it was not acted on and the rest, as they say, is history.

[@sandstorm9305]

Where do you get these portraits sir they are quite good

[@jackbharucha1475]

Interesting. Most people tend to think we were overly biased in favor of the allies, especially the UK.

[@tankdstr58yr50]

yeah seems we didn’t like either although the Germans we liked much less than the uk

[@lovablesnowman]

@@tankdstr58yr50 Germans were sinking American ships tbf. Which hardly helped

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

My impression is that there is a revisionist school in the US that blames a combination of high finance and the British government for tricking the US out of neutrality. As I see it, whilst there is a degree of truth in this judgement, it is a gross oversimplification of quite a complex diplomatic, financial and military nexus of interests and relations between the two nations that can't be reduced to simplistic monocausal explanations.

[@jackbharucha1475]

@@forthrightgambitia1032 true. Though I would add that this has been a theory for a long time. Literally since the war happened. It is one of the reason we were so suspicious of the Brits in WW2

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@@jackbharucha1475 It is also worth adding that whilst British intelligence - Room 40 and all that - gave the Zimmerman telegram a helpful push, it was German high command's own harebrained scheme that made that diplomatic coup possible in the first place.

[@fil1375]

Do you think it would be possible to cover all europeans war economies? For example, there was a huge difference between Britain and Germany's approach to the war effort(as you mentioned).I already read something about the topic, but it's really hard to get a full view about it, thanks.

[@OldBritannia]

If I ever do a series on WW1 it would definitely be included. I’m sure I’ll get round to it at some point as German war financing is also a very interesting topic.

[@mikefay5698]

My Grannie lived through the Boer War and the first and second World wars. I asked her as a boy which was best she said,"WW2 was much fairer than WW1 too much black-market in WW1. She cried about the Boer War strangely as she danced with the troops who felt awfull about burning down Boer farms. My Mother ate chips cooked in whale oil. "What did they taste like Mam" I asked? "Awfull she said"! Mind you Margarine in the 40's and 50's were from whale oil. Not Storks!

[@KevinJonasx11]

i usually just leave a comment to say cool video, but this one was extremely interesting, never heard the financial aspect of the first world war. cool video

[@Pax.Britannica]

I look forward to a part 5 & 6 😅

[@Emel_unlegit]

I love your chanal, everytime you upload I feel like Christmas comes early

[@fuzzley911]

Finally thank you!

[@rossmackenzie7158]

Please read “plotting for peace” by Daniel Larson , extremely interesting read looking at the diplomacy between US and Britain between 1914-1917

[@OldBritannia]

Ah I’ve been recommended it before. Will definitely have to give it a look.

[@johnpijano4786]

Amazing video again.

[@ambi3nttech]

"Let us build a navy bigger than hers, and do as we please" Badass

[@jlizamavera]

Really interesting. Thanks for share it

[@cheesemarine]

Only an Anglo can destroy another Anglo... ☹️

[@britannicgeneral7460]

Similar minds think alike...

[@frank-ko6de]

We're not Anglo, that's insulting. Please stop. Thank you.

[@frank-ko6de]

@@britannicgeneral7460 We've never been similar, we were picked on as a new nation which forced us to be prudent and inventive, while the great European powers carried on with their belligerence and arrogance. If we were alike, the current world affairs wouldn't be what it is today.👍👍👍😊😊😊😊

[@cheesemarine]

@@frank-ko6de massive cope buddy... massive cope. Vast majority of US citizens can trace their lineage to the peoples of the British Isles and many if your institutions as well as legal system is a derivative of our own.

[@frank-ko6de]

@@cheesemarine In case you forgot, our leaders came from all over Europe. Germans, Dutch and Ireland. It was an American of German descent, that was the Supreme Allied commander and it's an Irish American that's the president now. Furthermore, names like Van Buren or Roosevelt were never British. But, keep holding onto your deluded fantasy, they left you guys for a reason.👍👍👍👍

[@bones6448]

Great video!

[@johnd2058]

It is worth mentioning that the USA's own Atlantic Wall-like line of coastal fortifications on the east coast finally stopped construction after 1922. Only then were we assured that the pyromaniacal disasters of 1814 could not be repeated.

[@ImperialSublimeEmpire]

Wait, is this the finale of the series, because if so then I would be extremely sad, it has been a very good series! Also this video came out just time for me to use it as a resource for my WW1 presentation I need to do my Honors US History II class so thanks!

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you very much. Good luck with your presentation. No, although anything beyond 1914 is generally outside my area of ‘expertise’, this series would be incomplete if it didn’t go to Breton Woods and Suez I think.

[@ImperialSublimeEmpire]

@@OldBritannia Oh ok that’s cool. And thanks for the good luck!

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@OldBritannia nice!

[@joshualovelace3375]

13:24 is this the same Balfour as the famous Balfour Declaration?

[@sebastienhardinger4149]

This is a fantastic channel, covers stuff that is not at all recognized in popular history. Only person on youtube covering this stuff

[@cdmon3221]

Excellent video. Although I'm critical of our relationship with America and I'm familiar with 20th century Anglo-American relations, this video had many details that I was unaware of. The Atlanticist view of history really does obscure a lot of things.

[@wiseandstrong3386]

Why are you critical?

[@mharley3791]

Curious, what about the relationship do you not like?

[@cdmon3221]

@@mharley3791 Many things. But mainly Americanisation and the fact Britain is now an American puppet state.

[@mharley3791]

@@cdmon3221 The puppet state is interesting. I think one of the cons of Brexit is that the UK no longer has Europe to act as a counter balance to the US. The Americanization is real strange also. A lot of the political/cultural issues seems to get imported to the UK. I was reading an article about the need to protect the “indigenous” people in the UK and be “anti-racist” and it was straight off an American campus 😂

[@jasondemagio4449]

@@mharley3791 not sure how staying in the EU was gonna reduce or prevent that.

[@ddewcifer]

Very interesting stuff, as an American there's a lot of information here I didn't know. Thanks for sharing!

[@danallen3947]

surprise surprise

[@philliprandle9075]

Great video

[@johnnyhaigs243]

This is basically several chapters of Adam Tooze's The Deluge in video form, right? Excellent series!

[@OldBritannia]

Indeed. Though mixed in with a lot from Hayes, Herring and Charmley as I say at the end. But yes Tooze is my favourite analysis on this period so I relied on him heavily.

[@Dan-xt7sv]

Been looking forward to this. Also first

[@infinitycookiesh6070]

Old Britannia wich program do you use to make your maps? They look good

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you. Just photoshop. I learned using Dr Ludwig’s tutorial here on YT, and then found a style I liked by just viewing other maps online.

[@rafanadir6958]

Can you make a video about the history of the financing specifically for the Russian empire? Particularly before 1917. I found this subject incredibly interesting, but I can barely find any information about this period and events.

[@OldBritannia]

I’m going to cover Russia in a build up to WW1 series, which will look at the economic problems the empire had.

[@yingyang1008]

Wall Street

[@thomasfuller5932]

A small error: Lusitania sank in May 1915, not April

[@ChinDulles]

As an American I took pride in the way you said your last sentence!

[@kommandantgalileo]

Wilson is the bane of human existance

[@vihaankaushal7452]

Brilliant video! Explained the geopolitical climate of that Era well. Must ask tho did any other countries see a future Anglo-American relations as a threat and considered forming their own alliances? Or was no one really concerned america due to it being a continent away. I hope this question makes some sense.

[@vihaankaushal7452]

Basically a counter balance against the English dominated world

[@OldBritannia]

Not an alliance to counterbalance Anglo-American friendship as I understand it, probably because Britain and America had too many conflicting interests themselves to turn on others. There was resentment from other powers like the French (probably fairly) in the inter-war era. They for example felt they’d been pushed into limiting their war aims against Germany (detaching Rhineland permanently for example) on the basis Britain and the US would guarantee France’s security, which was immediately dropped by both powers instead after Versailles was signed.

[@vihaankaushal7452]

​@@OldBritannia It does make sense and I guess the French also have a fair reason to resent them. Britain and the United States only wanted to benefit themselves more or less from Versailles even if France had contributed the highest number of forces of the 3 to defeating Germany in Europe (well because they were the ones being invaded lol). Thank you for explaining and you really deserve more subs. Would be an interesting scenario to see a coalition against Britain and America in an alt-history👍

[@marinanguish9928]

This video managed to lower my opinion of Woodrow Wilson, which I didn't think was possible.

[@tylerclayton6081]

Those couple million US soldiers definitely helped win WW1 on the battlefield as well. More than just a morale boost, millions of fresh troops fighting on the front for nearly a year is going to make a huge difference. Before America entered the western front had been a stalemate for years

[@webcelt]

I'll go further, and say 100,000 dead soldiers in mostly the last months of the war shows they took on a lot of fighting. We'll never know for sure if France and Britain could have won with just US financing and no soldiers, but my guess is without the soldiers, the Germans would have won. The Germans sure thought their last offensive was going to win the war. The they thought the inexperienced Americans wouldn't present much resistance, and they were very wrong.

[@OldBritannia]

Oh for certain the Hundred Days wouldn’t have been possible without American troops. In fact I’d probably wager the Germans would have taken Amiens and won the war without the AEF. But the main burden of the Hundred Days was carried by Britain and France, one just has to look at the number of guns and prisoners taken by each army. That’s certainly not to downplay America’s role, and the AEF would have undoubtedly carried the burden in 1919 had the war continued.

[@martinidry6300]

The US only fought in appreciable strength from June 1918. The war ended in early 1918. Pershing wasn't willing to parcel out the AEF as & when it became available - for solid POLITICAL not MILITARY reasons. The impact of the AEF on the actual combat zones was over a 4.5 month period. WW1 lasted 4 years 4 months. Americans are terrible chest beaters. It's a defining national characteristic. You people are still doing it. You & your Quisling allies in NATO (I.e. the treasonous governments of the EU) have started the war in Ukraine. America is fundamentally hated in Europe. You erode everything because you are civilisationally bankrupt. Look at your own country. Get out of Europe. You're killing it.

[@webcelt]

@@martinidry6300 Oh great, even here there are Russian trolls. I suppose that's how you get out of going to the front.

[@thisisjayschannel]

I am loving this channel @Old Britannia and it's refreshing to hear a northern accent do these documentaries as well ! are you interested in covering the second world war ?

[@OldBritannia]

Probably at some point. Id like to do something on appeasement certainly. The war itself isn’t my area or interest, so I doubt I’d be able to add much value to a topic that’s already well covered on KZbin. So perhaps I guess is the answer. Thank you for watching, very glad you’re enjoying the channel.

[@LawOfNonContradiction]

Please do more videos detailing Anglo-American relations!

[@jadentyrell5773]

does anyone have a sound for king George apparently weeping???

[@erichluepke855]

First time I've heard an authentically British perspective on the conflict. I was aware of the entente dependence on American finance but I didn't know how the US had the entente under their thumb well before their direct involvement. Also the idea that the US army really didn't materially change the conflict runs against the narrative we Americans tell ourselves

[@erichluepke855]

We have war memorials for the fallen, our own war heroes, and yet we didn't know the half of it.

[@powerthirst1478]

The existence of a fresh and large US Army was enough to end the war

[@FelipeJaquez]

All the weapons, food, and material we sent sure as hell funded their armies though.

[@pax6833]

The AEF did materially affect the war, but its effects are usually egotistically overstated (in America) or comically understated (in Britain/France). The true answer is more complicated. The existance of the AEF decisively eroded morale among the German army and likely contributed to the mass surrenders in late 1918. Additionally, though the AEF was not very combat active, its presence in the line was as large as the BEF before the Hundred Days Offensive, which freed up large reserves of British/French troops who did actually attack the Germans. Militarily it's unlikely that the Entente would have been able to break the German Army so decisively in 1918 without the presence of the AEF. But the AEF did not itself win the war. It merely tipped the balance.

[@frank-ko6de]

Yeah, that sounds very absurd. Why the need for American troops if they were going to win anyway? Just sounds like another contrived European narrative.👍👍👍😣😣😣😣

[@EduardQualls]

A thorough and well-expressed presentation of aspects of Anglo-American history and relations that we do not often consider. The cool, cautious voice of economic reality is too often overwhelmed by the roar of jingoistic hoorahs and ethnocentric machismo-just look at Russia, now.

[@Infernal460]

@Old Britannia You are wrong, the storage of any quantity of ammunition was justification for the sinking of the Lusitania.

[@maxn.7234]

There was more than just a small amount of ammunition. The Lusitainia was in fact armed and sent on a course that almost guaranteed it would be attacked by Uboats in order to create a pretext to draw the US into WW1. The Germans stupidly complied. I don't remember the name of the book, but the author came to this conclusion after examining secret documents which became available in 2016.

[@ziggytheassassin5835]

The prussians were an army with a state while the americans are a bank with a state.

[@britannicgeneral7460]

And Britain a navy with a state and France a circus with a state...

[@Alex-bc1hx]

@@britannicgeneral7460 Can you tell us why France is a circus?

[@Zogerpogger]

There must be an unspoken rule among those who discuss history to call something "The Other Great Game" whenever possible. I swear there's a course at my University with that title and I've seen papers named that as well.

[@Zogerpogger]

Having watched the video I now realize this is part of a larger series, which I intend to watch! I'm pleased to have discovered this channel. My only quibble is that no sources are mentioned.

[@OldBritannia]

@@Zogerpogger Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. Sources are at the end of the video.

[@samadams2203]

I knew Wilson wanted peace, but I had no idea how hard he tried and perhaps, how close he got, to ending WWI diplomatically. A shame it did not come to pass.

[@Joshua-dt5vi]

Will there be a part 4? 1922-1945?

[@uingaeoc3905]

The more I learn of Wilson's attitudes and policies the more of a pratt I realise he was.

[@frank-ko6de]

He was also a staunch racist and a member of the kkk. Typical European American for you.

[@TonyJay-qt8oe]

Watching from the good ole USA 🇺🇸 and just wanted to say to the 🌎 your welcome, for the peace and stability in your country's, paid for with America's treasure, blood, sweat & tears...

[@shaneboardwell1060]

“He (Bonar Law) had been reduced to complaining anonymously in the times” lol that is rough!

[@shermanross]

Wasn't the Lusitania sunk in May 1915?

[@OldBritannia]

Urgh, and there i was thinking i might have actually released a video without making a stupid error. Apologies, thank you for the correction.

[@santiagosilva2528]

Hello sorry to bother you, but I am curious about how you are able to make such a clean looking map. I have experimented with layers but I am unsure on how to make a map with borders as crisp and well defined as yours.

[@jordangames2560]

Apparently just photoshop with a map design based on something from the internet and taught by dr ludwig

[@peterfrank5901]

At 5:15 you state that President Wilson pushes the fed to announce investment in UK and France was no longer desirable. Do you have a source for this?

[@OldBritannia]

Tooze - do you need an exact page number? No problem if you do, I'd just have to check my notes, which I don't have to hand right now

[@peterfrank5901]

@@OldBritannia Deluge?

[@OldBritannia]

@@peterfrank5901 Indeed.

[@The_Deztro]

It is really interesting to think about how the war would have ended if the US hadn't got involved. also good video 👍

[@JPJ432]

It would have been much better. 10s of Millions would not have died of Famine. More 10s of millions more saved from not being in WW2. England would have collapsed as an Empire instead of ruling everything today meaning more freedom, sovereignty, and better economy. You name it, it would be a much better world today if we never joined and left ourselves out of European problems completely and they with us. We should all be the ones who help ourselves from the problems we create.

[@ethankirsch9786]

A German victory through American non-intervention would’ve probably been immediately worse. Germany was incredibly starved, and planned to essentially loot conquered Europe, which makes the harsh negotiations of this video look gentle. Meanwhile, the line between German defeat and our WW2 is very nonpredetermined, and to keep it short, the fall of Weimar, the rise of Nazism, the outbreak of WW2, and the Final Solution and Ostplan were all narrow coincidences or improvisations which upon study truly make me wonder if God hates our timeline. The Entente “peace” we received was fraught, but its collapse under crisis was a close affair.

[@tylerclayton6081]

@@JPJ432😂 US has global hegemony today because it got involved in world wars and global affairs. An isolationist country cannot be a true globalist superpower. And both WW1 and WW2 made the American economy boom like crazy. Being a superpower with many allies and troops in dozens of countries around the world benefits each and every American and it benefits our economy. You complaining about America being a globalist superpower is like a Roman citizen mad about how large and prosperous their empire was becoming during the Reign of Emperor Augustus. It makes no sense. Most people would love for their country to be the most prosperous, wealthy and powerful superpower in human history

[@Thunderation13]

@@ethankirsch9786 The Germans gaining a favorable peace based on occupied territory could possibly have been overturned by American arbitration of the peace, at least prior to the separate peace with Russia. If the threat of American intervention could be used to force both sides to accept a white peace, effectively making the staggering costs of the war completely meaningless for everyone, it would have sent a strong message about the pointlessness of war. That said, gambling on both sides throwing away enough lives to stem German expansionism and French revanchism without either achieving a truly dominant position is not exactly a reliable strategy, and certainly a cold-hearted one.

[@thedewberry_6399]

@@JPJ432 What an insanely dumb take. As if you actually believe a world dominated by the German Empire would have been a better world, a totally militaristic society, obsessed with German identity that would have ultimately been much worse for the world.

[@thattimestampguy]

0:00 American Neutrality. 0:33 Royal Navy Blockade of Germany. 1:00 German Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. 2:07 Woodrow Wilson Expands The US Navy. 3:40 July 1916. 2 Billion Invested by The US into Britain to Win WWI. 4:32 David Lloyd George. 5:12 Wall Street Plunged. 6:21 Britain's war effort depended upon US Investment. 6:53 "Peace Without Victory" 7:51 8:11 8:33 Zimmerman Telegram 8:49 April 6th, 1917 US Joins WWI. 9:20 Summer 1917 10:41 European Troops forced Germany to an Armistice, done on the backs of American Financial Backing. 11:33 The 14 Points of Woodrow Wilson. 12:53 Treaty of Versaille. 14:44 1922 The Great American Power is further made known to Great Britain.

[@luisandrade2254]

Interesting video. A little biased towards Britain but still great video

[@matthewthesaladbowl6315]

not rlly but ok

[@luisandrade2254]

@@matthewthesaladbowl6315 yes rlly but okay

[@levinb1]

War, war never changes.

[@rohanmarkjay]

Growing up. I always thought given U.S. and UK always work together as a team on pretty much everything. They always had a great relationship between British and Americans. Now I've learned from your videos. There has been a lot of bad blood between the two countries and British and Americans throughout history and they did not always like each other even when they were fighting together in the trenches in WW1 and WW2 and post 1945. This would explain why there is a lot of anti-american feeling in the UK and even outright hate amongst Brits towards Americans when you come and live in UK which is not obvious at all when your overseas. You think these two countries are bosom buddies when its always been far from the case.

[@TBL2712]

I like this Video

[@thoughtfox12]

A history KZbinr who reads books!

[@JCStaling]

Hard to believe now that UK and US could ever have been rivals and not allies.

[@EarthForces]

I love this. It essentially tells it what it is. The American Vulture... I mean "eagle" essentially played "neutral" while essentially aiming to be a global hegemon. No wonder many did see Wilson as essentially despicable and rightly so.

[@jdon6484]

Wow, the US sought out to be global hegemony which Britain spent the last couple centuries doing everything it could to maintain, and while Germany escalated the war to defeat its major rivals on the continent and usurp them to achieve global hegemony, resulting in the deaths of millions!?!?? I can’t believe the US is so evil that they bankrolled the war and didn’t want to spill their own blood!!! How dare they not want to get involved in one of the most pointless conflicts in human history!!!

[@EarthForces]

@@jdon6484 who says the US have no right? Just stop pretending its a "republic" without the taint of imperialism which a good deal of hypocrites say the US is. Remembering how the Americans quash the aspiration of Philippine independence just to secure their trade with China and have to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of Filipinos with deliberate brutality? The Balaginga massacre where one of their commanders killed every man above the age of 10 years old in Samar to do a reprisal? So that American "vulture" was showing its face prior to WW1. Your statement is not actually a defense of the US. It is an indictment of its hypocrisy and how it is an empire which you kind of affirm.

[@EarthForces]

@@jdon6484 weirdly enough the ideals of its founders are admirable. Just hoping most Americans wake up though that the idea they did nothing wrong when concerning their history is kind of delusional and a more nuanced look of its good and bad sides should be open for discussion. Also WILSON IS DESPICABLE, NAIVE AND YES FOOLISHLY ENTERTAINED THE KKK AND ALLOWED THEIR INFLUENCE TO EXPAND BY HIS ENDORSEMENT.

[@jdon6484]

@@EarthForces yeah, never said America did nothing wrong or that it didn’t have colonial ambitions, but it’s ambitions were emulating European powers on a smaller scale. They brutalized the Philippines which the Spanish did for centuries and while the rest of Europe brutalized the entire continent of Africa. But you seemed to be critiquing American foreign policy during the First World War, which I don’t find particularly fair. It’s not a damning indictment for the US to try and not send young men to die to a dick swinging contest that turned into a miserable meat grinder for anyone unlikely enough to participate in it.

[@EarthForces]

@@jdon6484 concerning the Philippines, they had their revolutionary war and was also on its way to winning the conflict. Suddenly, the US offers aid to the revolutionaries only to betray them by "purchasing" the Philippines from Spain. So it is way worse than some think. In a weird way the Americans have the cases belli by 1915 and Roosevelt was actually right in his insights about early intervention. The ideal of that naive man that is Wilson about taking involvement so late and had the disproportionate say by the end of it made matters worse as well. The thing is, the Americans at the time were given a golden opportunity by 1915 to shorten the war by stop playing "neutral". It would be difficult to convince yes, still Roosevelt's arguments was on point and his vision about US relation's with European nations and particularly with the UK was more pragmatic and way more workable than that of Wilson. Hindsight is 20-20. The Americans were not keenly aware of the extent of German ambitions at that time and it was only so apparent to them after the Russian Empire collapsed with the German Empire taking huge swathes of land and then the Zimmerman telegram was a stronger cases belli for the US than the sinking of Lusitania.

[@tancreddehauteville764]

British foreign policy in the late 19th/early 20th centuries was based on the supremacy and unity of the English-speaking countries, and that included the USA, a nation that was made up of several ethnic elements, not just English or even British. The question I always ask is why Britain was so opposed to Germany as a great power but was ready to acquiesce in American expansionism in the Americas and the Pacific. Was it simply because it was powerless to oppose it? Or were bonds of culture and language so overriding? I had always considered America to be a much greater threat to the British Empire than Germany in the years leading up to WW1.

[@ekulzonum]

Now that's a question I'd like answered

[@Sceptonic]

Both, but mostly the first.

[@alexanderfurrows7946]

I would think that there are dozens of factors at play with one factor being most important. That factor would be the framing of geopolitical power. Europe had a much higher % of the world population in the 1800s-early 1900s, and was by far and away the most wealthy region of the world. It most also be noted that Britain’s foreign policy had for centuries been to maintain European balance of power. Germany dominating Central Europe and having the allies it did was a huge displacement of European Balance of Power and thus Germany was a clear, visible and immediate threat, and it Germany’s decision to get into the colonial game and compete with Britain and France as well as build a fleet to rival the Royal Navy meant that Germany was directly challenging Britain’s hegemony. Meanwhile the USA was across the sea, taking somewhat mediocre colonies off of Spain and not building much of a fleet (and the one time they built a fleet they didn’t keep on building bigger and let the ships retire). Yes US industry was growing to rival and in many sectors outpace the UK, but Britain was particularly worried about that because America had only limited power projection outside of the America’s (and even within the America’s Britain dominated the economy of Argentina and had influence in Chile and Brazil). America wasn’t seen as being as much of a threat as Germany because Germany was projecting its power across Europe, Africa and Asia - America meanwhile was projecting power across the Americas and making small inroads into Asia’s; a fa remote limited place in the sun, and one which conflicted with Britain far less.

[@garrettallen7427]

The reason why Britain fears Germany more then America is that America is very far away, but Germany is VERY NEAR!

[@lovablesnowman]

We live in a US dominated world right now. It's fine. They protect the free world (with the help of Europe) and leave us alone domestically. The Americans were taught well (Guess who they got all their ideas from)

[@fshoaps]

6:00 - and Wilson was right. He should've stayed the course with neutrality.

[@SomeInfamousGuy]

His biggest mistake was in the peace treaty, about which he would have tried to intervene in had he joined the war or not. The Entente needed to completely dismantle Germany to prevent further militarism and warmongering which the treaty of Versailles failed to do. It's a sign of naivete when people claim the harshness of the treaty of Versailles led to German expansionism and WW2. The problem was the treaty wasn't harsh enough.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

In 1914, Wilhelm II the Superimperialist set out to bring the British Empire to its knees and rule the world. Of course, everybody knows this was the focus of his entire existence...his sole purpose in life. Evidence? The famous "September Program" as his crowning achievement in finally getting on with "bringing the British Empire to its knees" which Wilhelm II the Superimperialist suitably commented on and concluded with a speech on the 3rd September ending thus : *“This time we shall know how to make full use of victory...”* The crowning achievement of his entire existence and rule of course, as everybody knows, was to finally "bring the British Empire to its knees". Everybody knows Wilhelm II obsessed and fused about the powerful British Empire from the minute he woke up every morning, until the time he fell asleep every night. Only... *...the speech...* ...was not by Wilhelm II, and the date was not 1914. "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... *“We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. “This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.” This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1).* The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports." (page 115/116) "By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. *At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally."* (Page 117) "Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." ("Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." -- Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003) In case that seems a bit technical, here is the "nutshell version": Just like the bank takes your house if you don't pay up in the real world, the British Empire was run into the ground by the "best friends" USA, who stole the Empire's markets; hidden behind a whole lot of "technical jargon", thereby taking the means London had to pay its debts. A suitable micro level example would be the bank having an eye on your house, then making sure you get fired so you can't pay your debt. On the macro level the term is "debt trap diplomacy", and on the (privatized) propaganda level the means is "projection: accuse somebody else of being something which one is oneself", and that "being" has started waaaaaay earlier as a matter of own policy. A "debt trap" the Allies walked into after 1916, after they had spent all their own money, and squeezed as much out of their colonies as they could get away with, but refused to come to terms at the negotiating table: another factor usually associated with the Central Powers. After both World Wars, the crowds understandably cheered the end of the war... *Meanwhile as the crowds cheered, in the background, big daddy USA ate up the British Empire and turned it into the junior associate power.* Where are all the BBC documentaries informing the public about these postwar events?

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

Do you work for MI6?

[@jeraldsamuel5598]

I apologise for my snide comment, I should have read the entirety before commenting, however you say Britain was unable to DEVALUE the £ post WW2, so how was HAROLD WILSON able to DEVALUE the £ in the 1960's?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@jeraldsamuel5598 The USA had achieved their goal by then: driving the British Empire into the ground.

[@bolivar2153]

@@jeraldsamuel5598 Unfortunately for Ralph's argument. Imperial preference remained, and was the first of the many "exclusion" clauses contained within the GATT of 1947 (Such preferences still exist today, the EU benefits from being able to apply preferential tariffs on goods traded within the EU. Likewise with NAFTA (USMCA)), and Britain's blocked Sterling balances also remained and were cited by the French in the '60s as a major reason for their veto of Britain's membership application to the EU. The GATT was, as in so many other cases, idealism tempered by realism; A compromise in which no one got exactly what they wanted.

[@bolivar2153]

Extracts from Roosevelt's speech in it's correct context: "But now the world knows that the Nazis, the Fascists and the militarists of Japan have nothing to offer to youth-except death. On the other hand, the cause of the United Nations is the cause of youth itself. It is the hope of the new generation-and the generations that are to come-hope for a new life that can be lived in freedom, and justice, and decency." [...] "The delegates to this International Student Assembly represent the twenty-nine United Nations. They also represent, in spirit at least, the younger generation of many other nations who, though they are not now actively at war on our side, are with us heart and soul in aspiration for a secure and peaceful world. Before the first World War, very few people in any country believed that youth had the right to speak for itself as a group or to participate in councils of State. We have learned much since then. We know that wisdom does not come necessarily with years; that old men may be foolish, and young men may be wise. But in every war, it is the younger generation which bears the burden of combat and inherits all the ills that war leaves in its wake. In the economic crises that followed the false prosperity after the first World War, many young men and women suffered even more than did their elders. For they were denied the primary opportunities for education, for training, for work, or even for food enough to build up healthy bodies. As a result, they were tempted to seek some simple remedy not only for their own individual problems, but for all the problems that beset the world. Some listened to alien, siren voices which offered glib answers to all the questions. "Democracy is dead," said these voices. "Follow us, and we will teach you efficiency. We will lead you to world conquest. We will give you power over inferior races. And all that we ask you to give in return is-your freedom."" [...] "This is a development of historic importance. It means that the old term, "Western Civilization," no longer applies. World events and the common needs of all humanity are joining the culture of Asia with the culture of Europe and of the Americas to form, for the first time, a real world civilization. In the concept of the Four Freedoms, in the basic principles of the Atlantic Charter, we have set for ourselves high goals, unlimited objectives. These concepts and these principles are designed to form a world in which men, women and children can live in freedom and in equity and, above all, without fear of the horrors of war. For no soldiers or sailors, in any of our forces today, would so willingly endure the rigors of battle if they thought that in another twenty years their own sons would be fighting still another war on distant deserts or seas or in far-away jungles or skies. We have profited by our past mistakes. This time we shall know how to make full use of victory. This time the achievements of our fighting forces will not be thrown away by political cynicism and timidity and incompetence." [...] "We must maintain the offensive against evil in all its forms. We must work and we must fight to ensure that our children shall have and shall enjoy in peace their inalienable rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, freedom from fear. Only on those bold terms can this total war result in total victory." F D Roosevelt, September 3, 1942 (Broadcast to International Student Assembly)

[@Zanator1]

"special relationship" is just a comfortable code phrase for UK submission to the US, and they demonstrated this with the meagre and very self-interested trade deal they offered when the UK needed help the most. The US will never see the UK as an equal, but in Europe, you will always have a place of honor among your peers. It's not too late to make the right choice!

[@big_2361]

“special relationship” sounds like the kind of relationship you’d have with an abusive jailmate 💀

[@donquixote3927]

It should never have been a binary choice. It’s surprising how many Brexiters just wanted to halt the march to USofE. A Norway option on a second ballot would have won hands down.

[@skybananaqueen4051]

This is just sensational slander, I don’t know why euros always do that like you guys are sooooo pretentious sérieux arrêtez déjà vous avez pas honte wsh

[@Zanator1]

@@donquixote3927 They didn't want a Norway option though, because Norway adheres to EU market rules. Brexit was just built on the lie that you can have all the benefits of the EU without following any of the rules, and that was never going to work out. In the EU, the UK had a leading role and a voice. The US will not give them the same.

[@dreams1205]

The UK was right to leave the eu as it was the best option for both. The UK wants to re-seek ties abroad but will take time for the British economy to stabilise. If the UK stayed in the EU then nothing would move forward in the EU as the UK were one of the nation's that would often try to veto any proposals

[@mwi3865]

Did Roosevelt really push to join the entente or just push to join the war in general? To my mind he would have wanted to get more prestige fighting with the central powers as they were the underdogs since Britain owned 1/3 of the planet

[@cardenuovo]

In no conceivable way would we have entered the first world war on the side of the central powers. Why is this such a widespread theory among Brits? Our ethnic German communities made an incredibly concerted effort to Americanize and did away with their German identity, if it ever even lingered at all (unlike most immigrants). Do you guys not realize that the entire world (outside Western Europe) sees the US as basically an extension/continuation of the British Empire? It’s fascinating but kind of funny how some Brits are unable to see that.

[@MsPaintMr]

@@cardenuovo The only people I've heard float the idea of America joining the Central Powers have been Americans. We don't see the United States as a continuation of the British Empire because it clearly isn't true. Maybe for the world Britain seemed to disappear in the mid-20th century and be replaced by America, but we are still here.

[@cardenuovo]

@@MsPaintMr On your first point that simply just isn’t the case at all in my experience. Not only is it a rare perspective to begin with, but the few times I’ve come across it has always been by Brits, namely anti-American Brits. Joining the Central Powers would seem almost ludicrous to most modern Americans, perhaps it was different a century ago. As for the latter part about the British Empire, I don’t mean literally obviously, but rather metaphorically and geopolitically. Our ties are so close that they kind of mirror the relationship Britain had with Canada or Australia. Many people around the world go as far as to say even the US was also just another mask on the same face which was then the British Empire. Of course you and I know that’s rather far from the reality but that’s just the perception many people around the world have regarding our countries, not least because of how similar our foreign policies have evolved to become.

[@MsPaintMr]

@@cardenuovo We clearly have different experiences then

[@jandron94]

​@@cardenuovo The USA was the first colonial outpost that managed administering itself, excluding any natives involvment just like other major British colonial outposts will do much later on and in a "softer" way. The "anglos" (whatever accent they have : American, Australian, South-African, etc, whatever their European origins) are the only ones who so far could do so : keeping their conquered oversea property and not letting any power to natives, not even to "métis". But since the advent of "3rd world" countries and the "native peoples" empowerment initiated after WW1 those "Anglos" have been slowly induced to give away some of their "privileges" and open up to non european populations, give place to minorities including natives even if in a symbolic way (South Africa, Canada, Australia, NZ, USA, etc.). For instance the USA are kind of forced to show a good face as regard their history (it comes from far behind if you consider the 30s Hollywood Western movies). The French only still do have small islands around the globe, Quebec still relate to the French by language and culture but all in all that's not much land and population, mainly EEZ that is of little use. Argentina also did not let much "rights" to natives and métis in its history... One could also consider the history of Russia, China but in those cases it is more like territorial expansion even if by force (Siberia, Tibet) rather than oversea conquest and replacement of natives (or maintaining them in reserves). Things are changing : the world is becoming more global and the "3rd world" is steadily catching up... Speaking English is no longer a privilege, it has become more or less the second "technical and trading" language of half the planet.