The Other Great Game: Britain vs The United States (1922-1941)

[@kevinwilliams3694]

This casts a new light on the world wars when these British and American tensions are considered. The fall of the British world order, including trade and currency issues, seems highly relevant today. That the British world order changed to an American order while fighting on the same side is a strange turn of history.

[@AW-zk5qb]

Because the US and Britain had so many cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious similarities, the transition from British dominated world to American dominated world was as smooth as could be, even with some tensions. Usually when there is a transfer of world leadership between nations, it results in more tensions or even war

[@RoadmanRob8]

I have always had the uneasy feeling Americans relished having the power over there old masters during the world wars. It was like a power game.

[@kevinwilliams3694]

@@RoadmanRob8 "Lords of the desert " is covers the middle east, post ww2. Lots of interesting details in the book. Short version is your right about the Brits and the Americans.

[@manend2]

Like a father handing his son the keys to the castle, and voluntarily removing his crown and giving it to his son

[@RoadmanRob8]

@@manend2 Errr no. More like a son doing absolutely everything to impress his dad. Gets rich. Copys his family. Gos down the gym to get strong. But it’s all for nothing because the Dad doesn’t care and can never forgive him for hitting his mother when he was young. The Dad will always favour the other sons (Australia Canada) because they are good boys who do as there fucking told

[@OldBritannia]

I hope you enjoy the fourth part in this series on Anglo-American relations. Sorry for the long wait in getting it up. Any feedback/ corrections welcome as always. Thanks again for watching. Correction: The scale at the start is weighted the wrong way, apologies, clearly wasn’t thinking when I made it.

[@Ricky-oi3wv]

'Our true and greatest enemy', to paraphrase JE Powell.

[@LauWarmerTee]

What I really like is that you always list your sources!

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Churchill: an incompetent militarist, brilliant orator, and ultimately one who embraced correct values. Even if Britain in 1921 decided to amplify Japanese power Japan still would have turned out proto-fascist, a criminal regime. The criminality was not limited to the rulers, a faction of the rulers, or tainted segments in the military. Japanese criminality was pervasive, but Europeans only encountered it themselves in 1941, before then the Japanese cruelties were only visited on other East Asians. But they were there all along, at least in the 1930s if not already in the 1890s.

[@OldBritannia]

@@QuizmasterLaw Indeed, my joke was probably in bad taste, but the fruit was too low hanging to pass up on. Anglo-Japanese relations were fairly friendly until the 1930s anyway, and the alliance wouldn’t have prevented the 1930’s expansionism as you say.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Lend Lease hidden dividend? Ukraine, 2022. Values Matter.

[@vishackvapricorn3426]

I'm honestly surprised by the amount of views and subscriptions this channel has, looking at the quality of the content, it deserves much better. I hope more people get an opportunity to discover, learn and enjoy as much as we do.

[@ilFrancotti]

Beautiful. The diplomatic sequence between Great Britain and the United States shifting from pessimism to optimism and then finally culminating with disillusionment has been greatly reenacted. May sound weird but to me it feels almost like hearing/witnessing a dramatic play at a theatre.

[@thalmoragent9344]

Disillusionment? In what way?

[@bcvetkov8534]

It goes to show how disastrous it was for the Japanese to strike Pearl Harbor. This was a phenomenal video. I've loved the series as a whole so far. Thank you so much for taking the time to make it.

[@ihl0700677525]

IMO if the Japanese invaded South East Asia, the US would have to react regardless. So the moment US put an oil embrago on Japan, which necessitate Japanese attack on Dutch East Indes, war between Japan and the US is already *inevitable.* Let's say Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor, and somehow the US just sit idly by, watching Japan taking over South East Asia (and possibly most of India and China as well), and then allow Japan a time to recuperate and consolidate. In this case, within 10-20 years, Japan would became extremely powerful rival (even more so than Britain ever was) and a serious threat, even to continental US. There's just no way US govt would allow this. Pacific war was inevitable, and Japanese gambit on Pearl Harbor was IMO justified from military and geostrategic view.

[@richardgietzen4591]

Interesting : apon close examination of events prier to the attack on Pearl Harbor it seems that the Japanese quest for an Empire and their behavior in getting that Empire was quite similar to Western Europe / America. My only conclusion is that Western European's can act like ( assholes) but the Japanese can't.

[@shorewall]

@@richardgietzen4591 No, the Japanese are allowed to act like assholes. They are also allowed to get nuked. :D

[@Jacob-df5hr]

@@richardgietzen4591 there is no "allowed" to. Might makes right. If you can take it, so be it. If you can't, well, you're going to have a bad time. So says the ancient right of conquest.

[@kubhlaikhan2015]

American blockade and embargo of Japan, combined with their successful diplomatic-economic pressure to destroy the Anglo-Japanese detente, left the Japanese no real choice. If Britain had stood firm in the far east and concentrated on ending the pointless (to Britain) war in Europe, the world would be a very different and probably better place. Although its hard to be sure whether it was accidental or calculated, it was American pressure that forced both continents into war.

[@jakehughes6087]

Will we ever see the opium wars ever documentated by you?

[@evanbillington2585]

Bump

[@RaptorBo]

Bump

[@OrbitalAstronaut]

Bump

[@astrolonim2032]

What they said.

[@d3thkn1ghtmcgee74]

That woukd be Afghanistan lol

[@Anthony-jo7up]

The US decided to take its own national security as a global power more seriously after the First World War. This meant that it was to be both a Pacific and Atlantic power. An Anglo-Japanese alliance would be the foremost threat to this new geostrategic paradigm, necessitating the US to build a fleet as powerful as both combined. The subsequent naval arms race would make the Anglo-German one look tiny by comparison. The already financially devastated UK would not be able to keep that up. Instead, they aligned with the US, and with the two most powerful navies working together towards a common goal of free trade. An amicable relationship with the US also means that the country is more likely to support British efforts around the world, and in the case of another world war, join on Britain's side. To this end, Churchill made the right choice. The idea that Imperial Japan is a more valuable, natural, and stable long-term ally than the US is preposterous. Frankly, if they didn't align with the US and the British empire somehow remained in tact until WW2, the Japanese would probably still attack the British, except the US wouldn't get involved.

[@drdeadred851]

Well the US didnt get involved, it got attacked by Japan then declared on by Germany. If the Japanese were willing to attack the British in this alternative time line why wouldnt they like-wise attack the US as they did in ours? They never had an expectation of winning against either materially long term, it was always just a gamble that 'superior Japanese willpower' would succeed they expected the surprise attack to scare the US cause them to back out of the pacific or at least out of japans interests. Larger navies from both the British and US would knock that delusion out of their mind? Assuming they dont likewise up the size of their own fleet to keep up. Really the entire Axis grand plan was 'the otherside are sub-human and weak, one big smash and we will win'. If the US hadnt been attacked I can imagine they would join as they did in ww1, near the end after both sides had already thoroughly exhausted and indebted themselves in order to be given a prime seat at the peace table.

[@ihl0700677525]

The US would have to enter the war regardless. Should Britain (British Empire), continental Europe, the Middle East, and Western Russia (or perhaps entire Soviet Union) fallen to the Fascists (Germany & Italy), and whole Asia (China, South East Asia, and India) came under Japanese control, America would not be safe for long. Empire of Japan would acquire immense resources, more than enough to challenge US industrial might within next 10-20 years. Germany, which at that time (i.e. after the fall of France) already on par with the US, would become trully unrivalled superpower after acquiring its Russian Lebensraum and turning British Empire into its vassal state. So while British Empire was indeed dying, it could very well choose who will succeed it. The Fascists, the US, or even the Japanese. Britain had the option to just quit by handing over its Asian colonies to Japan, Middle East to Germany, African colonies to Italy, and its holdings in the Americas to the US (just like how Britain handed over bases all over the world to America with the Land Lease , followed by post-war decolonization).

[@cjp8u2]

Why would the British have enforced an oil embargo on an ally?

[@SpartanHoplite360]

For the US it was the right choice. Britain ended up with the worst possible outcome, losing its empire, wealth and Great Power status. Just have to see how the Suez crisis played out to see the “value” of having the fickle US as an ally

[@1998atlas]

The US was opposed to Japan because of its war against China. Not because it supported Britain. The idea that the Americans wouldn't react after pearl harbour is laughable. You could argue that the US wouldn't provide the UK with lend lease, but they would probably still be involved with Germany too, since it's Hitler who declared war and not the reverse.

[@One.More.Time-]

This is my second favorite series on your channel. The first one that I loved so much was the history of the British Empire. 🙂

[@vincentfegley6068]

I liked that series too. As an American I never really learned the British perspective of US-Anglo relations. I knew there was a fair amount of distrust for a while but never really got any depth about it. There isn't much nuance. Especially with the world wars.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

I would add that probably more critical than the pro-American voices in the British government, the Anglo-Japanese treaty was primarily dropped because of lobbying and pressure from Canadian politicians who feared after WW1 that Britain would not be in a position to defend them any more in such circumstances as they had in radically different ones in 1812. In other words they were worried they would be where Australia was in WW2 vis-a-vis Japan but in reverse. The most likely cause of a UK-USA war in their analysis was the looming Japanese-American clash in the Indo-Pacific, where Japan had managed to expand into in WW1 without much fighting at German and Chinese expense, that said alliance might pull Britain into. Given the circumstances after WW1 and the fact that Britain knew it may have to draw on the resources of the empire again which was becoming restless (see the Chanak crisis), imperial unamity was considered important enough here to override the treaty. I also wonder whether the treaty would have survived the 1930s turn towards extreme militarism in Japan in any case. Britain was extremely cautious towards Japan and gave the country many concessions (such as closing the movement of armaments through the Burma road to China during the Second Sino-Japanese war) to no avail before Japan attacked the Malay peninsula. Vichy France were nominally sympathetic or allied with Japan but ended up having their colonies occupied under duress by Japan and I find it unlikely that Japan would have altered their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" for an old alliance formed by what were seen as by then the corrupted liberal governments of the early 20th century or indeed that Britain, whilst fighting WW2, would have been willing to actively support a Japanese invasion of French, Dutch and American colonies in the Pacific. 11:45 a pedantic correction here: the US didn't have a separate Air Force like Britain at this stage until 1947 so at this point US air assets were primarily part of the army.

[@shorewall]

Exactly. Japan saw itself as a player at the table, but that meant that they needed to expand in Asia. If Germany wanted colonies in WW1, how much more did Japan want colonies. And since the US and UK had interests in Asia (among them free trade, Australia, and the Philippines), Japan had to step on their toes in order to get what it wanted.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

​@@shorewall Yes, and indeed British interests were highly affected by Japanese expansion, given the Japanese's use of native discontent under their cynical pro-Asianist rhetoric (see Bose in India) and the fact that the Japanese invasions shattered the psychological barrier of European superiority in the colonies.

[@voltairethegoldflame9280]

One thing a lot of people miss is that Japanese militarism was NOT inevitable, and the course of the first world war and the dismantlement of the Anglo-Japanese alliance played a major part in the establishment of an environment that allowed Totalitarian Militarism to take hold.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@@voltairethegoldflame9280 I'm not sure this is true. The First Sino-Japanese war happened before the Anglo-Japanese alliance and the expansion into German Pacific colonies and German Chinese concessions, which was an essential precondition of what later happened, occured whilst the alliance was still active.

[@reclamationify]

Was wondering if you would consider making a video about the "stately quadrille", I find that you're extremely unique in making videos about early modern diplomacy and that is one that always fascinated me.

[@fyang1429]

I saw in an interesting article recently how there were negotiations between Japan and the US in late 1941 that were about to give in to Japanese interests in trade. Yet the Chinese ambassador to the US at the time, Hu Shi (a giant in Chinese history even besides his role as a diplomat), managed to convince the US diplomats to continue the embargo on Japan, which put the final straw on Japan's entry into the war against the US.

[@SuperCatacata]

Tbf it probably wasn't hard to convince anyone that they shouldn't side with Japan after what they did in China.

[@ystudbeast3]

Good video as always. Always interesting to see how the British and US relations change over time

[@ZPheenix]

I’ve seen all of your videos, just want to say that you’re one of my favourite channels

[@Randomstuffs261]

This channel is a hidden gem, love this stuff

[@juliane__]

11:18 This puts Chamberlains appeasement into a more realistic light. It makes sense to sell off some parts of other countries if it means to buy time, when you expect no one will help you and you have to fight from a relativ weak stand.

[@DovahFett]

The issue is that they weren’t his countries to sell.

[@tzazosghost8256]

Except that Germany was in no state to fight Britain and France at the time of Munich.

[@MuscleboundKage]

@Oblivion'sLegend well apperantly it was since those countries offered no resistance when Germany walked in and took the lands.

[@toekneekerching9543]

@@MuscleboundKage They did offer resistance ,they were just ineffective and unorganised in the face of a highly prepared German force. Most equipment of the French and Czech armies were superior to the Germans but they were taken by surprise and with no overarching single strategy they were quickly defeated.

[@stevendebettencourt7651]

@@DovahFett The weren’t Germany’s to take either, but here we are with France split in 2.

[@ramal5708]

Tension between these two countries also flared up during the Trent Affair at the height of the American Civil War, which made the British send troops into Canadian border with the US, but the situation didn't escalate since both countries solved the situation diplomatically.

[@leojohn1615]

this was a great and thought provoking series thanks for making it

[@nygothuey6607]

Fantastic series. I'm a big fan of your content. Keep up the great work. I'd love to see a series like this on "The Great Game". You know, the best other one. The one in Central and South Asia. 😊

[@eklezia2829]

Great episode, well worth the wait. It's interesting how the level of suspicion between Britain and US never really decreased over the decades.

[@alansmithee8831]

Great Britain. Great Game. Great videos. I will keep mentioning the channel in comments elsewhere, as it deserves great support too, I reckon.

[@Lysimachus]

It's really good that you can switch from the political to the economic with total ease, good job mate.

[@craigkdillon]

A good look at a slice of the inter-war period. It was a complex time. Changing power relationships. Rise of Nazism and Fascism. Rise of the Soviet Union. Great Depression & The Dust Bowl. Rise of the car industry. Rise of Unions in US & Europe. Rise of the movie industry. Rise of Radio and national news networks. Rise of US as the world's creditor and bank. Rise of military and commercial aircraft Decline of the economic usefulness of colonial empires. Were they any good anymore? LIke I said, one slice of an interesting period.

[@johnwright9372]

A very good commentary, emphasizing the importance of financial power in waging war.

[@m1863m]

Great video. Please keep this series going. A look at the post-war relationship (especially US-Anglo relations during Suez crisis would be very interesting. Some US leaders such as Arleigh Burke contemplated firing upon the Anglo French fleet involved Suez.)

[@specialted1]

The irony that Churchill, the ultimate defender of the Empire, chose to sacrifice it instead of making peace with Germany

[@marcel84marcel]

"You can't negotiate with a lion while YOUR HEAD IS IN ITS MOUTH!

[@BasicLib]

“Peace with Nazi Germany” Yh bro, makes total sense.

[@jamy30]

Great informative video as always! Looking forward to any future parts :)

[@bhaskarmisra3871]

Great video! Please keep the series going. Looking forward to any future parts :)

[@LanguagePolice-us6vw]

It is very nice to say " please "

[@rokadaprliinnysystemyaczno4761]

Every film on this channel is brilliant. We'll done for such a clear sighted analysis

[@nathanlandrum8629]

Great series! Really interesting analysis with great source material used! Looking forward to Britain vs. The United States following World War II when the Empire begins to disintegrate.

[@aaronkelley8909]

Very interesting perspective. Thank you for posting!

[@danielthebot4041]

These videos are so detailed how do you not have more subs

[@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886]

The players change but the Game never Ends.

[@therearenoshortcuts9868]

dont hate the player hate the Game LOL

[@ramal5708]

Also the relationship between FDR and Churchill from 1940 until FDR's death flared up when the discussion about Empire comes forth in a conversation between these two. FDR, a staunch democratic and free world leader, while Churchill an upholder of the British Empire, that is why the Destroyer for Bases deal didn't come through much earlier than historically since Churchill was adamant that the territories the British have shouldn't be handed over to other party other than by force, both these men agreed on lots of other stuff, except Empire.

[@executivedirector7467]

Right. Churchill's empire-preservation priority continued throughout the war, which is the real root of much of the anglo-American disagreement about how to win the war.

[@Hillbilly001]

Love the content and the channel. Cheers from Tennessee

[@philliprandle9075]

Another great episode keep the great work coming.

[@Chris-ut6eq]

Strong narrative that puts a perspective on the interwar years between US & UK Empire

[@strategosopsikion8576]

As an American, this is very fascinating. We were never taught any of this in school. Period real politick is pretty much omitted from our teaching. It’s pretty sad to see how economically relentless we were towards the Brits. We systematically disassembled the empire. Kinda crazy to think about.

[@The_First_Sean]

They deserved it.

[@truthseeker327]

It was necessary they british were mercantilist in their empire did not allow Countries like USA to trade directly with countries like India and in africa. Everything had to go through London who would use their grievances against the americans. Empire is always and impediment to free trade

[@strategosopsikion8576]

@@truthseeker327 interesting

[@SharpieLEET]

man you deserve a hell of a lot more subscribers and views than you currently get, but its fine cus youll get there soon enough anyway. no way content of this quality doesnt blow up

[@occckid123]

It probably was lot up but since it's so small you can't even see it on this map lol

[@johnpaul3099]

Excellent as always my favourite KZbin channel period.

[@fweb3134]

A strange period to look back on as a Brit. A mix of obligated imperial shame but also wounded pride as America reduces us to second fiddle

[@johnflorendo5846]

quite the plot considering the history between the countries.

[@waynewagner6581]

As an American, I wish we had supported the British a little better. I know that use learning about this is never the same as those living through it. We have hindsight to know who our true friends would be.

[@The_First_Sean]

@@waynewagner6581No, the British don’t deserve our help, they’re disgusting colonialists and imo, we should’ve been more brutal, I reckon we could’ve gotten them to be a colony, officially, for now they’re our colony, unofficially.

[@The_First_Sean]

@fweb3134, you feel imperial shame? You don’t think others felt that way when you were animals, savagely raping the world, anything and anyone vulnerable you could get? WE CIVILISED YOU, YOURE A MORE TOLERABLE AND APPROPRIATE COUNTRY BECAUSE OF US, NOT AS MUCH THE POOR ANIMAL YOU WERE WITHOUT OUR INFLUENCE.

[@zuesadam7143]

​@@waynewagner6581Nah don't You gave them what they deserved Don't forget 1812 and how they treated you post 1776

[@richjg3049]

Excellent analysis of a hand over of empire from one nation to another.

[@W.M.Pitt1]

the British empire was not handed over to the us, each colony became independent, the British monarch is actually still the head of state in 15 commonwealth realms which includes Canada, Australia, Jamaica

[@The_First_Sean]

There was no handover, only a strategic overthrowing.

[@rinkadink66]

The Empire wasn't handed over, it was bought.. at a knock down price..

[@sneakone1009]

@@W.M.Pitt1Hate to break it to you, but the British crown is meaningless and just a figure head. Australia is much closer tied to the US than Britain for example. Britain is a US Vassal and has been for the last 70 years. The British Empire is dead and your nation will possible seize to exist in about 40 years due to the effects of mass migration. :)

[@W.M.Pitt1]

@@sneakone1009 Troll.

[@Jackcarr87]

You should have a lot more views and subscribers. Interesting topics, presented engagingly.

[@sparkybrit]

Excellent video. The Battle of Breton Woods is particularly revealing.

[@guccicoupons]

Fantastic series, I really learned a lot about the history of our relationship post revolutionary war. Quite enlightening

[@twillis1998]

I love this series so much! Great work!

[@CristinaMarshal]

I am Late! but few channels have such focus and erudite presentation as yours, Sir; In nuanced hues, you provide the very generous pillar all Good Education can come from.

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

Thank you for posting these, great content every time,

[@LanguagePolice-us6vw]

It is very nice to say " Thank you "

[@RRaquello]

In a long letter printed in Fortune Magazine in late 1939 but before the war actually started, the writer, whose name is not given (I believe it was a woman, though it's never stated in the letter but there are clues) was an annual visitor to England through her adult life and she states that there was a marked change in the attitudes of the English towards Americans post-Munich. She was obviously of the upper class as were those she socialized with in England. She said before Munich, they were friendly and cordial but ALWAYS condescending, as if nothing an American thought or said or did about world or international affairs could be of any importance. After Munich, it all changed and everyone wanted to know what Americans thought and would do and that there was almost a desperate pleading in their interactions. The difference was this time, unlike 1914, the British knew they could not win without the US and that their survival as an empire, or even as a civilization, was completely dependent on what the US would do. She said it was the first time she had seen the British being genuinely frightened. It was at that point that Britain became the junior partner. It's obvious that Churchill's later ascendancy to the position of PM was helped by his own American background and the belief that he'd be able to get us into the war on Britain's sid--eventually.

[@The_First_Sean]

The look of fear on an English persons face must be orgasmic to see

[@DevinDTV]

amazing content. keep it up

[@danever159]

Last part or will there be more? I love this series.

[@jeffs4483]

UK would have retained their empire had they stayed out of both world wars. America is not to blame.

[@ssssaa2]

How? they were too weak. They only had such a vast empire because of a temporary position of extreme power compared to the rest of the world. By the 20th century that was rapidly fading and there's no way that today's Britain could dream of maintaining such an empire from Great Britain. I suppose they wouldn't have lost it as rapidly as happened in our timeline, but it still would have been lost.

[@jeffs4483]

@@ssssaa2 How? It went bankrupt.

[@ilFrancotti]

If they didn't join how would they have addressed their issues with the Kaiser's high seas fleet? Not to mention they would have lost Belgium, comprising one of their main trade routes to Europe.

[@dreams1205]

​@@ilFrancotti by 1914 Anglo-German relations were already cooling and while Germany would've dominated Europe militarily and economically they would in no way close the trade routes in Europe after the war

[@ilFrancotti]

@@dreams1205 Cooling down with the Kaiser's replying to Great Britain that their treaty safeguarding Belgium's neutrality was worthless? How do you know? When Napoleon took control of most of Europe he did try just that. And even if the Kaiser decided not to, Great Britain could have been endlessly blackmailed by Germany at that point.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

I immensely enjoyed this video it greatly elaborated on history I was familiar with but not knowledgeable about. Good work. Obviously I subscribed.

[@tonyrigorous]

I should point out that if you’re going to show all of Britain's territories as a part of it, you should probably do the same for the US. Most notably Puerto Rico and Cuba, which the US won from Spain in 1898, though Cuba was released in 1902, and Puerto Rico remains part of the country to this day.

[@RRaquello]

Cuba was never actually part of the US. After the war with Spain it was, at least technically, an independent country. What we had with Cuba was probably more in the nature of a protectorate, like Britain with Egypt.

[@eddiestone12]

It might just be the next video in the series but he definitely shows Puerto Rico

[@constantinvaldor3742]

Good video very informative

[@webcelt]

The history was more complex than generally realized. The cultural ties that survived the American Revolution, and even similar growth as democracies, wasn't enough to make the "special relationship" automatic. It's easy to assume the way things went and the way things are are also the wat things had to be. I recall reading a science fiction story from the interwar wars, don't recall the title, that said the near future had a big war where Japan and Britain fought America, and that seemed weird. Maybe not so much. We forget how much alliances have normally been about interests, not beliefs or values. NATO and the EU are really quite exceptional.

[@The_First_Sean]

Nato is a colony for us, eu is a undercover colony for us as well.

[@KingoftheWelsh]

Great series, keep up the good work.

[@JasonParmenter]

I can see why Japan felt slighted that Britain chose America over them, but it also made way more sense for Britain to choose America

[@Hans_Niemand]

Looking forward to your assessment of the post-war settlements and current relationship details.

[@alexplotkin3368]

Very good episode. Great point about sunk British merchant tonnage in World War I: 7.8 million tons! A huge part of Britain's merchant fleet was sunk. Britain's debt skyrocketed in World War I and hasn't fallen since. Britain was mortally wounded in World War I. And the USA has dominated England ever since.

[@danrares-youtube]

We need an episode for the relationship post WW2! I cannot wait for Part 5 😁

[@clauvex7829]

How dramatic is the whole relationship between the United States and the British Empire in the early 20th century, it really seemed that the British government, maybe subconsciously, noticed the writing in the wall at the end of the Great War and just began the long and slow "transfer" of the informal empire to the US.

[@shorewall]

I think of it as rational actions that led to a destiny. Why did the Roman Empire fall? Because it had to. Why did the British Empire fall? Because it had to. But that destiny was the result of many small choices and events that were thought over and fought over at the time.

[@ScottJB]

Better to keep it in the family than to risk that mantle going to someone with less similar cultural values and interests. The differences between the US and UK were substantial within the Anglosphere context. Outside of that box, they were petty.

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

​@@ScottJB the original English Americans died off afetr our civil war and became a minority amongst the "white" population. Also the Anglo-Saxons were conquered by the Normans long before. There are only so few grassroots communities within the United States and it isn't lineal English Americans from the founding fathers. Why our politics are completely different and England suffers a total collapse even nations within the British isles that long to break away into their own sovereignty.

[@ScottJB]

@@Ralfi_PoELA American culture, regardless of population genetics, is derived from post-medieval/early modern English culture. Same with Anglo-Canadian culture. And Aus and NZ, with their cultural divergence happening a century later. America was the first to break off so it's had the most time for the UK and US to drift apart culturally, with NZ probably having the least time. That said, in terms of genetics, British, and particularly English ancestry is vastly underestimated in the US because it was considered default or "just American." So families tended to report the ancestry that was "different," which often was German or Irish. But genetic testing of swaths of the population tend to show much more English ancestry than generally reported.

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

@@ScottJB cool story bro. 💀 imagin not being from North America telling a North American Native about our large nation in congruence to your not even full island nation but half of an island.

[@DavideKuras]

You make me discover new politician every day, if only in school they could teach so specifically

[@ake_lindblom]

The scale in the first scene goes the wrong way ;)

[@OldBritannia]

Urgh, can’t believe I didn’t notice that. Increasingly becoming a rule of thumb on this channel that if there is a basic error to be made, I will do so. Thanks for pointing it out.

[@ropiakpawel]

I love that you post sources.

[@MrMvms]

“Britain and France needed loans for WW1 and then cried when they had to pay them back.”

[@dafeekielelliott2442]

Yep, and then they decided to start a second world war as they had clearly not learned the lessons of the first.

[@ludbwkx]

Grate video! Can you make a video about the British Empire and the Japanese Empire Relations from the Russo-japanes war to ww2?

[@texasRoofDoctor]

"...A rare outbreak of fiscal competence..." We could use some of that right about now.

[@retromanstv]

Will you ever do documentary on Cecil Rhodes and British south Africa?

[@roachdoggjr3235]

This channel fucking ROCKS dude

[@Т1000-м1и]

Interesting how these get more detailed towards the end

[@quaggaokapibara3507]

Could you please do the aims of each country in the Congress of Vienna?

[@executivedirector7467]

Terrific video series.

[@isaacbourdeau3167]

Would you ever do a video discussing the Cold War or events in that era?

[@OldBritannia]

Final video on this series will be Cold War. It’s not naturally my area of expertise, but yes there’ll definitely be a fair catalogue of videos on that era eventually.

[@isaacbourdeau3167]

@@OldBritannia I suppose it would be odd to have a series about US and British relations without discussing the Suez Crisis.

[@Daniel-zs5us]

A question: where did you get the information on the debt suspension still on-going to this day mentioned at 8:40? I made a quick Google search on it and it seems the UK's government finished paying it off in 2015, according to CNBC ("UK finally finishes paying for World War I) and BBC News ("Government to pay off WW1 debt").

[@OldBritannia]

I think you might be referring to our post WW2 loans, or debt from a different source than the US - we obviously didn’t borrow solely form them. The debt to the US remains outstanding. The article I used for most this video was Robert Self’s, cited at the end. But even just look at the Wikipedia article History of the British National Debt if you don’t want to read an article.

[@Daniel-zs5us]

@@OldBritannia Thanks for answering and clarifying so quickly! After reading a little bit slower the articles I mentioned, I discovered I assumed the debt was to the US, when in reality it seems to have been a War bond debt (as you said: "a different source"), and with the time the articles and sources had (both Self's article -2007- and in Wikipedia -2006-) I assumed this latest development wasn't accounted for. My mistake!!

[@Rumpelstyltskin]

The Special Relationship, in all its splendour.

[@starguy321]

I firstly wouldn’t describe free trade as self-flagellation. The UK was the most economically-influential nation in the world before WWI partly because of free trade. British capital stretched further than the British Empire itself. A significant amount of money borrowed by Britain was re-lent to other powers on British credit, namely France, Italy and Russia. A stop on debt repayments hit Britain as much as the US, more so even given that Britain could be paid those debts in the Dollars needed to pay debts to the USA (after the war, getting hold of Dollars was tricky in Europe as there was a negative balance of trade. This is why, like after WWII, Britain cultivated the Stirling area, it meant Britain could trade without needing Dollars. It’s one reason why the Brits are so fond of Danish bacon, as the Danes accepted payment in Sterling). Britain emerged from WWI still a creditor nation, if a bruised one. I do think it’s worth understanding this in a wider context. Britain’s obscene naval power in 1914 was, at the time, a modern phenomenon. The Two-power standard had been set by Lord Salisbury in the late 1880s. Before then, the Royal Navy was strong but wasn’t necessarily able to adhere to a two-power standard. For example, the British fleet basically started from scratch when ironclads were introduced. Similarly, the British were starting a new arms race with other powers from scratch with the dreadnought race. Britain was mobilising more resources than ever by 1914 to maintain the superiority of its navy. Even without WWI, the British desire to adhere to a two-power standard was both incredibly costly and recent. After the war, it made sense Britain would abandon this policy. After all, the only large navies left in the world were of Britain’s recent allies. Maintaining such a massive navy also became an expense Britain could ill-afford, and which seemed inappropriate. Crucially, arms races had been blamed for the war by many on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly the naval arms races. Why is all this relevant? It’s because it shows that Britain’s position after WWI was forged in living memory. British and American policy after WWI, economic and strategic, was largely to restore the world system as it was before, but better. It meant some kind of gold standard, low-balanced budgets, some kind of free (or freer) trade, and using disarmament negotiations between the great powers to create the stability needed to support this liberal world economic system. The world though, as we know, had moved on and the world of the 1900s was never returning. Both, therefore, had to talk about things such as arms limitation in this new context. Britain and the US remained the most important powers in this world, and set the tone for the attempted reconstruction of the liberal world together. Measures to reconstruct the old world, such as disarmament, were something both sides wanted, to cut spending and taxes and improve their economic outlooks, but had to try and shape for themselves. (This is one reason Britain abandoned the alliance with Japan. With no Germany to counter in the Far East, the idea of setting up alliances against the USA was unthinkable). The fatal flaw to their liberal internationalism was that both sides saw themselves as exceptional. The US as the last best hope for humankind and city on a hill, the UK as the ‘not really an empire’ that could fight German ‘imperialism’ without the slightest fear of hypocrisy, as Britain was more a commonwealth. Both saw themselves as indispensable and both were and have been for the liberal internationalist dream. I think including this is crucial in any analysis as it recognises that Britain and America’s relationship was not just a falling empire and new nation competing. Both were ideological fellow-travellers managing a new world. When the 1930s and the aftermath of the Great Depression rolled around it became clear the old world order was not coming back. In 1931, a British government fell over a benefit cut to keep Britain’s currency on gold at $4.86, the exact pre-war parity Britain chose to return to in 1925, and a National Government was formed. Within a month, Britain was off gold; Within a year, Britain was not just imposing general tariffs for the first time since the 1840s, but with widespread consensus in favour of a measure that had toppled two governments in the last 30 years. Within five years, the UK was stopping debt payments and spending massively on rearming again. The UK went back to France as an ally and began trying to use the League of Nations as a tool for diplomacy again. America meanwhile mobilised for its internal economy with the New Deal. Both countries moved on from the old world, and began coping with the new separately in the 1930s.

[@jmwilliamsart]

Very interesting indeed, I hope that you will do The Other Great Game video Post 1941, covering the war and what happened in the years afterwards.

[@eructationlyrique]

When you display different British Dominions at 4:40, it should be noted that you show Newfoundland (and Labrador) as part of Canada, but it was its own Dominion at the time

[@David-fm6go]

13:52 There is an error here. Republicans didn't control Congress in the late 30s. Democrats had a majority from 1933 - 1947. True Democrats were hammered in 1938 and FDR lost his ability to continue pursuing New Deal policies after 1939 as a result, but his party stil dominated Congress. What is true is that isolationism dominated Congress but this was not restricted by party.

[@OldBritannia]

Ah yes, fairly certain Charmley was my source for this, but my fault for not double checking. Thanks for pointing it out.

[@shacklock01]

Line in the Sand and Lords of the Desert are great books on the topic of Anglo-American and Anglo-French relations/great game rivalries in this period.

[@yingyang1008]

Britain was probably always going to lose power, but it's a shame that its bonds with its dominions were severed as part of the deal Would have been interesting to see how an alliance between Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa would have developed

[@reddeercanoe]

Lots of affection for the Brits, Kiwi and Aussies here in Canada but not South Africa.

[@buddermonger2000]

I don't think it has. And though South Africa is likely out for good, the other former dominions have strong ties both together and to the UK. In fact all of them participate with the USA on a number of intelligence and security agencies while also controlling incredible amounts of the world economy combined.

[@yingyang1008]

@@buddermonger2000 Cultural links are obviously there - but Britain was forced to drop its 'empire reference' trade model by the new US led system If you try to emigrate to Australia or Canada these days, you are essentially treated as just another foreigner while trying to do so, etc...

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

I think the British need to get real and finally get over themselves. Not even all Europeans take England seriously. Ireland, Wales, amd Scotland finally want a sovereign state. We in the United states still dont understand why yall get on your knees to tether for our military and Navy.

[@imredeeming]

@@Ralfi_PoELA American soldiers are so badly trained they get laughed at.

[@micahistory]

great video, I really enjoyed this series

[@erichluepke855]

I'd love to learn about Sino-Anglo relations in the early 20th century!

[@erichluepke855]

The way it seemed to me is that the UK wanted nothing to do with an independent, unified China for imperial reasons, and had some interest in keeping trade open between both sides during the sino-japanese war. But beyond that I have no idea.

[@BalenCM]

How do you make your maps? They're just great

[@Subtleknife12367]

Britain completely stabbed in the back. Why we turn to the US as an ally is beyond me. Having travelled to the US a fair few times the people are lovely, however we should have as little to do with the country (politically) as possible. It doesn't help British politicians have been completely hopeless for the last century and seem intent to carry on into this century too.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

If not the Americans, then who?

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

Its great seeing Britain dance to our tune while we only take Germany our battered wife only seriously across the pond into the ghettos of the European continent.

[@W.M.Pitt1]

​@@Ralfi_PoELA you keep saying Europe is full of 'ghettos' so you can cope about our higher standards of living, it's pathetic

[@seanbrummfield448]

You already left the EU, When that was decided, the US was the first country to take your side. Not even Canada or Australia stepped up first for that. lol. We're all you got. Deal with it. "When the son finally takes down his abusive dad." lol.

[@W.M.Pitt1]

@@seanbrummfield448 I think Canada and Australia just like to mind their own business

[@samstyles2370]

What's the treaty called mentioned at 12:10 ?

[@TerminatorHIX]

The Treaties of Tilsit, signed July 1807 between Napoleon, the Russian Emperor and the Prussian king.

[@samstyles2370]

@@TerminatorHIX cheers fella !

[@Kevin-cm5kc]

Thank you for making this. it's honestly so refreshing to see this part of history told with genuine accuracy. Without all the propaganda about how America selflessly lept to the aid of their 'friends' then somehow tripped and fell and accidentally became an unrivalled global hegemon.

[@AW-zk5qb]

why in the world would the US for a second time send hundreds of thousands of their men to die in a foreign war thousands of miles away, that was at least partially caused by the type of old European imperial way of doing international relations that the US was against? See this is what you get; you want the US to selflessly lose hundreds of thousands of men in wars in another continent, do all the dirty work after WW2 to keep the world as peaceful and prosperous as it can be, and then not get the glory it is due for doing it. It's called having your cake and eating it. I'd say that the US becoming the dominant power in the world was the least they could have asked for not only having hundreds of thousands of their men die in a European war twice, but also keeping the Allies afloat with Lend Lease, and then after the war saving them from abject poverty via the Marshall Plan. Not to mention that without the US, the Soviet Union would have dominated Western Europe. Without the US, the world would be dominated by Communists/Fascists/Nazis/Authoritarians

[@dardo1201]

Did you remove some videos? I swear I remember viewing videos on the British Empire and Bismarck earlier.

[@half-hazard8903]

babe wake up, new old britannia video just dropped

[@19MAD95]

The garden hose analogy is definitely an amazing one to make.

[@brigantiasmemerepository6439]

H.R. 1776, we Americans learned well the art of petiness

[@Westpark16]

Lol they sent their best and brightness to get the party started. ❤🇺🇸

[@dindu551]

Excellent work

[@yingyang1008]

What's even more tragic is that Britain could have stayed out of both wars

[@yw9113]

Eh...not really

[@yingyang1008]

@@yw9113 Fail to see how either war helped Britain or European civilization in general WWI in particular was a tragic waste of time and life and marked the beginning of the end for Britain

[@justinsutton5005]

@@yingyang1008 British policy towards Europe was the prevent the Establishment of a hegemon on the continent. Whether it was Russian, French, or German. They opposed the other side.

[@MintyLime703]

Yeah, no.

[@yingyang1008]

@@MintyLime703 You trying to justify the slaughter of WWI? You think we were fighting for some noble cause?

[@NunyaMcBusiness]

LESS GOOOO, NEW UPLOAD

[@The88Cheat]

This is an awesome series. I supposed I rather naively thought US-British relations were much more chummy than they actually were.

[@toekneekerching9543]

Of coarse the relationship wasnt good, and it still isnt. The US is run by corrupt, Britain hating IRA lovers. There is a long line of US presidents and senators who believe they are Irish for the sake of a single distant Irish ancestor (Just look at Biden) and they would happily see Britain's destruction even at the hands of the Nazis. Even in recent history US senators and congressmen openly held IRA fundraisers sending money and arms to terrorists while having the cheek to accuse Britain of causing the troubles.

[@invisibleman4827]

I'm not surprised. 1) They traded with the axis and turned a blind eye to them until Pearl Harbor 2) They screwed its allies over in Suez (even the Israelis) to try and fail to kiss up to the Middle East. 3) Gave money to the IRA as it slaughtered hundreds of people in the British Isles and Germany until 9/11 4) Screwed over the Kurds, Ukraine and NATO under America First Trumpism.

[@mariadelcarmenvaldezlozano9534]

Great content

[@RyRy2057]

fascinating to see imperial decline made so apparent. I wonder if the US will see such things this century. It's not exactly in Britain's position, its world conquest after the Cold War was far more complete than even the height of the British Empire, but it also seems less able to deal with internal problems (or maybe I'm just biased cuz I grew up in our current era...)

[@ssssaa2]

The US's power is more based on it's sheer size rather than a temporary position of superior local development like Britain's was. Maybe the US will decline somewhat if other parts of the world become more developed, but it will never be as weak as Britain is today unless it fails internally, it is simply too large in comparison to the rest of the world. Only China and India have more people for instance, and it has the most arable land and produces the most oil and natural gas of any country. Britain is a lightweight in those regards in comparison, well exceeded by many nations.

[@oliverwortley3822]

US power is already collapsing. Weakening power (not in absolute terms, but relatively in terms of its adversaries as it’s adversaries are quickly asserting themselves). The end of the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency in eminent, and the US petrodollar is going to be ended soon as well as BRICS and other countries seek to displace it. The US has unsustainable levels of deficit and debt, and the US is internally divided. A whole two generations of americans now hate their society, culture and country because of identity politics and ‘wokeness’. So yes, we will see the end of US hegemony.

[@ssssaa2]

@@oliverwortley3822 Those issues, unless the US completely fails internally and ceases to exist politically, will not result in the US becoming a 2nd rate power. It will still be the most influential nation on earth with only China seriously rivaling it in any sense. All other countries are a joke in comparison to the US if we're being honest. It's just so far ahead of even countries like The G7 nations, India, Russia and the like economically, let alone the other nations of the world. The only wildcard really is nukes.

[@jameshannagan4256]

@@oliverwortley3822 All we need is another war a real one against a semi-competent foe who is disliked by the right and left China maybe.

[@thekrimsonchin6023]

​@@oliverwortley3822Thankfully

[@Johnnycdrums]

What is your explanation for the small circled area in the western part of the USA map?

[@baneofbanes]

That’s the not a circle, that’s the Great Salt Lake in Utah.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

It should be kept in mind that no senior American political and military leaders, other than some Anglophobe admirals in the 1920s, thought that the US would go to war with the British, probably since 1900. War Plan "Red" and "Red/Orange" were used as the means to train Army and Naval officers, especially at the Industrial War College, in the full mobilization of the US against a commensurate war effort with massive resources. This was because any reasonable analysis of strategic resources of the US and Japan, showed that the US could achieve the end state of its war plan, a close blockade of Japan without a full mobilization of the US. Keep in mind that in WW2, the US committed one-third (27) of its infantry divisions and the six Marine divisions, 35% of the USAAF and 75% of its Navy to the Pacific Theater from China to Burma to the SW Pacific to the Alaska. This doesn't include that part of the industrial mobilization that went to the Chinese, British and Dutch, but that still probably did not exceed 67% of its maximum capacity.

[@alexthred2179]

Great video!