From The Wall Street Journal:
The “special relationship”: Ever since Winston Churchill coined the phrase to describe the alliance between the United States and Great Britain during World War II—an alliance that later became instrumental to founding NATO and sustaining peace during the Cold War—historians, diplomats and politicians have waxed eloquent (and sometimes indignant) about it. The alliance became increasingly asymmetrical as America’s power grew and Britain’s empire declined, and yet—even to this day—it has remained impressively, sometimes movingly, reciprocal.
Lewis Lehrman’s “Churchill, Roosevelt & Company” offers a detailed look at the special relationship, especially during World War II, when Anglo-American cooperation achieved its most impressive results and faced its most formidable challenges. The book is packed with fascinating detail and illuminates not only the past but the challenges of the present day. The subtitle is “Studies in Character and Statecraft”: Mr. Lehrman makes it clear that, in geopolitics, the two go together.
The origins of the special relationship actually go back to World War I, when the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy joined forces to beat the German U-boat menace. Although British statesmen had wanted the U.S. to join the Allied cause early in the war, they felt that, if need be, Britain could sustain itself against Germany without the help of the Americans.
By 1940, however, such strategic independence was no longer possible. When Churchill reached out to FDR that May as Nazi tanks were pouring across France, he knew that Britain couldn’t survive without American help. Even after Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941 and Stalin became Churchill’s unexpected ally, the British prime minister always knew that victory over Hitler depended on the full engagement of the United States.
Churchill found a willing partner in Franklin Roosevelt. As Mr. Lehrman reminds us, Churchill and FDR saw the world in much the same way—believing that whoever controlled the Atlantic controlled the fate of the U.S. as well as Europe—and both grasped the global stakes if Hitler prevailed. Even so, it took a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war four days later to turn America’s material support of the British under Lend-Lease into what Britain desperately needed: an all-out U.S. military commitment.
. . . .
[Wall Street lawyer William] Donovan turned out to be one of a series of envoys that FDR sent to London to manage policy. None were trained diplomats; all were men who combined high intellectual caliber and strong wills with an unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief. They included the banker Averell Harriman; the Republican politician John Gilbert Winant, who replaced defeatist Joe Kennedy at the Court of St. James’s; and FDR’s most trusted aide, Harry Hopkins. Mr. Lehrman quotes British Gen. Hastings Ismay saying that Hopkins “won the hearts of us all, from the highest to the lowest; he had seen everything. We felt sure that he would report to his chief that we were worth backing to the limit.”
Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Link may expire)
thanks Ryan Petty for remembering
churchill was no friend to millions and millions of persons in Eastern Eu. His name is not holy. He gave the millions of war torn to a known murderer of his own people prior. Millions dead prior. What did he expect with his bs of ethnic cleansing across all eu near end of war, directly after war.
and thanks Antares, for remembering.
Churchill was definitely a mixed bag. Thanks for expressing this important perspective.
thanks Ryan Petty for remembering. It is one of the most overlooked slaughters of Stalin/Churchill/Roosevelt’s unleashing. None who ordered ethnic cleansing across all of E Eu that murdered 2M, can be granted a halo.
Most people seem to have forgotten that Canada was *very* friendly with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It wasn’t beyond the bounds of possibility that Canada’s relationship with the USSR would eventually become close enough to change their status from “neutral” to “ally of the enemy.”
Things didn’t work out that way, but we made plans anyway.
Besides, planners gotta plan. There’s probably a file folder in a cabinet somewhere, marked “Grand Fenwick.”
Most people seem to have forgotten it because it was never true. Canada was a founding member of NATO and NORAD, and Canadian troops were permanently stationed in West Germany as part of the allied defence against a Red Army attack. A succession of Liberal governments shamefully neglected the upkeep of our armed services, but only the far-left NDP ever proposed quitting the alliance.
Some of our individual politicians made a show of being friendly with the U.S.S.R.: notably Pierre Trudeau, whose foreign policy was predicated upon making empty rhetorical gestures to suck up to our enemies and anger our friends. But even he could not withdraw from NATO and NORAD. His own party would not have worn it.
‘Neutral’ is a calumny and a damned lie. ‘Ally of the enemy’ is looney-tunes.
TRX, Sorry, but I have to side with Tom Simon on this. For as long as I have drawn breath, Canada has been our staunch ally. Canadians man NORAD stations. I have known Canadians who worked in American defense industries and held American security clearances. And I can tell you from personal experience that Canadian pilots are hot sticks.
When I was in law school, I knew a handful of Canadian law students. (Canadians in an American law school? Go figure.) Anyway, the Quebecois Separatists were making noises again and I asked one colleague, “Do you think Canada will go to war if Quebec separates?”
She said, “No. Nobody cares. If the Quebecois separate, it wouldn’t make a fuss.”
I said, “Oh, yeah? So the Quebecois separate and confiscate First Nation lands, which the Canadian constitution pledges that Canada will defend. What then?”
Her eyes got big, and she realized that maybe somebody did care and that separation would not be all sunshine and lollipops.
Plus the fact that during this crisis the governor-general of Manitoba said that if Quebec went, the gov’t could color Manitoba gone, too. He said most commercial traffic in Manitoba already went north-south, not east-west, and that Manitoba would secede and apply for statehood.
I remember that during the last talk of Quebec independence, the northern part of the province let it be known they would secede from Quebec if it came about. And Newfoundland-Labrador said they would expect a renegotiation of the terms for Churchill Fall energy.
There have been similar comments about the talk of California secession: the northern and eastern counties would refuse to go along and would expect to renegotiate deals for water. And, of course, California would inherit a full share of the national debt and would need to float its own currency. And pay for its own military and gear.
It is easy for cheap politicians to talk separation but once the scope of the divorce becomes clear it all becomes a lot less appealing. Renegotiating for Colorado river water alone would drive a stake through “Calexit”.
Brexit is a different case because the UK never surrendered its full sovereignty and stayed out of the Euro.
Felix, Perhaps you already know, but the northern counties did secede from California once. Happened in November 1941. Before it got rolling good and strong, the Japanese stole the headlines, and everybody just kind of forgot the incident.
I think your analysis is spot on. If LA and San Francisco leave the union and try to take the rest of California with them, the northern Counties and the San Joaquin Valley will jump the other way.
I wonder how long LA will last without water from Lake Mead.
In short, Calexit is not going to happen. It’s all bluff and bluster.
The northern and eastern counties have been at war with coastal California almost from the beginning. Little has changed in 150 years except how dependent California has become on out of state resources.
Nimbyism comes with a big bill attached.
Cities as states?
My comment goes to the piece in the Wall Street Journal. I welcome this new book and may even read it….
I’ve read a ton of WWII history and biography… but not much in the last 5 years. Two of the best books about the war were nominally about the friendship that existed between Roosevelt and Churchill (not that it was always honored–there were betrayals and other loyalties), but the friendship was essential, in the end, to the perseverance and thus to the victory.
I’m hoping this book may plow some of that same ground and find a few additional artifacts… perhaps enough to support a fresh perspective and a new theory or two.
Some of the friendship stories are so great, I’d give up a weekend to read a newly discovered detail or two.
🙂
I recall that an essay question on the Naval War College final exam was “How would you invade Morocco?” I would not be surprised to find other military graduate schools had similar questions about Canada. I would be gobsmacked to learn that they did not.
Another question I had to answer in a seminar course — Lieutenants’ Leadership Seminar (yeah, I know, I still laugh at that title) was “Under what circumstances do you recommend the use of nuclear weapons?” Thinking the unthinkable. Years later I realized that the Air Force had us think the unthinkable because the command knew that someday some of those lieutenants would be wearing stars and might have to think the unthinkable. The command wanted them to have that vicarious experience to draw on if it came to that.
That, folks, is wisdom.
Sleep well tonight. Some of those lieutenants now wear stars. They have thought the unthinkable and are prepared to do whatever is needed to defend the Constitution of the United States. (Invading Canada is just a bonus.)
(BTW the Canadian Air Force has the most beautiful flight suit I have ever seen. Not that vomit green I had to wear but Canadian Air Superiority Blue. Ain’t that a kick?)
When I was in border security the most fun was the frequent theoretical and practical exercises in how to circumvent security. “How the hell did you get there, corporal?” “Clean living, sergeant.”
As for Col Kratman’s anecdote about using Canadian liaison officers to plan the invasion of Canada, that’s the same question they would be asked to address back home. How would you counter your own defenses? I’m certain that in addition to Morocco and Canada, some US officers are asked to prepare plans for the invasion of the US.
And yet America was still making plans to invade Canada (yet again) until WWII…
(That said, if they’d save us from Trudeau, they might find more support today)
what makes you think the US doesn’t have plans to invade Canada on file and periodically updated even today? It sounds like a good staff training project 🙂
I don’t think you’d really need plans these days. Just drive over the border, stop your tank at the first Tim Horton’s you see, and ask for directions to Ottawa.
If I remember correctly, the US military actually built camouflaged ‘ghost’ airfields near the border in the 30s to launch air attacks from.
Funny you should say that. Col. Tom Kratman wrote a column about just that a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2017/03/13/politics/kill-enemies-win
“Dear Canada:
…
If you will not secure our border at the only place it can be secured, your airports and sea ports, we must.
…
Thus, I caution you, as a well-meaning friend, do not let your lunatic prime minister and your out of control leftists turn you into that staging ground.”
It includes this footnote:
“2 Rumors persist that we used to set Canadian officers sent to us as liaisons to updating the plans for the Invasion of Canada. I am sure we don’t do that anymore, but would be terribly unsurprised to discover that we do put them to work updating plans for our providing humanitarian assistance to Canada, that being delivered largely by the Army and Marines. As far as planning goes, there would be very little difference between the two.”
There’s actually an interesting documentary on Youtube where they compared the 1930s American, Canadian and British plans to see what would have happened.
AFAIR, the Americans were going to bomb and invade, the Canadians were going to launch commando raids on US infrastructure (bridges etc) while they waited for British help, and the British were going to blockade US ports and… well, not do much else, actually.
Interesting column.
Can’t say I agree with his tone or position but his underlying thesis isn’t wrong.
Brings up several thoughts.
1- In the FALLOUT RPG games, the alternate universe US did in fact invade and occupy Canada, circa 2070, for similar defensive reasons. The chinese had attacked and occupied Alaska so the US moved to contain and drive back the invaders. They succeeded but the result was the all-out nuclear exchange leading to the collapse of civilization that is central to the games.
2- One of the earliest Indie books I bought (in print, pre-Kindle) from Amazon is titled SLIPSTREAM. It is about a US-Canada war that starts when Quebec invades Maine. It was supposed to be a trilogy. For “some” reason the sequels never showed up. 😉
3- More seriously, in 2009 the Stratfor Institute released THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS, a strategic evaluation of *likely* geopolitical issues for the 21st century.
https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century-ebook/dp/B001NLL946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490305145&sr=8-1&keywords=the+next+hundred+years
(Very educational book about how strategic issues are analyzed.)
One of its most interesting and compelling chapters was the one looking at a US – Mexico war over the US attempts to maintain control on the southwestern states to avoid a secessionist war. It made several near term predictions about the impact of automation and robotics on immigration policies that are looking to be on the mark.
Of particular relevance to the Kratman column is the idea that “immigration without assimilation is colonization” which Kratman used in one of his books, CALIPHATE. A Bondian thriller in a very nasty, dystopian world. The US invaded Canada in that one, too. Along with most of the Americas and the Pacific.
It seems he’s shifted his near term concerns from Europe to Canada. Might lead to a new book. 🙂
I think it’s pretty clear that the map of North America will be very different in fifty years. I wouldn’t be surprised if some parts of Canada merge with some parts of America to form new nations of their own.
From what I’ve read of his posts, Kratman seems to believe that America cannot afford to lose one square foot of its territory, but I don’t think it’s going to be able to afford to hold it all.
Personally, I think Trump is going to end up building a wall along the US/Canada border, if Trudeau persists in virtue-signalling. In fact, I should probably finish my story about a Canadian Wall border guard.
It has been suggested.
You familiar with Joel Garreau’s THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA? It’s 1970’s vintage but the concept behind his analysis is even more blatant today than back then.
As for the US looking to retain its teritorial integrity; well, that was what the Civil War was really about. Much though the Russians (and some Californians) might want to believe the union is in no imminent danger of splintering. For all the media-inspired divisiveness, the issues and interests that unite the country are more numerous and powerful than the ones pulling them apart.
I used to work border security at several different installations while wearing a couple of different uniforms. I’ve maintained an interest. The bulk of Col Kratman’s facts are incorrect. Further, his concept of hard border security is inefficient. The bulk of border security does not occur at the border. The vast majority of significant border actions, discounting petty personal crime, are not initiated at the border. The border action is merely the ripening of a long string of security activity.
As a side note, most of the billions spent post-911 went to pure theatre. I was a foot soldier in several significant post-911 incidents and none of them were thwarted in any way by post-911 spending. They were all identified and contained by pre-911 assets. I can report that several known gaps in security were not addressed for months or years post-911 because all the money was going to where the public would see it, not to where the security threats were.
When you are the inner perimeter after having cleared and secured the scene, and you are waiting for the bomb squad, you occupy your time wondering which of the dueling experts is right about the shrapnel pattern of explosive devices in and out of x-ray machines, and you hope the suspected bomber doesn’t notice the observation or just get twitchy.
It’s also fun when someone who isn’t supposed to be in either Canada or the US turns up in the border zone. Then an argument erupts between the local forces on either side as wherever they came from is where they go back to. Of the six times it happened during my duty shift it was five times a US origin and therefore a return to the US. The sixth time was a young couple of which the girl was forbidden to enter the US and the boy was forbidden to enter Canada. As far as I know that couple are still on the ferry, circling between the two border posts, though they wouldn’t be so young anymore.
Unfortunately, Harry Hopkins’ “chief” was Stalin.