A History of England’s Attitude Towards the United States from World War I to World War II
There are several guiding principles which dictated English opinion of the United States. The most notable (and most overtly palpable) in all four time periods is rational self-interest. When America could aid the United Kingdom in their war effort or the creation of a more favorable post-war atmosphere, the leadership of the United States (and consequently the United States itself) stood in good favor according to The Spectator. When the aid was no longer crucial and their position of dominance lessened, The Spectator felt more at liberty to criticize or even outright reject American policies and/or sentiments. A second major principle was England’s grasp of their influence and power in the international arena. When England was in its preeminence, opinion suggests a grand sense of influence in both deed and thought. When England was in its descent, opinion suggests a more humble outlook.
It is within this first established time interval (pre-April 6, 1917) where one can see England at its perceived and realized height. They were unquestionably and unconditionally the dominant power in the world. The common boast was that “the sun never set on the British empire” suggesting both sheer breadth and purported permanence. Dominance was a position they cherished and not one readily relinquished or shared. In an early September issue of The Spectator, there was an article detailing the rising importance and growth of the United States munitions industry. The response one week later was an assertion that “if the domestic and Canadian output comes up to expectation, we [England] shall ultimately be able to do without American shells altogether.” (Spectator, 9/16/1916) This quote suggests Britain relishes the idea of fighting the war without American aid. Production has long been a benchmark of dominance, and this increase was perceived as a threat. By doing without American munitions Britain is both effectively hindering US production and treating the problem as a non-issue. A related article elaborates-“the war has laid the foundation of the present prosperity of the United States by creating a new and vital industry, and by shifting the whole balance of international commerce and finance enormously to the advantage of America.” (Spectator, 9/16/1916) This US dominance, however, is placed only in the context of war. It is suggested once war is over, the original balance will return. Britain also takes credit here for America’s economic success. Without British need, there would be no grounds for American prosperity. Britain’s supremacy over the US is therefore reasserted in several ways. One also obtains the sense of separation Britain feels towards the United States. There is little to no solidarity or emotional attachments during this time. This is shown most clearly through the reporting of the torpedoed liner ‘Marina’. The article states “(1) that some eighteen people lost their lives; (2) that the ship was torpedoed without notice; and (3) that the sea conditions made the rescue of the crew most difficultâÂ?¦There is said to be a good deal of anxiety in America over the incident.” (Spectator, 11/4/1916) There is such detachment in the manner this article is written. It is literally a numbered list of events with no emotional recognition that lives were lost. It seems to say, this is an incident that only involved American citizens, and it therefore only affects American citizens. (Note, there is no corresponding anxiety in Britain.) There is a sense that these eighteen lives are wholly nominal compared to the loss of English soldiers. There is an underlying tone of resentment and bitterness in this unaffected report, because America has not entered the war. They have not experienced war losses in the true sense like Britain.
America’s neutrality in the war is a major contributing factor in Britain’s attitude. There is the feeling that Wilson is not in a position for action, because he is not truly involved. He is not losing citizens or experiencing the horrors. When he issued his Note to the warring powers even hinting at the prospect of war’s conclusion, it was met with great hostility. The Note “âÂ?¦amazed and distressed the British and French peoples.” (Spectator, 12/30/1916) Particularly the passage regarding the League of Nations incited heated reactions. “Though it is an ungrateful task, we feel bound to warn Mr. Wilson that he is very greatly mistaken if he thinks that all the nations of the earth will be prepared to enter into such a League.” (Spectator, 12/30/1916) The same article denounced it as “hopelessly impractical.” In the wake of the Note, another article from this issue acerbically referenced America’s noninvolvement in the war. “The smaller neutrals have naturally been cheered by the apparent desire of their big American brother to take steps towards ending a war in which they are suffering far more acutely than he is.” This article reasserts (in a bitter manner) that America is not in the war and therefore should have no say about the war.
Britain’s actual actions during this time suggest similar assertions of dominance. The British Government blacklisted American firms, corporations and individuals and forbade “all financial or commercial dealings between them and citizens of Great Britain, elicit[ing] a strong protest from the Washington Administration…[for] inflicting undeserved injury on American citizens.” (Spectator, 8/5/1916) An article explaining the terms of the blacklisting followed, but it is the language which serves as a useful indicator of attitude. “âÂ?¦these explanations knock the bottom out of the protestâÂ?¦” (Spectator, 8/5/1916) There is not even consideration the protests could be legitimate. Instead, the article offers one (biased) explanation which is taken as complete and absolute truth. America’s grievances are dismissed as inconsequential.
The last major indicator of English attitudes is their views towards Woodrow Wilson. Being the president, he is the quintessential elected official. When people think of America during this time period, they think of Wilson. They look to his attitudes and beliefs to project onto the whole of the United States. The English position on Wilson is clearly and consistently expressed. “The world has been surprised, and naturally, by Mr. Wilson’s statement that it is for the last time that America has kept out of a world-wide warâÂ?¦We have no doubt that President Wilson is perfectly sincere in this statement, but we cannot help feeling that there is a note of real pathos. Consciously or unconsciously it contains a recognition of the fact that whether through mistake or the force of circumstances, he did not choose the right pathâÂ?¦” (Spectator, 11/4/1916) There is a general implausibility about Wilson playing an international role, and within this there is a perceived weakness of Wilson and hence America. This weakness is repeatedly referenced. The Spectator urges Wilson “not to allow the Germans and the German-Americans to manoeuvre him into a false and futile positionâÂ?¦An offer of mediation by AmericaâÂ?¦will be acceptedâÂ?¦as final evidence of American subservience to German influenceâÂ?¦” (Spectator 9/30/1916) This passage is riddled with allusions to Wilson’s weakness and vulnerability. America is overtly portrayed as under the will and control of the sworn enemy. It is in fact portrayed as the enemy more than a neutral power. Britain is in its absolute prime, and the relating articles suggest through their perception of the US, it is all too aware of this.
The second time interval (April 6, 1917 to 1920) reveals a marked shift in the perception of the United States. America has entered the war and is now a great ally to the English. The language of weakness and bitterness has disappeared from The Spectator and been replaced by conciliatory remarks and absolute solidarity. Concerning the American Legion, one article stated, “If the membersâÂ?¦remain true to their principles, they may save the United States by their action, and, like England of old, save the world by their example.” (Spectator, 1/24/1920) America is now directly equated to England. They are one unified front with the similar charge of saving the rest of the less fortunate world. England is not willing to surrender its dominance but now accepts the position will be shared. Any criticism towards Wilson no longer speaks to weakness but simply of over-idealism. This is illustrated especially well through English opinion of Wilson’s great endeavor, the League of Nations. “We have regretfully come to hold that the League of NationsâÂ?¦[is] an imperfect organization. It aims too high, and so is likely to achieve too little. It tries to accomplish too much too quickly.” (Spectator, 6/26/1920) It is not stated or even alluded that the League is flawed in its premise; it is merely unrealistic in its optimism. This is similar to the way in which they viewed Wilson himself. It was not any inherent lacking they criticized; it was simply, what they deemed, as misguided actions. The same article also took issue with the fact America’s place in the League was unsure. “As long as the richest, the most powerful, the greatest, both for population and territory, of the civilized white communities of the world stands outside the League, the League will be an ill-balanced organization and unable to fulfill its destiny.” The United States is portrayed as the dominant power. However, the British deem themselves influential enough to criticize that power. This article therefore emphasizes yet again the shared aspect of political dominance between the English and the Americans.
Despite these rather gentle criticisms of the United States, overt praise of Wilson’s character or defense of his actions is common in this time period. Wilson’s response to a German peace offering was not satisfactory to Britain, because it was not an outright denial. However, the following article appeared one week later. “It evidently appeared to some people-a very small minority, we think-that in asking his questions President Wilson was entering upon a perilous course of parleying with GermanyâÂ?¦it may be hoped that there will never again be any question as to the absolute firmness of President Wilson’s intentions. Really it was unlikely to the point of flat impossibility that a man of his temperament could ever parley with GermanyâÂ?¦” (Spectator, 1/7/1917) Wilson is praised for his resolute intentions, and criticism is demeaned and distanced from the British by classifying the dissent as stemming from “a very small minority.” The article concerning Wilson’s visit to Europe is also particularly telling. “We are confident that the one feeling of British people is pleasure and gratification at Mr. Wilson’s visitâÂ?¦[he] proved himself above all things a wise and prudent manâÂ?¦there is nothing to fear, but everything to hope for, from Mr. Wilson’s visit.” (Spectator, 12/14/1918) Wilson’s visit is not portrayed as an intrusion on European affairs by an external, less involved nation. It is seen as a benefit, and his character is similarly upheld throughout the article.
The dominant discourse is now of friendship between all that is British and all that is American. The sharing of world ascendancy seems to be accepted, and it is through the language of unity which it is expressed. There was an “imperative need of deep and lasting friendship between the two nations. That friendship, to our way of thinking, is the pivot upon which the whole future of the world will turnâÂ?¦Our friendship is a fact, and so it shall continue.” (Spectator, 12/14/1918) There is no mistaking the imperativeness with which England expresses a need for continued friendship and smooth relations with the United States. They understand what a formidable enemy the United States would prove. They feel cohesion between the two major powers absolutely essential to continued world peace. Prior to their entry into World War I, the US did not hold such power or sway over Britain. There was no such discussion of necessary friendship. Furthermore, this dialogue of amity did not die off directly after the War was over. The 2/21/1920 issue of The Spectator (almost a year and a half after the War ended) contains an article concerning Wilson’s “unexpected intervention” in the Adriatic dispute. It was written, “we must not on any account quarrel with America, as without her support in the long run we shall be helpless in restoring the world to contentment and prosperity.” This shows the position of the United States did not decline with the cessation of the war; it actually continually increased. And England was increasingly aware of this. However, there seems to be a subtle underlying tone of condescension. They suggest Wilson’s intervention in the Adriatic dispute was due to the “unfortunate illness of the President” and warns not “to let the afflictions of the sick-bed become the material of a national dispute between Great Britain and America.” (Spectator, 2/21/1920) They justify Wilson’s actions with his illness and forgive him his indiscretion. This article produces sentiments similar to that of a parent chastising a child. This implies above all they will begrudgingly share power but never let the US go so far as to think they’ve surpassed them.
The third time period spans from December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945. December 7, because it is of course the “date which will live in infamy”, and the impetus for thrusting America into the Second World War. May 8, because that was the official end of European conflicts in this war. This period is equally as dominated by political leaders of the time. Just as Wilson came to embody America during his terms in office (1913-1921), so did Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945). The general English opinion of America can be paralleled to their general opinion on the President, again just as was possible through Wilson. Speaking of Roosevelt as a candidate for the 1944 campaign, several terms and sentiments are expressed which reveal English opinion. “They [responsible Allies] cannot fail to see the value of enabling the man who has led his country so powerfully, and with such broadness of view, in the war, to complete his work by taking an active part in the peace.” (Spectator, 1/28/1944) The article also expresses that the continued world crisis “demands his strong hand at the helm.” In every way, the English seem to equate Roosevelt with strength. It is generally held that he is the leader of a strong world nation, and he exemplifies strength himself. An article titled “Mr. Roosevelt’s Challenge” (Spectator, 1/14/1944) is full of praises for both Roosevelt’s character and his policies. His addresses to Congress are “stirring [and] powerful”, Roosevelt’s mind is “full of the great projects”, and his Stabilisation Statute “is a piece of great leadership.” This atmosphere of praise suggests the English understand the world dynamic of the time period. The dominance the United States gained in World War I has only increased with their participation in the Second World War. They are now irrefutably the prevailing power. England no longer holds onto the distant aspiration of returning to their global precedence of pre-1914. Instead, they are doing everything in their power to maintain their friendship with the United States which was so expressly established post-World War I.
The language of unity is used again to highlight this friendship as it was in the second time interval discussed, except now there is no corresponding sentiment suggesting England’s dominance. The English no longer are tolerating shared power with the United States. Now it is the United States that extends the hand of friendship and allows England to enjoy power through association. In an article titled “United Action” (Spectator, 12/26/1941) “direct contact between the Prime Minister and President Roosevelt” is described as “the best possible [approach and]âÂ?¦ an indispensable stepâÂ?¦Then the foundations of a permanent unification can be laid.” England feels the development of a personal relationship between the heads of state will warrant itself favor in the eyes of the United States. There is a recognition here of the sheer power now in the hands of American leaders and American people. England, along with the rest of the world, is at the will of that power. It serves them well to be in good standing with the United States, and all articles during this time period express that feeling. The language of unity is seen most clearly through the British response to the bombing at Pearl Harbor. An article released just five days after the attack stated that, “The loss of life is known to have been terrificâÂ?¦the extent of the military damage has yet to be revealed, and we must expect to hear that it has been on a big scale.” (Spectator, 12/12/1941) There is a real sense of loss even though no British were killed. There is a sense that American losses are British losses. In addition this article details the Japanese attacks on British and American targets only, thereby once again grouping them as one, inseparable unit. The response to Pearl Harbor intensified as the initial shock wore off. In the 12/26/1941 issue of The Spectator, it is written, “Everything we are fighting inevitably breeds hatred. What other emotion could the attack of the Japanese on Pearl HarbourâÂ?¦provoke? If such outrages did not arouse a burning anger wherever news of them was carried the spirit which alone can bring victory would be dead.” This article condemns the Japanese in the most searing language possible. There is once again a sense of personal injury about the incident of Pearl Harbor. It is not merely outrage over an enemy attack. It is something more deeply ingrained. The British understand a falter of the United States could mean a corresponding falter for the United Kingdom. They have a vested interest that America stay strong.
There is no doubt that this time period is the age of America. Europe is devastated, and America alone retains the resources and capital necessary to ensure victory. That position is one imbued with great power. This is expressed most poignantly by one article’s reaction to America entering the war-“The fact that the United States have entered the war against all our enemies means in all certainty that Germany cannot win. The fact that Congress has almost in the first hour voted for the creation of an American expeditionary force means that Germany is certain to be beatenâÂ?¦America is a great wordâÂ?¦a shining thing in the mind.” (Spectator, 12/26/1941) With the dominant nation on the Allied side, it seems any threat created by the Axis disappears. Britain did not retain enough power on its own to promise this victory. It was as economically and materially spent as any other European nation. This is a dramatically altered state from what it was just thirty years before.
English opinion of the USA was as much a comment on their own world standing as it was on that of America. When England was in full power, American leaders were portrayed as weak. And indeed, their world position was lacking. When the power began to shift, American leaders were now viewed in a more sympathetic light. But there remained an understanding that they still did not exceed the English. This relationship of mutual benefits continued through the Second World War. However, there occurred a monumental shift once again wherein the United States surpassed the English. While the existence of the relationship remained static, who benefited changed over the examined three time periods. And it is within those changing dynamics of the relationship where one can see who truly held and lost influence.
