I hope you enjoy this compilation of The Other Great Game Series. The original run took almost 18 months to complete, and my video making style has changed (hopefully improved) quite a lot since I first began. I've consequently reworked the first couple of episodes slightly, and added some more contextual information. Ultimately they are still not great as far as videos go in my opinion, but reworking them completely would just take too long. Adding to this, I have tried to fix the most glaring gaffes and mistakes from the original series, but again some things like major mapping corrections, would almost require me to remake the whole video. So apologies that there is still a dubiously bordered Confederacy, and misplaced British Guyana for the first half hour. Other than that, thank you for all supporting the series initially. Hopefully this makes it a bit easier to watch.
Been with you since 8k subs and despite a misplaced Guyana your content has been consistently excellent and some of the best history content on UA-cam hands down.
I definitely enjoyed it you pretty much prove that American hegemony over the world was pretty much guaranteed because we learned how to run a nation from Britain what's 400 years was the greatest power on the planet then once we realized we had enough land and people to even surpass the British empire which we did at the end of the 19th century like it was inevitable that Brentwood come to America with hat in hand like finance our wars this and that because Britain made the very poor decision to put its money on France which was a horrible decision I think of Britain would have tried its hand that actually securing a piece with Germany and actually working with Germany it would have definitely survived and we would be living in a totally different world
Yes, I think we all agree that the "playing greeks to the romans" quote is definitely absolutely 100% accurate, and because that quote definitely works very well, can't wait to see what the British Byzantine empire will look like, gonna be really hard for the writers to pull it off and make it believable.
Woodrow Wilson comes off as a massive jerk in this, and rightfully so. As well, Britain's agreement to naval parity with the US was based on the correct estimate that the US would never built up it's naval fleet to a sufficient amount under the treaty outside of purely capital ships. It was more of a strategic move to reduce defence spending than a fear of a naval race.
@@supereero9 Dude was also a super racist that screened Birth of a Nation at the White House and funded a lot of those Civil War statues that everyone was making a fuss about (i.e. they were build in the 20s, not right after the CW).
Thank you for making an in-depth video about an underdiscussed topic: the power competition between the US and Britain. In my American education, it was “America and Britain had tensions (embargo, 1812, various conspiracies) but then by WW1 things had smoothed over and the ‘special relationship’ sprang into existence”
@@robertortiz-wilson1588really what I’m learning is that the world wars and the resulting financial crunch Britain was under from them truly sank them as a global power. Other factors of course.
This series was really amazing. I especially loved the late 1800s to 1922 period. IMO, this period of history is so interesting cause the people are close enough to our own time that they are very relatable and understandable, but at the same time they are still super different from modern people making it really interesting. Any further back and the mindset of people is so foreign to me that it is hard to relate to and understand their perspective.
"cause the people are close enough to our own time that they are very relatable and understandable" I feel that: my paternal grandfather was born in 1869 (his father had been wounded in the Corn Field at Antietam [1862]), and my father was born in 1912. Plus, for those of us alive in 1970, we are shaken now to realize that this year, 2024 is as far from 1970 as 1970 was from 1916. (My paternal-line family, as founding members of the Virginia Company, came from London to Jamestown in 1610.)
*I will wait for some 10 minutes, since in the meanwhile I plan to entertain myself with this so called "gay pornography" that my friend has just told me about, as I can't wait more to see if that would be an interesting experience, do you know something about that "gay pornography", Sir?*
How the United States engaged in realpolitik to destroy the British Empire - A Documentary. A fantastic piece from this channel, showing how all this frivolous talk of Special Relationships, brotherly love and democratic countries standing together against evil is nothing more than a mask to hide the real games that states play against each other. As a Brit, I doff my hat to Washington for it's brilliant execution of realpolitik on the global stage, and resent Westminster for it's foolishness in allowing it's global dominance to be undermined so succinctly and thoroughly by others
Closest thing the US has to a "brotherly relationship" (or more accurately big brother to little brother relationship) is with Canada. Canada has never been a geopolitical threat and most of it is culturally identical to the populated New England area of the US. And Canada punches above its weight economically and diplomatically (very high GDP and founding member of NATO) The US also has a special relationship with Israel though that's more of a parent-child relationship where the parent can't say no to the child. No offense to Israel but the US always interacts with Israel through noticeably softer gloves compared to other countries. I don't think any other US relationship comes close to these two.
Sad. My family is from three of the countries of the UK and my impression has always been that you Brits are our kith and kin; and that the only real animus between our countries stems from what was a continuation of the English Civil; and that this time Cromwell’s victory was permanent - at least on this side of the Atlantic.
The irony of all this is that Americas founding values were essentially British and we had far more in common than not. To this day most Americans draw their ancestry from England. I suppose we just couldn't end our quasi-cold war so long as Britain remained an empire and thus an existential threat
Superb synthesis of a very long and complicated diplomatic relationship. While I was aware of most of the larger developments since WWI, the early US-UK years were news to me. Thank you for this presentation
The American relation with Britain throughout the 19th and 20th century is hardly explored seriously, which makes this an incredible and one-of-a-kind series. I don't know if you take requests for videos from non-patrons (I'm poor otherwise I would subscribe), but another hardly explored question is "How did the American Revolution inform British colonial policy afterwards?" As an American, I'd find this incredibly interesting, but I think it would be interesting to anyone. I wondered this after hearing some pop-historians handwave the Revolution as "not important enough to teach in school in Britain", which I think is a strange thing to "brag" about, thinking that it was a devastating blow to the Empire considering what would come of it, and that it must have informed colonial policy in some way so as to not allow something of that sort to happen again in Canada or Australia or other colonies. If you see this, let me know what you think.
Wouldn't call it the original. The Great game between Britain and Russia was post-napoleonic hence by a small margin making the US-British great game the original
Categorically, yes. Capital G Capital G, 'Great Game', is about Great Britain VS Russia in between roughly the mid 1830's and 1900 ish. Even then, there are complications (e.g. by the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, technically, the Russians and British were allies, alongside the other nations involved in that including Japan and the USA) However, Britain was still technically strategically at odds with Russia, not wanting Russia to gain a warm water port on the Indian Ocean or in the Western Pacific. They had fought wars in Afghanistan to prevent the very possibility (however unlikely) of the Russians paying of Afghan chiefs to gain passage to British India via the Khyber Pass) The British signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance Treaty of 1902, because Japan was a (then) useful ally to counter Russian Imperial expansionism in Asia. Britain and Japan had a very good relationship since the 1880's if not earlier, and formally speaking, from 1902 to the mid 1920's. When Japan began to get a bit too big for her boots in Korea and Manchuria, as well as challenging the naval balance of power as agreed in London and Washington, American and British politicians began to get annoyed with Japan and the USA outright enforced a trade embargo. Britain and Japan parted ways as friends in the 1930's and by 1941 Japan attacked Britain. After that point, the British and Russians were ironically allied against the Japanese again, technically (although the Russians would not do much regarding Japan until a massive invasion into Japanese occupied Manchuria in 1945, the last campaign of WWII; and there, the enormous Soviet armies outnumbered a million man Kwantung Army defending the Japanese colony, over three to one; they were heavily defeated and the Russians had much more battle-hardened soldiers, as, for years, the Japanese military had siphoned off the best soldiers from the Kwantung Army garrisons to fight elsewhere against the Americans, British, Nepalese Gurkhas and Australians etc, only to find themselves denuding the strength of the Kwantung Army, which was largely left in a pre-war state of quality and equipment; and much of their aircraft and light tanks had been taken from them to fight elsewhere as well; meaning their squadrons and tanks were thinly dispersed and absolutely no match for the thousands of tanks and aircraft the Soviets hurled at Manchuria; it was very one-sided, including witnessing Japanese banzai charges against Russian tank formations on occasion; they stood no chance) But simply looking at the 19th century, the British and Russia rivalry was very much the Cold War of it's time. It sometimes went hot though, in a world where Nuclear weapons thankfully did not yet exist. The Crimean War, witnessed the British and French fight the Russians hard in gruelling battles on the Crimean Peninsula. The British infantry at battles like Inkerman, fought tenaciously against superior Russian numbers and showed they were not afraid of Russia. It was common for the French and British to put the glory of the action in front of the tactical wisdom of the action, and to hurl themselves into Russian ranks. At Inkerman, they fought in fog, which meant the British defending their positions there, were not fully-aware of how massive the Russian forces attacking them really were; belligerently screaming and bayonet charging into the mist, seemingly with reckless abandon) The Battle of Inkerman is often called 'the Soldier's Battle', because the visual hindrances aka the dense fog, and the smoke of battle, meant that the fighting often came down to individual soldiers fighting for their lives in the melee in the mists, and they were fighting bayonet to bayonet, with their enemies appearing at very close range out of the dense fog, meaning they were right on top of each other and fighting desperately, in small struggles for survival; where the wider tactical situation was not really perceptible a lot of the time. The rivalry between Britain and Russia looked very antiquated by 1917, when the Bolsheviks destroyed (and murdered) the Russian Romanov Dynasty. Britain's entire purpose for controlling the Khyber Pass in Eastern Afghanistan, which it had since before 1880, and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (which, contrary to misconceptions abound regarding Afghanistan in general, Britain did genuinely win as far as she was concerned regarding her own reasons for being there; she had previously lost the First Anglo-Afghan War, decades earlier, in between 1838 and 1842) The idea of the Bolsheviks asking the Afghans for a way through the Hindu Kush to attack the British Raj, was even sillier than the idea of the Russian Imperials doing the same earlier on (with even worse logistical capabilities) Britain had basically overestimated the Tsarist Russian Empire's ability, in the mid-late 19th century, to send large armies through Afghanistan. They'd have needed a very large army, over 100,000 men, likely much more, to even remotely challenge the British control of India and realistically by 1900 that would be even more laughable. The British strategists being paranoid about Russia, may have been right trough in the long run (just, jumping the gun by an entire 140 years) In 1980, the Soviet Russians _did_ invade Afghanistan. But they never got through the Khyber Pass nor were they trying to. Britain had left India in 1947 upon it's independence.
I still find it hilarious that Germany made two massive diplomatic blunders in both world wars involving the US; Submarine warfare and the telegram in WW1 and declaring war on the US when they had time to better prepare or focus on Russia
The US was already fully funding the soviet union before the war, once the mafia assassinated Huey Long who was primed to become president so they could get in their pro mafia candidate, it was settled. The USSR was a mafia founded state and the mafia was very sympathetic towards it.
First off, what a great video! I'm writing a research paper regarding British-American relations and I was hoping to see if you had some more sources that you used for this. I know the first two sections have sources in their original videos, but I can't find them for parts 3 and 4. It would be a massive help if you could provide some for my own research. Thanks again for the great documentary.
@@Gordon-hx8cp I'm the last person to stick up for the US government, but the Suez situation wasn't done with malice toward the British, they were threatened by the Soviets. Eisenhower was very against it. America is more than its government. The Anglo-sphere exists for a reason and it's because we're like-minded. We aren't perfectly aligned at all times, but we're there for each other when it really matters. Or we should atleast strive to be.
@@Gordon-hx8cp well Suez was a botch job at trying to maintain a colony. That aside, anyone living in 1st world England today who thinks the US is against the UK and has been for the past 70 years is out of their mind 😂
@@woahhbro2906"we" are there for each other? America is only 58% white. The UK is 68%. Both percentages rapidly dropping. It's a tragedy to lose a world war and become subjugated, but even more tragic to believe you won one and that you are not occupied.
P Thank you for this. It was simply brilliant. One of the best analysis of Britsh /American relations I have ever heard . So much effort and research has gone into this .
It is fascinating to see both disagree on the intention and beliefs of Canning. Civilis said that the Monroe doctrine was “planned by Canning who genuinely expected such a decision to go the way it did” vs here it’s stated as “Canning somewhat happened into it, and had different reasons”.
I've studied the wars From various perspectives as well including germanys I can honestly say england was a definite aggressor in the world wars they were not innocent they were not very helpful in trying to get peace both times before the outbreak of war. I can easily tell this video is biased propaganda with little substance in it. The video creator sounds as if America wronged him personally and he longs for the day for the UK to return to the top
From an American, learning about German history is a great tragedy, so much potential, and yet never strong enough to realize those potentials. Even now being the largest economy in Europe your nation is just a small shadow of our economic and military and cultural might, we own your nation, find comedy in that fact I guess 😅
A really interesting piece and relevant for the whole world as it seems to me. I don't come from the anglosphere and there are a lot of interesting hindsights - I especially enjoy your extensive depictions of the interactions between policy makers. Very very good!
My father, who grew up to fight in the Second World War, remembered our soldiers returning from the First as they paraded down our main street from the train station. My grandmother recalled him waving his little 48 star flag. "Uncle Fritz beat the Kaiser" he said. Little did he know.
Old Britannia, this video is a sheer masterpiece! Truly the Anglosphere evolved to change the world between the US and Britain. God bless the manifest destiny of British and American hegemonies ! 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
Big question is if Britain just fundamentally underestimated the US after its win in the War of 1812. And if so, how could that underestimation have lasted for more than a 100 years straight? This Second Great Game is really interesting because unlike British Empire vs Russian Empire, the US and Britain gradually became less hostile to each as time went on. Yet nonetheless the outcome was the US beating the UK geopolitically almost on accident. Crazy.
Didnt the US have a secret invasion plan for Canada and a blockade of Britain in the 1930’s, but it was discarded due to the rise of Germany? Lol i think we’re friends out of necessity rather than real good chums, no matter how our leaders act and what they say. Thats just my opinion im entitled to it😂
It's "win" in the War of 1812? You can't be serious... Great Britain dropped all demands for a Native buffer state, ended all support for Tecumseh's Confederacy, paid the US in damages, had all of its invasion attempts defeated, and even relinquished ownership of several islands along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes, while giving up any territory it captured on its own. The war is remembered by both sides, as a stalemate.
Chamberlain attempted closer US relations and trade agreement to frighten the dictators, he knew actual alliance impossible, and knew actual alliance would likely deter all the identified enemies, the impossibility of peace time alliance led to WWII.
38:45 “As usual, OHL could be relied upon to astonish the world with its almost mystical ability to pick the completely wrong option.” I had to pause the video, I was laughing so hard at that dry delivery.
1811, when they voted not to deal with or annex Ontario, but rather the vast, unpopulated western North American lands. The attacks made in 1812-1815 were designed to force Great Britain to negotiate fairly on grievances Madison listed in his speech to Congress. Of course, war hawks within Congress also saw it as an opportunity to remove British influence from North America once and for all.
We expended so much energy, man-and-willpower in 20th Century, to what end? We fought the Germans twice, when the real enemy tightened the noose. And we've become completely apathetic in response.
The UK was on ration books until 1953 while the USA demanded high interest rates on top of war debts Churchill casually thought might be waved. People in the UK were eating worse rations in 1950-1953, in terms of calorific intake and nutrition, than they were at the height of the Blitz (in which, the USA stood by and watched 61,000 Britons die, and barely lift a finger in the grand scheme of things, in spite of Roosevelt's actions and genuine sympathies) The sad reality was, that Britons were having a very difficult time post-war while the USA was literally booming (the US boomers living it up in the surging success of Americana in general, culturally and economically) The Rustbelt was not rusty yet, and the Mid West was still a powerhouse of industry for the time being. Britain thought, quite rightly, it deserved better than to be treated this way by the US government, but sadly, it was not a healthy relationship. The USA was outright using the UN to go after British and French Imperialism while simultaneously countering Communist Russia and China. And the Americans were more polite to the Russians and Chinese, which is saying something, than they were to the British and French. See Suez 1956. @@chibble3591
@@chibble3591 the American state. Americans spilt blood so the Europe would be free. Their patriotism and goodwill was exploited by the infant Military Industrial Complex. The Colonial world was left in tatters. Britain, France and the minor Colonial powers were not given the proper timeframe to decolonise. This is what resulted in the rampant corruption, war, and death experienced in Africa, including up to today. The American state is the largest propagator of evil in all of human history.
"Officially" ended with the 1956 Suez Crisis but I'd say Johnson basically bullying Wilson over Wilson opposing the Vietnam War is like the dark epilogue.
1:32:07 how America finds itself exactly where TeamGB was back then. The two countries have been at it since the beginning … and now we reach the end of the road for both… as the enlightenment descends into darkness
Virginia joined the Confederacy, at that time West Virginia did not exist and was part of Virginia. It seceded from Virginia during the war and was not admitted as a State until 1863.
So in other words, it did not want to be part of the Confederacy. This part of the state was loyal to the Union. After a couple years of the war the region officially became a State of the Union. @@Ras_al_Gore
@@davidmajer3652 it doesn’t matter, it was a part of the Confederacy because it was part of Virginia, which joined the Confederacy. Whether it wanted to be or not is irrelevant, the map is accurate.
@@davidmajer3652 no it doesn’t. You’re the one who had a problem with the map. WV was part of the confederacy, so the map is accurate. It doesn’t matter if it also joined the Union later. The map would be accurate either way.
Love listening to this as an American, I imagine this kind of bitterness towards the past is the same kind of bitterness that the Greeks felt towards the Romans as the Romans eclipsed the collective power of the Greek colonies and polis
You have a very pleasant accent. It's...hard to describe. It's wholesome and wry. It's homely and bright. I wish there was a way of describing accents. What do you think Southern English accent sounds like? Darlicks, Lesbian chief constables, German people, Darth Vader, the Devil, and Anne Whittacombe. If accents were tastes the Southern English language would be the only one that had no flavour at all, like water. But Northern accents are more fruity, lively, homely and fun.
The accent of Merseyside is essentially the merger of an English and Irish accent (thanks to the potato famine). You get the best (and worst) of both worlds.
Your videos thought me that *Britain gave in to US at every turn* even when it had an upper hand and even when US was in a war like with Mexico, civil war or Spanish war. Britain nursed US into being the global hegemon of today.
Britain was prudent not to help the Confederacy. Even if the Confederacy eventually won, the Union would have taken it back in a separate war before the atomic age with superior manpower and industry, and the Union likely would have done it as an enemy of Britain and her allies during the world wars (meaning no loans/Lend Lease). It also probably would have guaranteed the loss of Canada if such a thing happened.
If britain gave in the everything than all of Canada would have been conquered by the USA. Also rhe Caribbean and Central America would have been USA colonies much earlier than the early 20th century. This happened over a long period of time and the usa gradually grew more powerful than britain. The conflict also was around the borders of the usa not britain. It's not like britain gave in to usa demands around the borders of britain or India during pax Britannica period.
The reality is that Britain gave in only because it never made any sense to resist, you seem to underestimate the difficulty is waging war against a near pear power on the other side of the globe especially in those days. The only reason Britain ever put up even a token of resistance against America is because it was mathematically guaranteed to overtake their position on the world stage, being derived of the same culture and stock having access to the same technologies and institutional knowledge and near unchallenged command over 1-2 whole continents. More or less the only thing that could have definitively prevented such an outcome would have been the successful expulsion of the early Anglo settlers by the Indians. Frankly it's quite a scary thought for anyone of the time with any modest talent for foresight.
Great video! Very informative. But, I’ll say from an American perspective, this transition was only sped up with WWII. The US has 25x the natural resources, waterways, farmland of the UK. If you look at this in 100 more years, you’ll realize than USA, eu, China, russia(if it can hold on), and India are the peer competitors. The British empire was great and truly changed the world for the best, but in no world can an island hoist world supremacy for that long.
Castlereifgh Salisbury are probably the two greatest statesmen of the 19 century the only 2 I'd say are close are Bismarck and Talleyrand maybe meternick but I'm not confident in his abilities
* The concept of "Latin America" did not exist in the early 19th Century. * Spanish America was not "liberated". There was a civil war and territories secceeded. Thinking about the new republics as former nations that had been occupied and oppressed by Spain is completely unhistorical, on the same sense as if a potential Californian seccession today was called a liberation from the United States.
As someone from Barbados who supported the monarchy there. i would love to point out how when Barbados abolished the monarchy in the mosr undemocratic fashion the vice president of the us was so quick to visit the country. Something never done before. America never cared about Barbados only up to that point and never again has it ever bat an eye to Barbados. That was clearly a means to wedge the relationship between Barbados and britain and to as what this video implies further disrupt Britain from her former colonies and dominions by any means. And keep her subjegated.
The USA has often stabbed Britain in the back even while nominally being allies. There is a pattern of behaviour from the US government over the past 80-90 years which particularly deserves closer analysis.
The US had a naval facility on Barbados from '57 to '79. The US cared a little. The visit after the end of the monarchy was about BLM and the end of "white rule" of a sort. That it was Barbados or some other island didn't matter.
@@joetrey215 Interesting. What do you think Barbados thinks about the UK today in 2024? Are relations okay in spite of the whole leaving the Commonwealth thing? Or do you think they are just neutral.
This was arguably a Greater Game than the one with Imperial Russia. I always wonder what the outcome of the British Empire would have been had they allied with Germany or Russia against the rise of the United States.
WW1 was the true death of it. Britain went from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor keeping its allies in the black and a lot of that was with US money. Then after that and with a lot of economic growth in the 30s WW2 happened and basically broke the back of Europe as the leading continent and home of the world powers. We killed the continent for literally nothing
Question: what is in it for Germany or Russia to ally against the US? You have to explain to the folks in Berlin and St. Petersburg why should they care about opposing the rise of a country they have no geopolitical conflict with...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131perhaps more importantly, why would Britain tie themselves to the continent in exchange for the goodwill of a land empire, whose support couldn’t be that important due to the Atlantic separating those European powers, already pinned down due to European squabbling?
It would have been the opposite. There are 48 million Americans of German ancestry and 47 million with English. During ww1, there were 10 million German born Americans (10% of the population). The US could have easily decided to ally with Germany and was talked about often. It was British propaganda against Germany that swayed the US to Britian. But the US didn't want to get involved in European politics, so Britain and Germany never would have joined against the US because there was never a reason for it.
Iirc after aligning with Britain and France during WWI and not pursuing the alliance with both of them even further after the war, some debated that if the US went on a war against Britain in the inter war years, the US would lose since Britain had vast amount of territories and could somehow lockdown the Atlantic ocean with their superior Navy and Naval bases from New Foundland in the North and in the Caribbeans to the South, which prevented the US Navy in conducting large scale operations and also preventing the US Pacific fleet in reinforcing their Atlantic Fleet to the Panama Canal and transit them to the Atlantic when they could be intercepted by the British in the Caribbean. Also Canada, which could be used by the British as staging and jumping off point in invading the US from the North. Lastly the state of the US armed forces in the 1920s and early 30s, with their peak strength, they couldn't cope with combined Canadian and British invasion from the North.
I’ll probably get shot down for this as usual with the internet but this is my opinion and opinion only. I think our relationship is not very special more like we needed each other out of necessity. During the first world war Britain needed more man power on the front lines, America had never fought a European war at this point so i think they kinda wanted to prove themselves as a major player. Second world war Britain again needed man power but also resources which America has plenty of, also America didnt want Britain to fall as that would place Germany as the sole European power so its mutual benefits. Today although we have grown close its still necessity in my opinion. Britain needs American money and resources and on the other hand America needs Britain friendly due to our strategic position in Europe. Mutual benefits. Leaders say this and that but i bet they dont like each other half the time lol
This is awesome, thank you so much for this sorry ass reality. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace" -James Marshall Hendrix
Literally, a Winchester pump action loading explosive slugs is unofficially considered the most effective and taboo war crime. We invented nukes to avoid using such uncivilised overkill during civilized state warfare.
I hope you enjoy this compilation of The Other Great Game Series. The original run took almost 18 months to complete, and my video making style has changed (hopefully improved) quite a lot since I first began. I've consequently reworked the first couple of episodes slightly, and added some more contextual information. Ultimately they are still not great as far as videos go in my opinion, but reworking them completely would just take too long. Adding to this, I have tried to fix the most glaring gaffes and mistakes from the original series, but again some things like major mapping corrections, would almost require me to remake the whole video. So apologies that there is still a dubiously bordered Confederacy, and misplaced British Guyana for the first half hour.
Other than that, thank you for all supporting the series initially. Hopefully this makes it a bit easier to watch.
Just wanna tell you you’ve improved a hell of a lot. You single handed reignited my interest in British history. Thanks a lot!
Been with you since 8k subs and despite a misplaced Guyana your content has been consistently excellent and some of the best history content on UA-cam hands down.
Beyond my appreciation of this series I also want to say I am so sorry to hear that Kate Middleton has cancer.
I definitely enjoyed it you pretty much prove that American hegemony over the world was pretty much guaranteed because we learned how to run a nation from Britain what's 400 years was the greatest power on the planet then once we realized we had enough land and people to even surpass the British empire which we did at the end of the 19th century like it was inevitable that Brentwood come to America with hat in hand like finance our wars this and that because Britain made the very poor decision to put its money on France which was a horrible decision I think of Britain would have tried its hand that actually securing a piece with Germany and actually working with Germany it would have definitely survived and we would be living in a totally different world
Love your content. Can you do something on Poland? Im curious about what you would have to say.
Yes, I think we all agree that the "playing greeks to the romans" quote is definitely absolutely 100% accurate, and because that quote definitely works very well, can't wait to see what the British Byzantine empire will look like, gonna be really hard for the writers to pull it off and make it believable.
"British Byzantine empire" 😞 please don't
@@guesswho820Gonna be a lit empire
Lit because they'll reinvent Greek fire or something idk
It was a traitorous betrayal of the Empire. It was treason and cowardice and by saying it did he make it true.
"British byzantine empire" lol sure buddy
Its the irish
I totally didn't just watch the 1814-1846 section before realizing it was all the previously released videos combined...
*You did not, the video just was released 6 minutes ago dumbass*
Totally unrelatable yepp
Thanks for the compilation. I only recently watched the series front-to-back but I suppose I'll have to rewatch it now.
Woodrow Wilson comes off as a massive jerk in this, and rightfully so. As well, Britain's agreement to naval parity with the US was based on the correct estimate that the US would never built up it's naval fleet to a sufficient amount under the treaty outside of purely capital ships. It was more of a strategic move to reduce defence spending than a fear of a naval race.
He's arguably the worst POTUS in history.
Wilson was a puppet put into place by the roundtable.
Wilson comes off as a massive jerk in so much of his policy, absolutely overrated president
@@supereero9 Dude was also a super racist that screened Birth of a Nation at the White House and funded a lot of those Civil War statues that everyone was making a fuss about (i.e. they were build in the 20s, not right after the CW).
@@careyfreeman5056Don't forget he segregated the US federal civil service
Thank you for making an in-depth video about an underdiscussed topic: the power competition between the US and Britain. In my American education, it was “America and Britain had tensions (embargo, 1812, various conspiracies) but then by WW1 things had smoothed over and the ‘special relationship’ sprang into existence”
Same! This is far more fascinating and helps connect the pieces on historical actions and motivations concerning of variety of topics.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588really what I’m learning is that the world wars and the resulting financial crunch Britain was under from them truly sank them as a global power. Other factors of course.
@nathansyoutubeaccount Yes, I know those factors to be well accepted.
THE US should of sided with Britain we would of had a much more peaceful free world than today
same
This series was really amazing. I especially loved the late 1800s to 1922 period. IMO, this period of history is so interesting cause the people are close enough to our own time that they are very relatable and understandable, but at the same time they are still super different from modern people making it really interesting. Any further back and the mindset of people is so foreign to me that it is hard to relate to and understand their perspective.
"cause the people are close enough to our own time that they are very relatable and understandable" I feel that: my paternal grandfather was born in 1869 (his father had been wounded in the Corn Field at Antietam [1862]), and my father was born in 1912. Plus, for those of us alive in 1970, we are shaken now to realize that this year, 2024 is as far from 1970 as 1970 was from 1916. (My paternal-line family, as founding members of the Virginia Company, came from London to Jamestown in 1610.)
1970 is equidistant between 1916 and 2024. So of course it’s as far.
What were you expecting, time to stand still?
@@flashgordon6670 let old people old
This is one of the best history series on UA-cam. Very enlightening.
Thanks for the compilation, this was an excellent series.
By far one of the most engaging series on UA-cam as far as I’m concerned!
Cannot wait to rewatch this
*I will wait for some 10 minutes, since in the meanwhile I plan to entertain myself with this so called "gay pornography" that my friend has just told me about, as I can't wait more to see if that would be an interesting experience, do you know something about that "gay pornography", Sir?*
Fantastic sies, flows so well in the consistency of style.
The "Scramble for China" might make an interesting topic for one of your videos.
"Wherever there is somewhere we want to destabilize, the British have an island nearby" - CIA
Not anymore😂 thats why theres civil wars and disorder these days lol
I was supposed to work on my dissertation this evening…. It can wait until tomorrow
Love it. Thanks for the compilation.
How the United States engaged in realpolitik to destroy the British Empire - A Documentary.
A fantastic piece from this channel, showing how all this frivolous talk of Special Relationships, brotherly love and democratic countries standing together against evil is nothing more than a mask to hide the real games that states play against each other. As a Brit, I doff my hat to Washington for it's brilliant execution of realpolitik on the global stage, and resent Westminster for it's foolishness in allowing it's global dominance to be undermined so succinctly and thoroughly by others
Closest thing the US has to a "brotherly relationship" (or more accurately big brother to little brother relationship) is with Canada. Canada has never been a geopolitical threat and most of it is culturally identical to the populated New England area of the US. And Canada punches above its weight economically and diplomatically (very high GDP and founding member of NATO)
The US also has a special relationship with Israel though that's more of a parent-child relationship where the parent can't say no to the child. No offense to Israel but the US always interacts with Israel through noticeably softer gloves compared to other countries.
I don't think any other US relationship comes close to these two.
i’m sure india was happy too see it happen
Us Americans learned it all from you Brits.
Sad. My family is from three of the countries of the UK and my impression has always been that you Brits are our kith and kin; and that the only real animus between our countries stems from what was a continuation of the English Civil; and that this time Cromwell’s victory was permanent - at least on this side of the Atlantic.
The irony of all this is that Americas founding values were essentially British and we had far more in common than not. To this day most Americans draw their ancestry from England. I suppose we just couldn't end our quasi-cold war so long as Britain remained an empire and thus an existential threat
Simply one of the best history series, now compilation, available on UA-cam!
That was an amazing video. Great work!!
An excellent video and historical analysis, ty.
America ascended to the peak after dethroning an Empire that was both enemy and kin. It's poetic in a way.
Superb synthesis of a very long and complicated diplomatic relationship. While I was aware of most of the larger developments since WWI, the early US-UK years were news to me. Thank you for this presentation
Fantastic video!!!! Very informative and enjoyable. Keep up the Great work.
thank you very much. A fascinating and comprehensive video covering a very interesting and far too unknown aspect of history.
"A monstrous ambition"? Gee, wonder where we got that from?
The new age Rome really is a spitting image of its father and grandfather 🥰
Like father, like son
😂
@@TheSkyGuy77🤣
A superb video, I learned alot and am very impressed! In fact, I've only just realised that I've watched solidly until 2am!
The American relation with Britain throughout the 19th and 20th century is hardly explored seriously, which makes this an incredible and one-of-a-kind series. I don't know if you take requests for videos from non-patrons (I'm poor otherwise I would subscribe), but another hardly explored question is "How did the American Revolution inform British colonial policy afterwards?" As an American, I'd find this incredibly interesting, but I think it would be interesting to anyone. I wondered this after hearing some pop-historians handwave the Revolution as "not important enough to teach in school in Britain", which I think is a strange thing to "brag" about, thinking that it was a devastating blow to the Empire considering what would come of it, and that it must have informed colonial policy in some way so as to not allow something of that sort to happen again in Canada or Australia or other colonies. If you see this, let me know what you think.
The original Great game is Britain vs Russia,right?
No. Its existed long before Russia and Britain. Its a game of thrones.
Wouldn't call it the original. The Great game between Britain and Russia was post-napoleonic hence by a small margin making the US-British great game the original
Yes.
Categorically, yes. Capital G Capital G, 'Great Game', is about Great Britain VS Russia in between roughly the mid 1830's and 1900 ish. Even then, there are complications (e.g. by the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, technically, the Russians and British were allies, alongside the other nations involved in that including Japan and the USA) However, Britain was still technically strategically at odds with Russia, not wanting Russia to gain a warm water port on the Indian Ocean or in the Western Pacific.
They had fought wars in Afghanistan to prevent the very possibility (however unlikely) of the Russians paying of Afghan chiefs to gain passage to British India via the Khyber Pass) The British signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance Treaty of 1902, because Japan was a (then) useful ally to counter Russian Imperial expansionism in Asia. Britain and Japan had a very good relationship since the 1880's if not earlier, and formally speaking, from 1902 to the mid 1920's. When Japan began to get a bit too big for her boots in Korea and Manchuria, as well as challenging the naval balance of power as agreed in London and Washington, American and British politicians began to get annoyed with Japan and the USA outright enforced a trade embargo. Britain and Japan parted ways as friends in the 1930's and by 1941 Japan attacked Britain.
After that point, the British and Russians were ironically allied against the Japanese again, technically (although the Russians would not do much regarding Japan until a massive invasion into Japanese occupied Manchuria in 1945, the last campaign of WWII; and there, the enormous Soviet armies outnumbered a million man Kwantung Army defending the Japanese colony, over three to one; they were heavily defeated and the Russians had much more battle-hardened soldiers, as, for years, the Japanese military had siphoned off the best soldiers from the Kwantung Army garrisons to fight elsewhere against the Americans, British, Nepalese Gurkhas and Australians etc, only to find themselves denuding the strength of the Kwantung Army, which was largely left in a pre-war state of quality and equipment; and much of their aircraft and light tanks had been taken from them to fight elsewhere as well; meaning their squadrons and tanks were thinly dispersed and absolutely no match for the thousands of tanks and aircraft the Soviets hurled at Manchuria; it was very one-sided, including witnessing Japanese banzai charges against Russian tank formations on occasion; they stood no chance)
But simply looking at the 19th century, the British and Russia rivalry was very much the Cold War of it's time. It sometimes went hot though, in a world where Nuclear weapons thankfully did not yet exist. The Crimean War, witnessed the British and French fight the Russians hard in gruelling battles on the Crimean Peninsula. The British infantry at battles like Inkerman, fought tenaciously against superior Russian numbers and showed they were not afraid of Russia. It was common for the French and British to put the glory of the action in front of the tactical wisdom of the action, and to hurl themselves into Russian ranks.
At Inkerman, they fought in fog, which meant the British defending their positions there, were not fully-aware of how massive the Russian forces attacking them really were; belligerently screaming and bayonet charging into the mist, seemingly with reckless abandon) The Battle of Inkerman is often called 'the Soldier's Battle', because the visual hindrances aka the dense fog, and the smoke of battle, meant that the fighting often came down to individual soldiers fighting for their lives in the melee in the mists, and they were fighting bayonet to bayonet, with their enemies appearing at very close range out of the dense fog, meaning they were right on top of each other and fighting desperately, in small struggles for survival; where the wider tactical situation was not really perceptible a lot of the time.
The rivalry between Britain and Russia looked very antiquated by 1917, when the Bolsheviks destroyed (and murdered) the Russian Romanov Dynasty. Britain's entire purpose for controlling the Khyber Pass in Eastern Afghanistan, which it had since before 1880, and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (which, contrary to misconceptions abound regarding Afghanistan in general, Britain did genuinely win as far as she was concerned regarding her own reasons for being there; she had previously lost the First Anglo-Afghan War, decades earlier, in between 1838 and 1842)
The idea of the Bolsheviks asking the Afghans for a way through the Hindu Kush to attack the British Raj, was even sillier than the idea of the Russian Imperials doing the same earlier on (with even worse logistical capabilities) Britain had basically overestimated the Tsarist Russian Empire's ability, in the mid-late 19th century, to send large armies through Afghanistan. They'd have needed a very large army, over 100,000 men, likely much more, to even remotely challenge the British control of India and realistically by 1900 that would be even more laughable. The British strategists being paranoid about Russia, may have been right trough in the long run (just, jumping the gun by an entire 140 years) In 1980, the Soviet Russians _did_ invade Afghanistan. But they never got through the Khyber Pass nor were they trying to. Britain had left India in 1947 upon it's independence.
No the original great game, was between Ancient Babylon and Egypt. The world’s first two great empires.
I still find it hilarious that Germany made two massive diplomatic blunders in both world wars involving the US; Submarine warfare and the telegram in WW1 and declaring war on the US when they had time to better prepare or focus on Russia
The US was already fully funding the soviet union before the war, once the mafia assassinated Huey Long who was primed to become president so they could get in their pro mafia candidate, it was settled.
The USSR was a mafia founded state and the mafia was very sympathetic towards it.
First off, what a great video! I'm writing a research paper regarding British-American relations and I was hoping to see if you had some more sources that you used for this. I know the first two sections have sources in their original videos, but I can't find them for parts 3 and 4. It would be a massive help if you could provide some for my own research. Thanks again for the great documentary.
Superbly done. TY!
I'm glad our two countries finally realized we're both better off together - blood is thicker than water.
Define together because since Suez the Americans screwed us at every turn
@@Gordon-hx8cp I'm the last person to stick up for the US government, but the Suez situation wasn't done with malice toward the British, they were threatened by the Soviets. Eisenhower was very against it. America is more than its government. The Anglo-sphere exists for a reason and it's because we're like-minded. We aren't perfectly aligned at all times, but we're there for each other when it really matters. Or we should atleast strive to be.
@@Gordon-hx8cp well Suez was a botch job at trying to maintain a colony. That aside, anyone living in 1st world England today who thinks the US is against the UK and has been for the past 70 years is out of their mind 😂
What blood? Both have been genocided heavily and it's only accelerating
@@woahhbro2906"we" are there for each other?
America is only 58% white.
The UK is 68%.
Both percentages rapidly dropping. It's a tragedy to lose a world war and become subjugated, but even more tragic to believe you won one and that you are not occupied.
The best documentary I have ever seen on UA-cam. Brilliant.
Awesome. Well crafted on British Empire. Congratulations Well done.
Love your videos man, are you going to cover the opium wars?
Patrons have voted for a British Empire series in the near future so it will inevitably be covered in that.
@@OldBritanniaa British empire series would be amazing!
As a British born American, this stuff is like crack to me
Thank God your not over here. Its mental!!! Fuc Keir Starmer.
P
Thank you for this. It was simply brilliant. One of the best analysis of Britsh /American relations I have ever heard . So much effort and research has gone into this .
so well done. 🎉
This and the historia civilis coming out at the same time feels like Christmas to me lol
It is fascinating to see both disagree on the intention and beliefs of Canning. Civilis said that the Monroe doctrine was “planned by Canning who genuinely expected such a decision to go the way it did” vs here it’s stated as “Canning somewhat happened into it, and had different reasons”.
As a german its nice to have these videos from another perspective.
The portrayal of us is a great comedy.
I've studied the wars From various perspectives as well including germanys I can honestly say england was a definite aggressor in the world wars they were not innocent they were not very helpful in trying to get peace both times before the outbreak of war. I can easily tell this video is biased propaganda with little substance in it. The video creator sounds as if America wronged him personally and he longs for the day for the UK to return to the top
From an American, learning about German history is a great tragedy, so much potential, and yet never strong enough to realize those potentials. Even now being the largest economy in Europe your nation is just a small shadow of our economic and military and cultural might, we own your nation, find comedy in that fact I guess 😅
This guy deserves way more subs
A really interesting piece and relevant for the whole world as it seems to me. I don't come from the anglosphere and there are a lot of interesting hindsights - I especially enjoy your extensive depictions of the interactions between policy makers. Very very good!
Loved the video, keep it up!
Time to rewatch all the videos I have already seen individually as a big video!
Something seemed off about your world map, it took a minute to notice, but it lacks the caspian sea.
These videos are VERY well made!
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊
A return to the non-AI made portraits would be much appreciate
Anyone else feel like a paradox mega campaign during this?
My father, who grew up to fight in the Second World War, remembered our soldiers returning from the First as they paraded down our main street from the train station. My grandmother recalled him waving his little 48 star flag. "Uncle Fritz beat the Kaiser" he said. Little did he know.
Old Britannia, this video is a sheer masterpiece! Truly the Anglosphere evolved to change the world between the US and Britain. God bless the manifest destiny of British and American hegemonies ! 🇺🇸 🇬🇧
This might be the most interesting video I’ve ever watched
Would you consider doing a series on British (and maybe France) relations with the Middle East in the 20th century?
Also this video kinda proves America was almost guaranteed into the status it has.
Yeah...
Fascinating topic but the British tears over America playing the game better than Britain did is just *chefs kiss*
Big question is if Britain just fundamentally underestimated the US after its win in the War of 1812. And if so, how could that underestimation have lasted for more than a 100 years straight?
This Second Great Game is really interesting because unlike British Empire vs Russian Empire, the US and Britain gradually became less hostile to each as time went on. Yet nonetheless the outcome was the US beating the UK geopolitically almost on accident. Crazy.
Didnt the US have a secret invasion plan for Canada and a blockade of Britain in the 1930’s, but it was discarded due to the rise of Germany? Lol i think we’re friends out of necessity rather than real good chums, no matter how our leaders act and what they say. Thats just my opinion im entitled to it😂
It's "win" in the War of 1812? You can't be serious... Great Britain dropped all demands for a Native buffer state, ended all support for Tecumseh's Confederacy, paid the US in damages, had all of its invasion attempts defeated, and even relinquished ownership of several islands along the St Lawrence and Great Lakes, while giving up any territory it captured on its own. The war is remembered by both sides, as a stalemate.
The US didn't lose the War of 1812.
@@wiseandstrong3386u did
@@wiseandstrong3386your 2'd amendment is based on that.
Love this!
Excellent work! Thorough research!
The british should have federalized the empire, or at least part of it
“Clearly a boob guy 1:52:00” THAT CAUGHT ME SO OFF GUARD😭🙏
Chamberlain attempted closer US relations and trade agreement to frighten the dictators, he knew actual alliance impossible, and knew actual alliance would likely deter all the identified enemies, the impossibility of peace time alliance led to WWII.
“We must play Greeks to the Roman’s” what a great quote.
Wow! This is an awesome video.
Great channel!
38:45 “As usual, OHL could be relied upon to astonish the world with its almost mystical ability to pick the completely wrong option.”
I had to pause the video, I was laughing so hard at that dry delivery.
Absolutely amazing 👏
Excellent series
Superb. Thank you.
Great documentary!
I love this video, we just kept getting w after w
And now you're only 58% of your own population and rapidly decreasing.
Well done, clap clap clap.
The fall of the British Empire and the rise of the special relationship. 😂
the brain and the brawn muscle man
@@HouthiandtheblowfishChamberlain and Churchill
Your special
When did America stop seeing Canada as a target for future annexation, shifting course towards cooperation?
About the same time they stopped seeing Canada as a direct extension of the UK's will.
1811, when they voted not to deal with or annex Ontario, but rather the vast, unpopulated western North American lands. The attacks made in 1812-1815 were designed to force Great Britain to negotiate fairly on grievances Madison listed in his speech to Congress. Of course, war hawks within Congress also saw it as an opportunity to remove British influence from North America once and for all.
Concise and informative.
We expended so much energy, man-and-willpower in 20th Century, to what end?
We fought the Germans twice, when the real enemy tightened the noose.
And we've become completely apathetic in response.
Sucks to Suck USA 🇺🇲 USA 🇺🇲 USA 🇺🇲
What enemy are you referring to? The Americans or Communists?
The UK was on ration books until 1953 while the USA demanded high interest rates on top of war debts Churchill casually thought might be waved. People in the UK were eating worse rations in 1950-1953, in terms of calorific intake and nutrition, than they were at the height of the Blitz (in which, the USA stood by and watched 61,000 Britons die, and barely lift a finger in the grand scheme of things, in spite of Roosevelt's actions and genuine sympathies)
The sad reality was, that Britons were having a very difficult time post-war while the USA was literally booming (the US boomers living it up in the surging success of Americana in general, culturally and economically) The Rustbelt was not rusty yet, and the Mid West was still a powerhouse of industry for the time being. Britain thought, quite rightly, it deserved better than to be treated this way by the US government, but sadly, it was not a healthy relationship. The USA was outright using the UN to go after British and French Imperialism while simultaneously countering Communist Russia and China. And the Americans were more polite to the Russians and Chinese, which is saying something, than they were to the British and French. See Suez 1956.
@@chibble3591
@@chibble3591 the American state.
Americans spilt blood so the Europe would be free. Their patriotism and goodwill was exploited by the infant Military Industrial Complex.
The Colonial world was left in tatters. Britain, France and the minor Colonial powers were not given the proper timeframe to decolonise. This is what resulted in the rampant corruption, war, and death experienced in Africa, including up to today.
The American state is the largest propagator of evil in all of human history.
The UN has been disastrous by and large.@@eagle_and_the_dragon
The last years of the Great game was Johnson-vs Wilson from 1964 to 1970
It ended in 1956
"Officially" ended with the 1956 Suez Crisis but I'd say Johnson basically bullying Wilson over Wilson opposing the Vietnam War is like the dark epilogue.
1:32:07 how America finds itself exactly where TeamGB was back then. The two countries have been at it since the beginning … and now we reach the end of the road for both… as the enlightenment descends into darkness
Your maps are usually very good, but you included West Virgina in the Confederacy, when it was part of the Union.
Virginia joined the Confederacy, at that time West Virginia did not exist and was part of Virginia. It seceded from Virginia during the war and was not admitted as a State until 1863.
So in other words, it did not want to be part of the Confederacy. This part of the state was loyal to the Union. After a couple years of the war the region officially became a State of the Union. @@Ras_al_Gore
@@davidmajer3652 it doesn’t matter, it was a part of the Confederacy because it was part of Virginia, which joined the Confederacy. Whether it wanted to be or not is irrelevant, the map is accurate.
What the West Virginians wanted does matter, and by your own Addisson West Virgina was a state in the Union for half the war. @@Ras_al_Gore
@@davidmajer3652 no it doesn’t. You’re the one who had a problem with the map. WV was part of the confederacy, so the map is accurate. It doesn’t matter if it also joined the Union later. The map would be accurate either way.
Superb
Best series on youtube
Excellent
Love listening to this as an American, I imagine this kind of bitterness towards the past is the same kind of bitterness that the Greeks felt towards the Romans as the Romans eclipsed the collective power of the Greek colonies and polis
Among the best of the best Political History program on line.
You have a very pleasant accent. It's...hard to describe. It's wholesome and wry. It's homely and bright. I wish there was a way of describing accents. What do you think Southern English accent sounds like? Darlicks, Lesbian chief constables, German people, Darth Vader, the Devil, and Anne Whittacombe. If accents were tastes the Southern English language would be the only one that had no flavour at all, like water. But Northern accents are more fruity, lively, homely and fun.
The accent of Merseyside is essentially the merger of an English and Irish accent (thanks to the potato famine). You get the best (and worst) of both worlds.
Brilliant.
Your videos thought me that *Britain gave in to US at every turn* even when it had an upper hand and even when US was in a war like with Mexico, civil war or Spanish war. Britain nursed US into being the global hegemon of today.
Britain was prudent not to help the Confederacy. Even if the Confederacy eventually won, the Union would have taken it back in a separate war before the atomic age with superior manpower and industry, and the Union likely would have done it as an enemy of Britain and her allies during the world wars (meaning no loans/Lend Lease). It also probably would have guaranteed the loss of Canada if such a thing happened.
The Confederacy is no US in anything. Helping it just ensures the US be stuck in an irredentist streak...
You could also look at it like the USA screwed over Britain whenever it possibly could.
The USA loves to do that, still today
If britain gave in the everything than all of Canada would have been conquered by the USA. Also rhe Caribbean and Central America would have been USA colonies much earlier than the early 20th century. This happened over a long period of time and the usa gradually grew more powerful than britain. The conflict also was around the borders of the usa not britain. It's not like britain gave in to usa demands around the borders of britain or India during pax Britannica period.
The reality is that Britain gave in only because it never made any sense to resist, you seem to underestimate the difficulty is waging war against a near pear power on the other side of the globe especially in those days.
The only reason Britain ever put up even a token of resistance against America is because it was mathematically guaranteed to overtake their position on the world stage, being derived of the same culture and stock having access to the same technologies and institutional knowledge and near unchallenged command over 1-2 whole continents. More or less the only thing that could have definitively prevented such an outcome would have been the successful expulsion of the early Anglo settlers by the Indians.
Frankly it's quite a scary thought for anyone of the time with any modest talent for foresight.
Great video! Very informative. But, I’ll say from an American perspective, this transition was only sped up with WWII. The US has 25x the natural resources, waterways, farmland of the UK. If you look at this in 100 more years, you’ll realize than USA, eu, China, russia(if it can hold on), and India are the peer competitors. The British empire was great and truly changed the world for the best, but in no world can an island hoist world supremacy for that long.
Hats off, Sir. 🎩
A rare outbreak of economic competency indeed, lol.
Also canning is almost in that level like as an American we don't have the best statesmen but we make up for that in power.
Castlereifgh Salisbury are probably the two greatest statesmen of the 19 century the only 2 I'd say are close are Bismarck and Talleyrand maybe meternick but I'm not confident in his abilities
* The concept of "Latin America" did not exist in the early 19th Century.
* Spanish America was not "liberated". There was a civil war and territories secceeded. Thinking about the new republics as former nations that had been occupied and oppressed by Spain is completely unhistorical, on the same sense as if a potential Californian seccession today was called a liberation from the United States.
As someone from Barbados who supported the monarchy there. i would love to point out how when Barbados abolished the monarchy in the mosr undemocratic fashion the vice president of the us was so quick to visit the country. Something never done before. America never cared about Barbados only up to that point and never again has it ever bat an eye to Barbados. That was clearly a means to wedge the relationship between Barbados and britain and to as what this video implies further disrupt Britain from her former colonies and dominions by any means. And keep her subjegated.
As an American what the hell is a Barbados.
The USA has often stabbed Britain in the back even while nominally being allies. There is a pattern of behaviour from the US government over the past 80-90 years which particularly deserves closer analysis.
The US had a naval facility on Barbados from '57 to '79. The US cared a little. The visit after the end of the monarchy was about BLM and the end of "white rule" of a sort. That it was Barbados or some other island didn't matter.
@@joetrey215 Interesting. What do you think Barbados thinks about the UK today in 2024? Are relations okay in spite of the whole leaving the Commonwealth thing? Or do you think they are just neutral.
@@joetrey215 "blm" is an American not a Caribbean thing
This was arguably a Greater Game than the one with Imperial Russia. I always wonder what the outcome of the British Empire would have been had they allied with Germany or Russia against the rise of the United States.
WW1 was the true death of it. Britain went from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor keeping its allies in the black and a lot of that was with US money. Then after that and with a lot of economic growth in the 30s WW2 happened and basically broke the back of Europe as the leading continent and home of the world powers.
We killed the continent for literally nothing
Question: what is in it for Germany or Russia to ally against the US? You have to explain to the folks in Berlin and St. Petersburg why should they care about opposing the rise of a country they have no geopolitical conflict with...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131perhaps more importantly, why would Britain tie themselves to the continent in exchange for the goodwill of a land empire, whose support couldn’t be that important due to the Atlantic separating those European powers, already pinned down due to European squabbling?
It would have been the opposite. There are 48 million Americans of German ancestry and 47 million with English. During ww1, there were 10 million German born Americans (10% of the population). The US could have easily decided to ally with Germany and was talked about often. It was British propaganda against Germany that swayed the US to Britian. But the US didn't want to get involved in European politics, so Britain and Germany never would have joined against the US because there was never a reason for it.
nice
Iirc after aligning with Britain and France during WWI and not pursuing the alliance with both of them even further after the war, some debated that if the US went on a war against Britain in the inter war years, the US would lose since Britain had vast amount of territories and could somehow lockdown the Atlantic ocean with their superior Navy and Naval bases from New Foundland in the North and in the Caribbeans to the South, which prevented the US Navy in conducting large scale operations and also preventing the US Pacific fleet in reinforcing their Atlantic Fleet to the Panama Canal and transit them to the Atlantic when they could be intercepted by the British in the Caribbean. Also Canada, which could be used by the British as staging and jumping off point in invading the US from the North. Lastly the state of the US armed forces in the 1920s and early 30s, with their peak strength, they couldn't cope with combined Canadian and British invasion from the North.
I’ll probably get shot down for this as usual with the internet but this is my opinion and opinion only. I think our relationship is not very special more like we needed each other out of necessity. During the first world war Britain needed more man power on the front lines, America had never fought a European war at this point so i think they kinda wanted to prove themselves as a major player. Second world war Britain again needed man power but also resources which America has plenty of, also America didnt want Britain to fall as that would place Germany as the sole European power so its mutual benefits. Today although we have grown close its still necessity in my opinion. Britain needs American money and resources and on the other hand America needs Britain friendly due to our strategic position in Europe. Mutual benefits. Leaders say this and that but i bet they dont like each other half the time lol
This is awesome, thank you so much for this sorry ass reality. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace" -James Marshall Hendrix
Literally, a Winchester pump action loading explosive slugs is unofficially considered the most effective and taboo war crime. We invented nukes to avoid using such uncivilised overkill during civilized state warfare.
For some reason, the narrator sounds a LOT like Gary Neville.
"Rare outbreak of economic competence".