Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impacts of the cold war
United States role in World War 2
Impacts of the cold war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impacts of the cold war
The United States and Britain have had a “special relationship” since World War II. Winston Churchill made the expression “special relationship” it stands for the military, political and financial support that has existed between the United States and Britain ever since their partnership in World War II. The special relationship stills lives on in the United States and Britain in four key ways; military involvement, security, economy and traded. The US and the UK both feared the Soviet threat, of the spread of communism in Europe, so military ties between the US and UK was fortified. In 1946 the US and UK air forces reached “an agreement to continue their wartime partnership in man power, strategies, gear and investigation” (Baylis 1977, p.70).Also in 1947, “further agreement was also reached on an extension of co-operation in officer exchanges for training purposes” (Baylis 1977, p.70). The US and UK also got shared access to each other’s military information. Since World War II, the US has been an important part in guaranteeing the UK’s safety and protection. The US kept a large amount of troops in Europe throughout the post-World War II years, when economically overwhelmed countries faced the risk of the Soviet Union. By keeping troop in Europe this helped lower the UK’s military costs (Baylis 1984). Also, defense support by the US continued after the Cold War, with 11,000 American military soldiers still in Britain through 2005. Furthermore, the UK takes part in the US Ballistic Defense program (Dumbrell 2006), and both countries work together in the field of nuclear defense. Nuclear weapons development has been a study of strong US-UK teamwork. The McMahon Act and the creation of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, the UK got ... ... middle of paper ... ...umbrell, J. (2000) A Special Relationship. Anglo-American Relations in the Cold War and After. 2nd Edition. London: Macmillan. Gardner, R. (2001) ‘The Marshall Plan Fifty Years Later: Three What-Ifs and a When’, in Schain, M. (ed.) The Marshall Plan: Fifty Years After. New York: Palgrave, p.119-129. Leigh-Pippard, H. (1995) Congress and US Military Aid to Britain: Interdependence and Dependence, 1949-56. 1st Edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Ovendale, R. (1998) Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century. 1st Edition. Basingstoke : Macmillan. Raymond, R. (2006) ‘Anglo-American Economic and Business Relationships: A British Perspective’, in McCausland, J. D. and Stuart D. T. (eds.) U.S.-UK Relations at the Start of the 21ST Century. Strategic Studies Institute [Online.] Available at: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ (Accessed: 27 January 2014).
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
Isaacs J (2008). ‘Cold War: For Forty-five Years the World Held its Breath’. Published by Abacus, 2008.
SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, A ROMANTICISED ‘SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP’ between the United States and Britain has been referenced on countless occasions in speeches, books, and essays by academics and statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic. The relationship has multiple definitions, with no precise doctrine or formal agreement that outlines its tenets, and has been apparent in a myriad of interactions between the two countries.
From 1754 to 1763, the French and Indian War took place. This war altered the political, economic, and ideological relations between Britain and its American colonies. It was the last of four North American wars waged from 1689 to 1763 between the British and the French. In these struggles, each country fought for control of the continent with the assistance of Native American and colonial allies. The French and Indian War occurred to end the land dispute between the British and French. Whoever won, in reality, gained an empire. It was a determined and eventually successful attempt by the British to get a dominant position in North America, the West Indies, and the subcontinent of India. Although Britain had won all this land, political, economic, and ideological relations between Britain and its American colonies were totally annihilated.
Henry A. Kissinger, perhaps one of the most powerful American diplomats of the twentieth century, remarked that in his time, “[George F. Kennan] came as close to authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our history” (Kissinger, 1979: 135). It is interesting to note, however, Kissinger’s appraisal of the doctrine as being a success in his time—not all time, and perhaps not even in Kissinger’s time. Despite the relative absence of scholarly consensus surrounding the body of thought that has become Kennan’s strategic canon, few could plausibly deny that Kennan had a profound impact on the exercise of American foreign policy during the Cold War.
When we look at just a few of the specifics of our trade with the U.S., we find that:
In the years following World War II, many scholars argue the United States and Britain have been bonded by a ‘special relationship.’ Since 1945, this relationship has resulted in several policies, both domestic and foreign. The ‘special relationship’ includes aspects in finances, allied forces during the Cold War, similar cultures and even personal relationships between leaders.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Gregory, Ross. A. Cold War America: 1946 to 1990. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2003. McQuaid, Kim.
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box "Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War". New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc. 1992.
In the years after World War II started, but before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor there was tension over how Britain should pay for the goods it was receiving from the United States. At first Britain paid for them, however, there was increasing pressure to allow them to buy on credit. When the “USS Louisville [went] to Cape Town to pick up the gold” to pay for the goods it increased tension. (page 115) Many in Britain saw the Americans as “high-handed and grasping, while the Americans saw the millions of dollars in gold as proof that Britain wasn’t on the verge of bankruptcy as the British claimed.” The problem with this argument is that while this issue created tension it didn’t threaten to break them. As much as the British hated the depletion of their gold reserves they needed American help too much to be stingy. While many Americans questioned why they should help Britain there were very few who wanted Germany to
In four years, the Marshall Plan achieved remarkable success. By 1950, industrial production had expanded to 40% above the pre-war amounts. Inflation was constricted and trading relationships, whether domestic or foreign were more satisfactory than projected (Hogan, 1987, p. 430; Shultz, 1987, p. 14). OEEC members’ aggregate Gross National Product (GNP) increased by more than 32% between 1948 and 1951; farming production also grew by 11% (Hogan, 1987, p. 431). All of this helped to significantly raise living standards” (Shultz, 1987, p.
The Battle of Britain significantly changed Americans’ opinion and promoted the establishment of Anglo-American alliance, laying the foundation of the allied victory. During the battle, many Americans accepted the view promoted by Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador in London, who believed that the United Kingdom could not survive. Even though President Roosevelt wanted to give more American support to Britain, the American government finally decided to send few troops to Britain, even less than some small commonwealth countries. To most Americans that time, it was meaningless to help Britain. However, in the Battle of Britain, the RAF continued gaining in strength each week, and the Luftwaffe's morale in combat was definitely broken. After
Pascall, Glenn R., and Robert D. Lamson. Beyond Guns & Butter: Recapturing America's Economic Momentum after a Military Decade. Washington: Brassey's, 1991. Print.
Published in 2007 by Barry Machado, the book In Search of a Usable Past: The Marshall and Postwar Reconstruction Today documents a study designed to “establish the relevance for contemporary postwar reconstruction programs of an experimental foreign policy conceived and executed back in the late 1940s and early 1950s.” Machado professionally documents that study and analyzes the study to consider is a policy like the Marshall Plan could succeed in modern politics. Machado received his Ph.D. in education from Northwestern in 1957 indicating accuracy in this work. The book was published 60 years after the Marshall Plan was initiated, so the facts used in this work are accurate.
Churchill’s stated: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” He also states “Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America”. He expressed the need for them to come together and remain a union. In retrospect they would benefits from them. “Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but