Is Winston Churchill reasponsable for the US/UK alliance we have today?

Question

Following ww2, he did not actively engage the French, Italians, or other pan European countries as much as he fostered the special friendship between the US and Britain.

Answer 1

Churchill started the 'special relationship' in WW2, with the lend-lease program. Churchill's pragmatic statement "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job" came from one who believed in a "mixing-up" of the English-speaking democracies. The unspoken alliance was further cemented in August 1941 by the dramatic meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, which produced the Atlantic Charter, a statement of common principles between the United States and Britain.

When returned to power in 1951, he was convinced that Labour had allowed the transatlantic relationship to sag, and one of his first acts was to visit Washington (and also Ottawa) in January 1952 to repair the damage he felt had been done. The visit helped to check U.S. fears that the British would desert the Korean War, harmonized attitudes toward German rearmament and, distasteful though it was to Churchill, resulted in the acceptance of a U.S. naval commander in chief of the eastern Atlantic. It did not produce that sharing of secrets of atom bomb manufacture that Churchill felt had unfairly lapsed after the war. Churchill's advocacy of European union did not result in active British participation. His government wanted a European Union with Britain excluded, and with Britain pursuing a policy of alliance with the English speaking world.

Answer 2

Yes the World War II Allies laid the foundation for Nato. The stresses between Germany France and Russia are permanent and different combinations of 2 out of the 3 had caused 3 major wars in 70 years.

Churchill himself was American on his mother's side. His early speech "We shall fight them on the beaches..." ends with an appeal to America to take up the fight for freedom after Britains inevitable defeat, He believed in a common cause between the two nations of democracy and law and he put a lot of faith in the ties of culture and language.

His predecessor Chamberlain believed he could arbitrate between the various European powers. Churchill knew that appeasement was impossible and believed that only the industrial might of America could defeat the Nazis.

He was right.

In the 1980's Thatcher and Reagan reinvigorated the Allies after a) the formation of the EEC/EU and b) Wilsons refusal to send troops to Vietnam had apparently diminished the importance of the special relationship.

I think it harsh and wrong to say that the current relationship is one of a lap dog and master. It has been that way since WW2 with Churchill pleading for the Lend Lease ships when America was still neutral. He was nothing if not practical. What did the Americans do for us during the Falklands conflict? Nothing, in fact they refused to sell us weapons. Mrs Thatcher realised that she needed to get America onside in the future. She would certainly have sent troops to Vietnam,

Tony Blair has continued to recognise that the special relationship is only special so long as Britain is useful to the US. In return for his participation in the Iraq war he is expecting some big fat contracts to rebuild the country in the peace. Should Argentina try to regain the Falkland islands he'd be pretty upset if America didn't step in to slap them down.

Answer 3

I'm not so sure about what you say in your detail, but I think there is no doubt that Churchill is mainly responsible for the Anglo-American "special relationship".

Up to the beginning of WWII, American opinion of Great Britain was cool at best, due to past friction, British imperialism, and defaulting on WWI war debt.

After Churchill became PM and particularly after Pearl Harbor, his frequent trips to the US (most importantly his trip over Christmas 1941) changed public opinion. The people of the US liked Churchill and eventually the British in general.

It did not hurt that this "Briton's Briton" had an American mother.

Answer 4

I trust each thing Frankie has only reported. Churchill replaced into the 1st united kingdom (and in all probability the 1st eu) baby-kisser to speak a pair of eu Union, He replaced into additionally set up the 1st national minimum salary in 1908, he set up the 1st labour exchanges (job centres) in 1909, he help draft the unemployment pension law decrease than the national coverage act of 1911. In 1910 he exceeded a funds that taxed the wealthy as a fashion to establish a sparkling social welfare programme, which replaced into regrettably vetoed by the residing house of lords. He in ordinary terms adversarial the forming of the NHS in 1948 because of fact he did no longer think of the rustic might desire to locate the money for it on the time (he replaced into only approximately proved stunning in 1951 whilst the financial toll bring about the introduction of costs for prescriptions to offset the fee). Churchill could be considered a liberal by immediately's standards and could lots extra in all probability be a member of the liberal occasion than the tories in reality he crossed the floor from conservatives to liberals in 1904, until now rejoining the conservatives in 1925. jointly as remembered specifically for his achievements because of fact the conflict time conservative best minister, he could the two be celebrated for loads of the advancements he made to the working type human beings of this united states of america interior the early area of the 20 th century.

Answer 5

No, He would not have taken responsibility for the present US/UK alliance.
Winston Churchill, arguabley the personality with the most profound influence, on the free world, in the 20th century, would never have been a puppet of George W. Bush

Answer 6

Why does Australia and New Zealand always get forgotten in answers to questions like this?
I don't know that much about war and the politics of war. But I do know that both sides were heavily dependant on the ANZAC forces in WWII.Much more so than any European country.
We were also the U.S.A.'s main allied force in Vietnam, due to an agreement that carried over from W.W.II,called the A.N.Z.A.S. treaty.
Australia also has many of its military,naval and in paricular special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We still hold alligence to Queen Elizabeth II and to our allies the U.S.A.
Sorry, but this annoys me greatly.