Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ignoring the rather creepy sounding effect of the term, is it valid? I remember sometime ago a couple of newspapers questioning this relationship. They pointed out that in fact there are fundamental differences between the two countries that actually make this concept pointless. My post yesterday make me reflect on this and I have to say I believe that they could have a point.

It's a hard area to breakdown but I will try and put across some of my reasons that I believe our relationship is no different to any other.

From what I've read it would appear this term has expanded from the US involvement in WWII. History appears to forget that FDR had a hell of a job getting the US involved and if it wasn't for Pearl Harbour and Hitler declaring war on it, you may not of been involved that deeply. Added to this the US military had a different view of how to pursue the war than we did. From a British perspective I think we believed that because the US spoke English and was a former colony you'd come running to protect the mother country. We forgot that there was a lot of bad blood between us since the War of Independance and it was arrogant of us to expect automatic help. Anyway WWII appeared to of fixed some pass issues and allowed a new friendship to develop, but I think we overlooked the fact that the US had grown up and developed it's on "personality", kinda like your kids growing up.

I would imagine that sharing a language also compounds this belief. Areas I think that stand out as different:

You have the Democrats & Republicans and maybe a few independants. We have Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, BNP and few other odds & sods.

Your Democrats & Republicans appear to be fundimentally different to Labour & Tories. I know some of our Tories can be very right wing, but I think the majority aren't as right wing as most of your Republicans. The Democrats? I'm abit confused to them, they appear to get bashed for being too "liberal" but I think they would baulk from most of the policies that Labour believe in.

You appear to have a national fear of government control, whereas we just have a grumble every now & then. Touch the constitution at your peril!

An obsession with firearms that we find perplexing.

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

On the diplomatic front the US has a straight speaking approach to dealing with things. You attack us, we attack you. We on the other hand have a mixed approach.

None of these examples are good or bad, but they do seem to reinforce that the US should be considered a good ally, rather than a best friend. In fact you could use work colleague as a more accurate description. You get on with them and have a laugh, but at the end of the day you have your own life and they have their's.

Hope that I've not been too hamfisted in writing this up

After world war two a friendship statted to develop? Anthony Eden f'd up the US's relationship with Britain beyond all recognition. This "special relationship" is actually much more recent.

I have been to germany, I have been to the netherlands, I have been to the US. The first two I would consider far more similar to british culture.

BTW might want to make it clear what you're on about before two paragraphs into your post.

I know it's a bit rough around the edges, but I was writing it whilst dialing into 2 pc's and fixing various problems and whilst the pc's were rebooting

Wolfstan wrote:

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

Really ? See if anything I think the opposite here. Always struck me as if the USA seems much more prepared for the inevitable harsh sacrifices and the human cost in a war, especially in the last few years. I'll grant you that the mixed feelings about our current military engagements affect this, but I really wonder at times if the country as a whole would stomach even a minor war ala Falklands like we have done in the past. I guess the way the war is talked about in the media and so forth would affect this of course.

I think the genuine friendship between Reagan and Thatcher developed the relationship a lot. Me learned friends who know about such things speak quite confidently that the UK and USA intel agencies, in Europe at least, are almost so intermixed that it would be nigh on impossible to separate them out from each other.

I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

A more 'to the point' summation of the kids is that:
India and Aus went through their stage, but they call every now and then.
Canada and NZ went to college, got a diploma and a job, and NZ settled down with a nice girl called 'Baaaah'. Canada never moved out.

America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

I'd agree. Not that sure about canada though.

If Canada was any closer, there might have to be some sort of 'national incest' charge or sumfink introduced...

...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think you summed it up quite well. I believe that Canada, NZ, even India and Aus have a closer relationship with Britain than America does.

A more 'to the point' summation of the kids is that:
India and Aus went through their stage, but they call every now and then.
Canada and NZ went to college, got a diploma and a job, and NZ settled down with a nice girl called 'Baaaah'. Canada never moved out.

America on the other hand is the one who took drugs, got laid, got pregnant, and moved out.

That I like!

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

Compared to..India? Australia? Every Canadian I've met holds a dainty disregard for America, and some hold a subtle respect for England. (most having come from there themselves.)

It's a very different culture, that has more in common with america. Unlike australia. And i can't seem to call any company in Britain nowadays without my call being redirected to somewhere in india.

Canada don't play cricket. end of.

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

You're 1000% correct. The British won at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, turfed the French Government out totally in 1763, and then their descendants decided to hand over control of the country back to the descendants of the French roughly 200 years later. Add to the fact that Canada lives in the shadow of the US and is basically a serf of the US (the economies are so intertwined and the US calls the shots) it is no wonder that Canada has moved further away from the other commonwealth nations. Although we, pardon me, they still do spell properly. LabOUr, colOUr, etc. Canada and the US are extremely similar, with universal healthcare being the biggest difference.

Canada: Leading the world in being just north of the United States.

My personal belief is that the US and UK are fairly close, not only due to (but certainly aided by) a shared language but by the US being a democratic nation founded on a judeo-christian morality and set up mainly by ex-brits.

The cultural mingling that is constantly going on due to shared language further facilitates a close relationship. My girlfriend is american, I travel to the states often and I have to say, with some minor differences, it's no different to the UK overall. From our ongoing discussion on culture, it seem that there is almost as much difference in regions in the US than there is in difference between the US and UK, the average Texan outlook being fairly different to the average New Yorker outlook being fairly different to the average Californian, but then that's a nation the size of a continent.

A major difference? Perhaps as we saw with the (and lets not let this divert the thread pls) release of that bomber, it's that the Americans aren't as world weary as a nation as we Brits, one of the things that really stands out on my time in the states is the flag, the stars and stripes hands on the porch or in the yard of more houses than not over there, Brits don't have the same sense of patriotism (any more maybe) and that pride and belief in right and wrong in clear balck and white terms is viewed by the Brits as a sort of immaturity or lack of insight into the shades of grey in the world. Frankly I found it refreshing that people would be proud of the country they live in, since us Brits are mostly self loathing about our green and pleasant land. It can be perhaps best summed up as a vigour and strong self belief as opposed to the tired and hesitant doubt and pessimism the British have fallen into in the last 70 years.

We are allies, we are naturally disposed to get on better with each other than alot of the world, but there will be clashes of interest since both will also be governed foremost by self interest.

EDIT: @whatwhat;
...?
Frankly, you've got me fairly stumped with that cricket conundrum. But I just can't see Canada walking hand in hand with America.
*sniffle*
Mabye our little boy blue is finnaly growing up?
Let's just hope he doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd...
*cue America*

Khornholio wrote:

whatwhat wrote:...? I think of all commonwealth countries, or at least the major ones, Canada is probably the least involved with Britain.

You're 1000% correct. The British won at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, turfed the French Government out totally in 1763, and then their descendants decided to hand over control of the country back to the descendants of the French roughly 200 years later. Add to the fact that Canada lives in the shadow of the US and is basically a serf of the US (the economies are so intertwined and the US calls the shots) it is no wonder that Canada has moved further away from the other commonwealth nations. Although we, pardon me, they still do spell properly. LabOUr, colOUr, etc. Canada and the US are extremely similar, with universal healthcare being the biggest difference.

Canada: Leading the world in being just north of the United States.

Well you put that better than I did, even if you forgot to mention cricket.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...?
Frankly, you've got me fairly stumped with that cricket conundrum. But I just can't see Canada walking hand in hand with America.
*sniffle*
Mabye our little boy blue is finnaly growing up?
Let's just hope he doesn't fall in with the wrong crowd...
*cue America*

I think you have this whole britain canada thing all wrong.

BTW, all the loyalist Americans at the end of the War for Independance or tea Party or whatever, they all went to canada. All 60,000 or so of them. (a lot back then)

But DAMMIT. It still doesn't answer the cricket conundrum. What DO they play apart from hockey?

Swingball?

eh?

you haven't lived...

http://www.thetoyshop.com/media/toyshop/products/Mookie/Zoom/322727-Zoom.jpg

oh...
Well, we actually have that at our cousins. But we always make the aim of the game to hit the other person with the ball when it swings around.

That's a three match ban in canada.

LOL, no wonder Aus is never invited to the championships. We'z too tough for ya!

reds8n wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

When fighting in a conflict your government seems to always have one eye on public opinion when it comes to casualties. Our politicians seem to have more robust approach to military losses.

Really ? See if anything I think the opposite here. Always struck me as if the USA seems much more prepared for the inevitable harsh sacrifices and the human cost in a war, especially in the last few years. I'll grant you that the mixed feelings about our current military engagements affect this, but I really wonder at times if the country as a whole would stomach even a minor war ala Falklands like we have done in the past. I guess the way the war is talked about in the media and so forth would affect this of course.

I think the genuine friendship between Reagan and Thatcher developed the relationship a lot. Me learned friends who know about such things speak quite confidently that the UK and USA intel agencies, in Europe at least, are almost so intermixed that it would be nigh on impossible to separate them out from each other.

There is deep public ambivalence about UK involvement in Iraq and considerable public ambivalence about our involvement in Afghanistan. The aversion to casualties arises from this situation.

Indeed, but I do think there is a much more ...hmmm...."squeamishness"...about such things these days.

Not everywhere or in every situation I suppose, looking back at the London bus bombs it did tickle me how the whole country kind of shrugged and just carried on. Which was the right thing to do. I guess perhaps I'm still astonished and embarrassed by the whole Diana's funeral farce.

We've been bombed during the blitz and by the IRA, the Brits are used to it, the US has had the cushioning of two oceans and some fairly non-hostile neighbours. Their civilian population reacts far more extremely to direct hostility when it occurs on the rare occasions (Pearl Harbour, 9/11).

reds8n wrote:Indeed, but I do think there is a much more ...hmmm...."squeamishness"...about such things these days.

Not everywhere or in every situation I suppose, looking back at the London bus bombs it did tickle me how the whole country kind of shrugged and just carried on. Which was the right thing to do. I guess perhaps I'm still astonished and embarrassed by the whole Diana's funeral farce.

That was overblown by the media. There were plenty of grief-stricken mourners, but I never met any of them.

My friend's mother set up a shrine to Diana when she died, she also cried about Jordan and Peter Andre breaking up. My friend takes after his father.

Kilkrazy wrote:

That was overblown by the media. There were plenty of grief-stricken mourners, but I never met any of them.

Odd wasn't it. There were literally thousands of people swept up in this whole thing, yet I have never met anyone who really gave a feth one way or the other.

I can only assume that along with having voted for Thatcher, bought anything by The Darkness, or ever have found Lenny Henry funny, it's one of those things one does not admit to in polite company.

@ MGS...oh yeah... " a friend" is it.... right ......right..... we believe you.

I would imagine the average American sees America's relationship with Britian somewat similar to that friend who isn't really your friend but just follows you around. It's a relationship which seems much more important to the British than the US.

Emperors Faithful wrote:BTW, all the loyalist Americans at the end of the War for Independance or tea Party or whatever, they all went to canada. All 60,000 or so of them. (a lot back then)

But DAMMIT. It still doesn't answer the cricket conundrum. What DO they play apart from hockey?

Road Hockey.

I lived with an Aussie for 3 years and I still don't get Cricket. All day! Seriously? But I did learn the difference between proper Cricket and Pajama Cricket. Apparently, Australia is the best in every sport too. But that is for a different thread...