At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world, with the largest number of warships built and with naval bases across the globe. It had over 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines.
the only people who use the phrase "The Special Relationship" are people who live in the British Isles. Sure, Reagan used the phrase, but that was the 1980s. completely different world than we have today. . .
No, not the British Isles, the British Parliament. The other 60 odd million of us think otherwise. "Special Relationship" means we know we are f*@cked but if we pretend we don't know our leaders might escape being bent over and grabbing their ankles on the White House lawn too often.
As a nuanced and skeptical examination of Anglo-American relations Mr. Hitchens succeeds in spotlighting the over-simplification of the expression "special relationship". That relationship is one rooted in the dynamics of power and influence. The second half of the 20th century saw the US heavily engaged in the cold war with its battlegrounds in Korea, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, Europe and most recently an ascendant China. If a minority partner in the blood and treasure expended in the course of that struggle was slighted in some way it is because the rules of the greater game are harsh, negative outcomes unacceptable, blood and treasure spent unequal. Peter hints at this when he remarks that the failed Puritan revolution of the English Civil War forced the diaspora of the Puritans who went on to found a republic of greater power than the monarchy which ultimately expelled them. The considerations in those olden days were power, not nationality. It is sadly true that the rules which govern nations remain those of power not kinship. Whatever the current state of play it will be impossible for all participants on the field to be completely comfortable with an 800 pound gorilla sharing the turf with them. The disquiet can only be less or more depending which side you play for.
@@shinmadd3517 Shouldn't have fought WW2. LOL! It cost Britain in the long run despite winning the war. Hitchens even described the consequences of Britain fighting in WW2 in his book "The Phoney Victory". The US took western Europe under its wing after the WW2 (technically during WW2) and now, their influence is still there. That's what France should've done by taking Germany under its wing right after WW1 which would've prevented Hitler and WW2: Britain remains a powerful nation with its Empire, France leads Europe with Germany under its wing, both US and Russia remain isolated!
@@philmitchell91 Of course not. Independence is the peak. Maybe you can find some more comments from 2 years ago and judge them in the context of recent events.
@@jwadaow Germany gives up and buys our F-35s, Switzerland and several others set to join on to the F-35, Japan and Korea more solidly in our corner than ever before, almost all of Europe either whispering "thank god for America"--that is, the ones who don't say it openly, like the Prime Minister of Finland. Meanwhile Xi is still crapping his pants, is barely supporting Russia at all despite promising a "no limits" partnership, publicly chastized Russia over nukes and all he can do is try to score cheap points is lecture us over his extremely lame spy balloon. China had their chance to win, they had a real chance. It's gone now, long gone. No one is going to put up with their shit any more, Japan realizes after Ukraine just how much the USA respects strength and loyalty, etc.
I'm not that surprised by this, nor are my feelings hurt. What the British government and media classes have a problem with, and what the British people have a problem with, are not the same. A lot of the anti-American sentiment in Britain is just English self-pity. I'm a patriot, but we can't conure millions of miles of arable land out of thin air, Britain is a 2nd rate power, and that's ok. You've got the USA, you've got the EU, you're got China, given the choice of which thumb to be under, I choose America every time.
I remember one of the great Comic Strip episodes from back in the day, set during the Cold War. There was a conversation with an American and when asked about Great Britain the question brought a puzzled look. When pressed he remembered and said something along the lines of ‘oh yeah, the decoy target!’. Quite.
True video. It’s all true. But there is a way out of abject subservience: CANZUK. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand should form some sort of association. I don’t mean a federal union, fuck no. But there should be a special relationship that entails free trade and free movement. No vizas. Military interchangeability.
Many Americans do have a special affinity for the UK evidenced by obsessions over the Royals, books, television, music, etc. One interesting bit I thought of is the transatlantic accent phenomenon where people tried to sound slightly more English to appear more refined. I don't feel like this really carries over into geopolitics though, the UK isn't seen as an equal on the world stage.
If you were to ask any American to sing, or even recite, all of the original verses in our national anthem, I doubt if one in ten thousand could, because those anti-British verses were dropped from the song long ago (and virtually all Americans, I'd wager, would--after having been made familiar with them--refuse to sing them if asked). It is true, though, that there was a very long period of mutual suspicion--it might be characterized as the "First Cold War"--between the UK and the U.S. which lasted, in the offensive military planning sense, until at least 1920. The U.S. War Department maintained plans for the invasion of the British Isles until that year, two years after the end of World War I, in which the U.S. and the UK were allies! (But in World War II we fought with not only the British, but also with the Soviets [who we definitely knew weren't friends; we just happened to have common enemies--Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan]). Also: I have long wondered if some of the marked differences between the U.S. and the UK (our virtually total lack of a British or British-derived accent [a trace of this can be found among New England states' residents], which all other former colonies' residents--except Canadians--have, our different spelling conventions [Noah Webster stated that the spelling simplifications would make it easier for immigrants from non-English-speaking countries to learn English, but it also drew a distinction between the two countries], our non-parliamentary government, our differently-named--and decimal from the beginning, unlike UK currency until 1971--dollar, and even our convention of driving on the right side of the road, instead of on the left as in Great Britain) may have been created and/or encouraged at least partly out of a desire for America and Americans to be distinctly different from the British, and: The United States is not perfect (no nation is)--we too have done things in a domineering way, for our own benefit. We deliberately hold down the U.S. dollar's value somewhat in currency exchange (while hypocritically criticizing the Chinese for doing the same [although, truth be told, they *do* do that to extremes]), so that our agricultural and other product and service exports are attractively priced to foreign buyers. Another example involved Sweden's excellent Saab Viggen jet fighter-bomber--only relatively recently retired after decades in service with the Swedish Air Force--which they wanted to also sell to other countries (in Europe and even beyond), but were prevented from doing so by pressure from the U.S. (this may have been partly due to Sweden not being a NATO member, but it still irks me that we did that; we wouldn't have liked it if such a thing was done to us! (I wish we'd bought and/or entered into an agreement for production of the Viggen under license, just as we've done with the British Canberra, Harrier, and Hawk aircraft [Volvo Flygmotor produced the Viggen's RM8 turbofan jet engine, which was the U.S. Pratt & Whitney JT8D, manufactured under license].) But: If Peter Hitchens would prefer that the U.S. withdraw from our arrangement with the UK, such a thing, if done, would require the United Kingdom to foot the entire bill for its defense (not to mention for the R & D [Research & Development], technology and weapons development, and procurement--for everything from soldiers' small arms to fighters, bombers, guided missiles, bombs, ships, submarines, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons). But in the long run, that would--I suspect--be a very good thing! Since World War II, Britain and the rest of Western Europe have been able to become soft, socialist, and indulgent because the U.S. has been the defense "back-stop" for them, freeing up European moneys that, in the past, European countries had to allocate to defense. Plus: Since the war, many excellent British military aircraft and other systems were developed, only to be "cancelled as part of a series of government economy measures," because the U.S. has backed up the UK's national security, enabling them to blow uncounted pounds sterling on social spending. (We too have that social spending affliction [national defense is our government's #1 job and is listed in the Constitution, but social spending *isn't* one of our government's purposes at all], but many Americans are pressing our politicians to stop spending us into ever-deeper debt.) With the responsibility for their own defense placed back into their hands, the British--hopefully standing on their own, free of the EU's diktat's from Brussels--will, I hope, again become the quiet but tough, self-reliant people that they were until the end of World War II.
Of course there is a very special relationship between the USA, and The UK. The problems Hitchens has, is that he has no idea what this special relationship is, why it is, where it is, or what it is. There is only one thing that makes the World go around, and it ain't gravity.The people who run the USA, are in all important respects the same people who run the UK, however they very much prefer the common masses not to know this. Thus much of the political theatre Hitchins describes. This relationship derives from our allied banking systems, and the vast amount of money it and its associates have invested in each others countries. US policy is channeled through The CRF, while UK policy from its sister organisation The RIIA. Both of these are derived from the intelligence division of what was once, The East India Company, somethings known as The Firm, or simply The Company. These are respectively connected to vast a network of other so called Think Tanks, and pan national institutions, such as The UN, and EU, and of course what has recently become known as our nation's respective Deep States, which is also linked to most of the entire world's Military Intelligence agencies, to a greater or lesser extent. Both the USA and the UK, are not run by US presidents, UK Prime ministers, their ministers or government departments, but by a tight knit conspiracy of what can appear to be Marxists by night, and Capitalists by day. A cabal or corprotocacy of very well established moneyed interests, most of which emanate from Europe not the New World, who largely own, but all but completely control most of the world's central banks, elected or otherwise governments, and multinational conglomerates.
The tensions seemingly had their origins in the religious practices , the Church of England vs. the Puritans ,Baptists and those Presbyterians . The Great Awakening of 1730-1760 in the colonies did much to fertilize the notion of a notional separation between England and the colonies .
The special relationship is a totally artificially created thing for the benefit of the military industrial complex. America fought against Britain for her independence as Hitchens says. America's natural European ally was France.
This seems to document a history of British stupidity in foreign affairs as oppose to any genuine hostility between two nations. Were Americans supposed to restraint themselves from becoming a naval and economic superpower just to save the British Empire from its own folly? I have no time for Johnathan Powell but I think he rather says it all at 10:07.
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world... From wiki, and regarding the theory: *"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."* Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity *Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."* [editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] Regarding in practice: After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was *Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III,* this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances. What was "in it" for Washington DC? Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe... First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century) Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors. Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences... Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."* Robert Greene And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did... The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below). These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power. Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences). What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below). A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine. Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. Me: "pwomises" :-) *With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."* The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied... Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. "Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others. When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first. Principles went overboard. What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much... Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
I think to say it is "just another country" is also wrong. I just think that a "special relationship" emerges from common interests, overlayed with cultural, linguistic and ideological solidarity but once those common interests fall away as they did after the cold war ended, the relationship becomes one of just occasionally cultural bonding with nothing that special about it.
@@NathanWatsonzero I am a student of geopolitics and as the saying goes: America has no eternal allies or adversaries, only eternal interests. The UK was by far the country that tried to avert the US's hegemony in the Western hemisphere. It even considered intervening the American Civil War to create two competing powers in the landmass that currently constitutes the United States. At the end of the day, my original comment stands - from the point of view of the US, the UK is just another country.
@@stevejurgens9836 it really didn't actually try to prevent it. You are right in the sense that it was the British who tried the most to prevent US hegemony in the Western hemisphere but that is because it was the only power that could. It just wasn't worth the effort of trying to do so. That is why Britain didn't intervene in the civil war. Britain just wanted to make money. I didn't really care which side won the civil war because the union had very high tariffs but they hated the south's slave-based social structure. If it had wanted to intervene, it would have. France was desperate to do so but Britain didn't want war. Britain also gave way to American interests many times in many parts of US strategic interests in the later part of the 20th century because it wanted to form a good and cordial relationship that could turn into an alliance. Remember that the rise of the US occured at the same time as the rise of Japan, Germany and Russia and Britain knew that in any future war it would need allies.
Also remember that in 1814-15 Britain had America at its mercy after it had bankrupted it and burnt down its capital but couldn't be bothered to wage further war because diplomacy in Europe was more important
@@NathanWatsonzero Britain miscalculated and underestimated the US in the 19th century which later cost it dearly. Your comments help bolster my argument that the UK worked to avert American hegemony in the Western hemisphere (notably the War of 1812). Regardless, my original point still stands and as one of JFK's advisors said, "the UK is a middle power, neither equal nor vassal, which history, geography or economics rendered useful to us for the time being.”
It's a case of keep your enemies closer, a lot of the time, with the 'special relationship'.... Unfortunately for us they gave us a severe whooping and totally defeated us during WW2 the US played a large role in starting.... Kick them out, and launch our entire nuclear arsenal at Washington, Langley and their largest naval and air bases... ..!..
@@c.s.oneill2079 YOU are a brainwashed, trapped, non-free thinker... and I don't give a damn about you! You really ought to get your history from a varied selection of historians and sources then make you own mind up, as I have..... I am exagerating the response to a nuclear strike for dark seriously cynical comedic purposes.. The UK governmentals change with each erection, some haves sucked up to the US more, some have blackmailed them more... I know how the game works because I'm not naive... Putin is a Nazti piece of shit too but has done a lot less damage globally than zee US und UK Naztis or whatever you want to call them... It's not about childish emotions, it's about insulting those that commit mass murder using money they robbed from ME AND YOU....
@SLAMO Your 'civilisation' is deeply sado-masochistic and utterly suicidal... I am not... I am not a military soldier for a start, I'm a pubic erection mirroring the mindset of mental militarists BACK AT THEM..... your lot are the arseholes throwing tantrums and their toys out of the pram at innocent passers by as COLLATERAL DAMAGE..... You Waron!
@@c.s.oneill2079 If you can't understand my words you have comprehensive comprehension problems... Anything to add... I come from a family of military officers, envoys, secretaries and government spies... no joke... Never got any specific details, all are brainwashed secret death cultists living in a strange mixture of desperate paranoid fear masked by an arrogant confidence... in their secret state death cult.... 2 OBEs in the family.... Proper Queen's men and women.... but they don't trust The Yanks and one confirmed they saw US military attrocities that were ignored (Bosnia)... from UK, somewhere close to GCHQ...
@@c.s.oneill2079 I believe attacking out of control, Nazti, uber-global OTT militaries that have waged aggressive imperialist wars of chaos and destruction for power and profit, provoking the world to evermore extremism, matching their extremism using WORDS is SERVING OUR NATION. not my country... i'm a republican for a start... and English minarchist republicican pushing Constitutional Direct Democracy, not a UK monarchist militarist muppet nazion... Prefer the Swiss Model - we get to vote on issues directly and responsible citizens get to keep their guns... Offence is the best form of defence and all that is doublethink brainwashing nonsense for waronic nutterz.... It's a waster's world, and military wasters RULE THE SCRAPHEAP....
@@c.s.oneill2079 You come across as a dickhead suckup fool with nothing to add to the topic... You can attack my made up character as much as you like, but you will not get in the way of his quest to insult the Nazti fuckers in charge and their brainwashed, obedient underlings. I don't care what we agree or disagree on. I'm just here to insult the powers that be..... not we, the people.... You pendantic prick.
There is no special relationship and there never has been...america only looks out for one nation and that is america...the uk should cut all ties with america altogether....
No big deal 🙂 life is ups and downs, the uk still kicks a** and in the marathon of life the fastest runner at the beginning is not necessarily the winner
Frank Clarke America surrendered to obesity, we kicked your ass out of Canada not once but twice, The head of state is still the Queen of Britain and Canada on your northern borders despite your failed attempts lol. The war of 1812 love the bit where the Royal Marines burnt down the White House love that bit lol
interesting perspective! To our British/English/UKish friends, we would prefer you find your feet and not be such abject weaklings. You have responsibilities around the globe, like it or not, of your own creation, and your modern self-hating delusions are again giving ground to fascism.
Define, find your feet and which global commitments you mean? Honestly if you can't get your own house in order how can you sort out the world's problems?
The commonwealth and the usa.dont forget history. We are a small irland in the 21century with our tail tucked beneath our arses.what comes around goes around some say.
Kind of funny to see brits not understanding the brutal pragmatism of the US but its not a conquest. You can leave anytime you want... but that probably not smart because nobody else will give you a better deal lol luv you guys
@@levytassion174 >Implying that had the Soviets had overrun France and Italy they would have just let Switzerland be after the war. ok buddy Cry about it all you want continental but until ground transport can compete with shipping you're going to have to let the Americans protect your trade.
The American Empire is bankrolled by the you- know -who control the US economy and the US foreign policy dictated by the US 51st state. Yes, it is a conquest. Where all this is going, I don't know, but I fear it's to hell.
Peter Hitchens really is talking a bit of rubbish here, At least two things stick out re lack of nuclear cooperation from the USA : Peter has forgotten to remember the nuclear spying carried out by British intelligence/diplomacy Some, like me, suspect that in principle such spying was justified otherwise a hot war probably involving nuclear weapons may have occurred. Suez: Eisenhower opposed Israeli interests but since then US M/EAST policy has been run by Israel : a major change around NOT brought about by accident. Having been invaded by Japan the USA was powerful enough to launch major military resources against Europe which almost certainly would not have happened were it not for the Jewish question.
@@seanmoran6510 Perhaps you can tell why having been attacked by Japan the US decided to apply a large part of its military resources to moving against in effect Germany. FYI Japan is NOT in Europe and and far as I know there are NOT many Jews in Japan. I see that was in my first post.Never mind the truth may well emerge...eventually !! Probably when USA/Europe is MINORITY white and all JEWS are white. Odd really !!!
@@storm7792 Ok.... what I think you are missing here is, and its probably because you haven't seen the show.... this is a line said by a character in a TV show called "Parks and Rec" Its a joke. nobody watching this video would think History started on July 4th of 1776. Sorry this upset you.
Enough with the self pity Peter. Yes we don't have an independent foreign policy, boohoo but at least we weren't annihilated by German power which the Americans bailed us out of. The fact that we're still here with our own language far outweighs any pathetic insecurity about British power. America bashing is so pathetic here, especially the kind that tries to take credit for the entire victory of WWII whilst crying about American lateness to the war effort. They saved our arses regardless.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
That thumbnail 😂😂
The picture above might be captioned, "Peter Hitchens tries ayahuasca for the first time." :-)
He looks like a mad professor that's just found a dinosaur egg 😄
Peter Hitchens is looking into the Ark of the Covenant...
He's telling Bezos to go fuck himself...
At the beginning of World War II, the Royal Navy was the strongest navy in the world, with the largest number of warships built and with naval bases across the globe. It had over 15 battleships and battlecruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers, 164 destroyers and 66 submarines.
One of the most informative videos that I've found. It verified several things that I had read.
the only people who use the phrase "The Special Relationship" are people who live in the British Isles. Sure, Reagan used the phrase, but that was the 1980s. completely different world than we have today. . .
most Americans have never heard of the phrase
@@fusion9619 Yet, as an almost 40 year old I have used it many times. Go figure.
@@Taco002 "most"
@Ter Rowle The Irish also don't recognise sustainable farming either so relying on them as a baseline is a very poor plan.
No, not the British Isles, the British Parliament. The other 60 odd million of us think otherwise. "Special Relationship" means we know we are f*@cked but if we pretend we don't know our leaders might escape being bent over and grabbing their ankles on the White House lawn too often.
As a nuanced and skeptical examination of Anglo-American relations Mr. Hitchens succeeds in spotlighting the over-simplification of the expression "special relationship". That relationship is one rooted in the dynamics of power and influence.
The second half of the 20th century saw the US heavily engaged in the cold war with its battlegrounds in Korea, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, Europe and most recently an ascendant China. If a minority partner in the blood and treasure expended in the course of that struggle was slighted in some way it is because the rules of the greater game are harsh, negative outcomes unacceptable, blood and treasure spent unequal.
Peter hints at this when he remarks that the failed Puritan revolution of the English Civil War forced the diaspora of the Puritans who went on to found a republic of greater power than the monarchy which ultimately expelled them. The considerations in those olden days were power, not nationality. It is sadly true that the rules which govern nations remain those of power not kinship.
Whatever the current state of play it will be impossible for all participants on the field to be completely comfortable with an 800 pound gorilla sharing the turf with them. The disquiet can only be less or more depending which side you play for.
19 min DeGaulle and Polaris
The problem with Britain is it's stuck between America and Europe.
You make it sound like Poland being stuck between Russia and Germany
Startling observation.
@@shinmadd3517 Shouldn't have fought WW2. LOL! It cost Britain in the long run despite winning the war. Hitchens even described the consequences of Britain fighting in WW2 in his book "The Phoney Victory". The US took western Europe under its wing after the WW2 (technically during WW2) and now, their influence is still there. That's what France should've done by taking Germany under its wing right after WW1 which would've prevented Hitler and WW2: Britain remains a powerful nation with its Empire, France leads Europe with Germany under its wing, both US and Russia remain isolated!
Oh what a terrible thing. Does sitting between Russia and China sound like a better alternative?
@@philmitchell91 Of course not. Independence is the peak. Maybe you can find some more comments from 2 years ago and judge them in the context of recent events.
3:34 "foul footsteps" -->> Roya Navy
Will be interesting to see how waning American power and upcoming Chinese hegemony affects this "special relationship"
Greetings from the future, and thank you for the laugh.
@@vigilante8374 it's more true now than it was 2 years ago or even 2 months ago.
@@jwadaow Germany gives up and buys our F-35s, Switzerland and several others set to join on to the F-35, Japan and Korea more solidly in our corner than ever before, almost all of Europe either whispering "thank god for America"--that is, the ones who don't say it openly, like the Prime Minister of Finland. Meanwhile Xi is still crapping his pants, is barely supporting Russia at all despite promising a "no limits" partnership, publicly chastized Russia over nukes and all he can do is try to score cheap points is lecture us over his extremely lame spy balloon.
China had their chance to win, they had a real chance. It's gone now, long gone. No one is going to put up with their shit any more, Japan realizes after Ukraine just how much the USA respects strength and loyalty, etc.
I'm not that surprised by this, nor are my feelings hurt. What the British government and media classes have a problem with, and what the British people have a problem with, are not the same. A lot of the anti-American sentiment in Britain is just English self-pity. I'm a patriot, but we can't conure millions of miles of arable land out of thin air, Britain is a 2nd rate power, and that's ok. You've got the USA, you've got the EU, you're got China, given the choice of which thumb to be under, I choose America every time.
A very good analysis pointed out previously by Enoch Powell
Thankyou for this.
I remember one of the great Comic Strip episodes from back in the day, set during the Cold War. There was a conversation with an American and when asked about Great Britain the question brought a puzzled look. When pressed he remembered and said something along the lines of ‘oh yeah, the decoy target!’. Quite.
6:13 She said "the passing of the torch from Great Britain to the United Kingdom". I think she meant United States.
Yes she did. A mere slip of the tongue.
Well spotted
True video. It’s all true. But there is a way out of abject subservience: CANZUK. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand should form some sort of association. I don’t mean a federal union, fuck no. But there should be a special relationship that entails free trade and free movement. No vizas. Military interchangeability.
I'm totally in favour of CANZUK.
Doubt it. Australia knows if China attacks it is USA to the rescue not UK.
This is superb
Many Americans do have a special affinity for the UK evidenced by obsessions over the Royals, books, television, music, etc. One interesting bit I thought of is the transatlantic accent phenomenon where people tried to sound slightly more English to appear more refined. I don't feel like this really carries over into geopolitics though, the UK isn't seen as an equal on the world stage.
I suppose that security and expionage concerns influenced the US' decision to not share high-level defense technology.
If you were to ask any American to sing, or even recite, all of the original verses in our national anthem, I doubt if one in ten thousand could, because those anti-British verses were dropped from the song long ago (and virtually all Americans, I'd wager, would--after having been made familiar with them--refuse to sing them if asked). It is true, though, that there was a very long period of mutual suspicion--it might be characterized as the "First Cold War"--between the UK and the U.S. which lasted, in the offensive military planning sense, until at least 1920. The U.S. War Department maintained plans for the invasion of the British Isles until that year, two years after the end of World War I, in which the U.S. and the UK were allies! (But in World War II we fought with not only the British, but also with the Soviets [who we definitely knew weren't friends; we just happened to have common enemies--Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan]). Also:
I have long wondered if some of the marked differences between the U.S. and the UK (our virtually total lack of a British or British-derived accent [a trace of this can be found among New England states' residents], which all other former colonies' residents--except Canadians--have, our different spelling conventions [Noah Webster stated that the spelling simplifications would make it easier for immigrants from non-English-speaking countries to learn English, but it also drew a distinction between the two countries], our non-parliamentary government, our differently-named--and decimal from the beginning, unlike UK currency until 1971--dollar, and even our convention of driving on the right side of the road, instead of on the left as in Great Britain) may have been created and/or encouraged at least partly out of a desire for America and Americans to be distinctly different from the British, and:
The United States is not perfect (no nation is)--we too have done things in a domineering way, for our own benefit. We deliberately hold down the U.S. dollar's value somewhat in currency exchange (while hypocritically criticizing the Chinese for doing the same [although, truth be told, they *do* do that to extremes]), so that our agricultural and other product and service exports are attractively priced to foreign buyers. Another example involved Sweden's excellent Saab Viggen jet fighter-bomber--only relatively recently retired after decades in service with the Swedish Air Force--which they wanted to also sell to other countries (in Europe and even beyond), but were prevented from doing so by pressure from the U.S. (this may have been partly due to Sweden not being a NATO member, but it still irks me that we did that; we wouldn't have liked it if such a thing was done to us! (I wish we'd bought and/or entered into an agreement for production of the Viggen under license, just as we've done with the British Canberra, Harrier, and Hawk aircraft [Volvo Flygmotor produced the Viggen's RM8 turbofan jet engine, which was the U.S. Pratt & Whitney JT8D, manufactured under license].) But:
If Peter Hitchens would prefer that the U.S. withdraw from our arrangement with the UK, such a thing, if done, would require the United Kingdom to foot the entire bill for its defense (not to mention for the R & D [Research & Development], technology and weapons development, and procurement--for everything from soldiers' small arms to fighters, bombers, guided missiles, bombs, ships, submarines, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons). But in the long run, that would--I suspect--be a very good thing! Since World War II, Britain and the rest of Western Europe have been able to become soft, socialist, and indulgent because the U.S. has been the defense "back-stop" for them, freeing up European moneys that, in the past, European countries had to allocate to defense. Plus:
Since the war, many excellent British military aircraft and other systems were developed, only to be "cancelled as part of a series of government economy measures," because the U.S. has backed up the UK's national security, enabling them to blow uncounted pounds sterling on social spending. (We too have that social spending affliction [national defense is our government's #1 job and is listed in the Constitution, but social spending *isn't* one of our government's purposes at all], but many Americans are pressing our politicians to stop spending us into ever-deeper debt.) With the responsibility for their own defense placed back into their hands, the British--hopefully standing on their own, free of the EU's diktat's from Brussels--will, I hope, again become the quiet but tough, self-reliant people that they were until the end of World War II.
I'm not reading all that, FFS...
This thumbnail is perfect
Of course there is a very special relationship between the USA, and The UK. The problems Hitchens has, is that he has no idea what this special relationship is, why it is, where it is, or what it is. There is only one thing that makes the World go around, and it ain't gravity.The people who run the USA, are in all important respects the same people who run the UK, however they very much prefer the common masses not to know this. Thus much of the political theatre Hitchins describes. This relationship derives from our allied banking systems, and the vast amount of money it and its associates have invested in each others countries. US policy is channeled through The CRF, while UK policy from its sister organisation The RIIA. Both of these are derived from the intelligence division of what was once, The East India Company, somethings known as The Firm, or simply The Company. These are respectively connected to vast a network of other so called Think Tanks, and pan national institutions, such as The UN, and EU, and of course what has recently become known as our nation's respective Deep States, which is also linked to most of the entire world's Military Intelligence agencies, to a greater or lesser extent.
Both the USA and the UK, are not run by US presidents, UK Prime ministers, their ministers or government departments, but by a tight knit conspiracy of what can appear to be Marxists by night, and Capitalists by day. A cabal or corprotocacy of very well established moneyed interests, most of which emanate from Europe not the New World, who largely own, but all but completely control most of the world's central banks, elected or otherwise governments, and multinational conglomerates.
Well said..
well researched Gary spot on mate !!! its a pleasure to read something so correctly and eleiquantly put
The tensions seemingly had their origins in the religious practices , the Church of England vs. the Puritans ,Baptists and those Presbyterians . The Great Awakening of 1730-1760 in the colonies did much to fertilize the notion of a notional separation between England and the colonies .
They play the anthems at 5pm at Alconbury airforce base.
Illuminating.
3:28 6:10 10:54 12:27 12:51 13:17 14:08 15:31 19:08 21:25 23:02 23:11 25:57 27:09
Thanks!
Hitch on point
Can you provide the links to the evidence ? They'd be very useful.
You'd have to ask Peter Hitchens. Im just posting an interesting BBC program. Check Peter Hitchens Blog. He usually has the links
Where did the original video go
Yes but only the negative parts are exposed we get massive benifits too lets face it we would struggle to beat any half decent power in this age
The special relationship is a totally artificially created thing for the benefit of the military industrial complex. America fought against Britain for her independence as Hitchens says. America's natural European ally was France.
The kind of relationship where we get dragged into an illegal war, now we know the Americans pull out of countries and leave allies to their fate
how can one man be so based?
So what , the USA got too big for the UK. The UK has achieved as much success as any nation could in the history of the world..
I think the modern Americans don't concern themselves with UK too much.
Agreed, foreign policy in the US is a fringe concern mostly used to bolster domestic support
We think about foreign policy. But with large nations that trade.
This seems to document a history of British stupidity in foreign affairs as oppose to any genuine hostility between two nations. Were Americans supposed to restraint themselves from becoming a naval and economic superpower just to save the British Empire from its own folly?
I have no time for Johnathan Powell but I think he rather says it all at 10:07.
14:45 Charmley on Suez
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
*"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."*
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
*Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."*
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was *Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III,* this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
*"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."*
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
*London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.*
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Their first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain.
Me: "pwomises" :-)
*With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."*
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism), and divided Europe happily complied...
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles (see below comment explaining the principles and effects of power on the interests of states/empires). Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
"Right or wrong" is of course easily and neutrally determined by "putting oneself in the shoes" of others.
When it came to "little nations being thrown to crocodiles", own interests came first.
Principles went overboard.
What aided in dividing Europe came first. The independence of little nations? Not so much...
Washington DC: "Principles like we showed in 1905? Nah. Let's ruffle some European feathers."
From my perspective (an American) - the UK is just another country; sometimes an ally, sometimes not.
I think to say it is "just another country" is also wrong. I just think that a "special relationship" emerges from common interests, overlayed with cultural, linguistic and ideological solidarity but once those common interests fall away as they did after the cold war ended, the relationship becomes one of just occasionally cultural bonding with nothing that special about it.
@@NathanWatsonzero I am a student of geopolitics and as the saying goes: America has no eternal allies or adversaries, only eternal interests. The UK was by far the country that tried to avert the US's hegemony in the Western hemisphere. It even considered intervening the American Civil War to create two competing powers in the landmass that currently constitutes the United States. At the end of the day, my original comment stands - from the point of view of the US, the UK is just another country.
@@stevejurgens9836 it really didn't actually try to prevent it. You are right in the sense that it was the British who tried the most to prevent US hegemony in the Western hemisphere but that is because it was the only power that could. It just wasn't worth the effort of trying to do so. That is why Britain didn't intervene in the civil war. Britain just wanted to make money. I didn't really care which side won the civil war because the union had very high tariffs but they hated the south's slave-based social structure. If it had wanted to intervene, it would have. France was desperate to do so but Britain didn't want war. Britain also gave way to American interests many times in many parts of US strategic interests in the later part of the 20th century because it wanted to form a good and cordial relationship that could turn into an alliance. Remember that the rise of the US occured at the same time as the rise of Japan, Germany and Russia and Britain knew that in any future war it would need allies.
Also remember that in 1814-15 Britain had America at its mercy after it had bankrupted it and burnt down its capital but couldn't be bothered to wage further war because diplomacy in Europe was more important
@@NathanWatsonzero Britain miscalculated and underestimated the US in the 19th century which later cost it dearly. Your comments help bolster my argument that the UK worked to avert American hegemony in the Western hemisphere (notably the War of 1812). Regardless, my original point still stands and as one of JFK's advisors said, "the UK is a middle power, neither equal nor vassal, which history, geography or economics rendered useful to us for the time being.”
There is a special relationship. It just isn't one between equals. Take no offense. America has no equal.
Was this just audio or was this a proper documentary?
It was on the radio
It's a case of keep your enemies closer, a lot of the time, with the 'special relationship'.... Unfortunately for us they gave us a severe whooping and totally defeated us during WW2 the US played a large role in starting.... Kick them out, and launch our entire nuclear arsenal at Washington, Langley and their largest naval and air bases... ..!..
@@c.s.oneill2079 YOU are a brainwashed, trapped, non-free thinker... and I don't give a damn about you! You really ought to get your history from a varied selection of historians and sources then make you own mind up, as I have..... I am exagerating the response to a nuclear strike for dark seriously cynical comedic purposes.. The UK governmentals change with each erection, some haves sucked up to the US more, some have blackmailed them more... I know how the game works because I'm not naive... Putin is a Nazti piece of shit too but has done a lot less damage globally than zee US und UK Naztis or whatever you want to call them... It's not about childish emotions, it's about insulting those that commit mass murder using money they robbed from ME AND YOU....
@SLAMO Your 'civilisation' is deeply sado-masochistic and utterly suicidal... I am not... I am not a military soldier for a start, I'm a pubic erection mirroring the mindset of mental militarists BACK AT THEM..... your lot are the arseholes throwing tantrums and their toys out of the pram at innocent passers by as COLLATERAL DAMAGE..... You Waron!
@@c.s.oneill2079 If you can't understand my words you have comprehensive comprehension problems... Anything to add... I come from a family of military officers, envoys, secretaries and government spies... no joke... Never got any specific details, all are brainwashed secret death cultists living in a strange mixture of desperate paranoid fear masked by an arrogant confidence... in their secret state death cult.... 2 OBEs in the family.... Proper Queen's men and women.... but they don't trust The Yanks and one confirmed they saw US military attrocities that were ignored (Bosnia)... from UK, somewhere close to GCHQ...
@@c.s.oneill2079 I believe attacking out of control, Nazti, uber-global OTT militaries that have waged aggressive imperialist wars of chaos and destruction for power and profit, provoking the world to evermore extremism, matching their extremism using WORDS is SERVING OUR NATION. not my country... i'm a republican for a start... and English minarchist republicican pushing Constitutional Direct Democracy, not a UK monarchist militarist muppet nazion... Prefer the Swiss Model - we get to vote on issues directly and responsible citizens get to keep their guns... Offence is the best form of defence and all that is doublethink brainwashing nonsense for waronic nutterz.... It's a waster's world, and military wasters RULE THE SCRAPHEAP....
@@c.s.oneill2079 You come across as a dickhead suckup fool with nothing to add to the topic... You can attack my made up character as much as you like, but you will not get in the way of his quest to insult the Nazti fuckers in charge and their brainwashed, obedient underlings. I don't care what we agree or disagree on. I'm just here to insult the powers that be..... not we, the people.... You pendantic prick.
poor old UK
His brother has just spoken to him from the future through siri
There is no special relationship and there never has been...america only looks out for one nation and that is america...the uk should cut all ties with america altogether....
And I, for one, can't wait for this UK-US trade deal, because it's definitely worth leaving the EU for.
Well it's not like you have another choice. Become the Airstrip One of the US, or fall further into decline and irrelevance.
It’s going to make the deal Churchill made of some ships for all military bases in the Western Hemisphere in WW1 look like a cheap deal
I think there are some Peter Zeihan Fans commenting here.
@@Taco002
lol. I actually disagree with Big Tim on how that part will play out.
Prefer being cucked by Germany, eh?
No big deal 🙂 life is ups and downs, the uk still kicks a** and in the marathon of life the fastest runner at the beginning is not necessarily the winner
But they went to Vietnam on their own and look what happened
Frank Clarke true you didn’t (officially) but rather ran away from south Vietnam to a bunch of lightly armed infantry/jungle men lol...
Frank Clarke America surrendered to obesity, we kicked your ass out of Canada not once but twice, The head of state is still the Queen of Britain and Canada on your northern borders despite your failed attempts lol. The war of 1812 love the bit where the Royal Marines burnt down the White House love that bit lol
Frank Clarke EMPIRE
Frank Clarke all those Mexican drug lords and trailer parks lol
Frank Clarke Commonwealth
13:36 14:20 16:59 26:08
20m Falklands
interesting perspective! To our British/English/UKish friends, we would prefer you find your feet and not be such abject weaklings. You have responsibilities around the globe, like it or not, of your own creation, and your modern self-hating delusions are again giving ground to fascism.
Define, find your feet and which global commitments you mean? Honestly if you can't get your own house in order how can you sort out the world's problems?
@@NathanWatsonzero As a Yank, I couldn't agree more.
The commonwealth and the usa.dont forget history. We are a small irland in the 21century with our tail tucked beneath our arses.what comes around goes around some say.
'And with a mighty rush
rebellious Scots to crush
God save our Queen.'
Never an official part of the anthem
Kind of funny to see brits not understanding the brutal pragmatism of the US but its not a conquest. You can leave anytime you want...
but that probably not smart because nobody else will give you a better deal lol
luv you guys
And we love you.
@@levytassion174 >Implying that had the Soviets had overrun France and Italy they would have just let Switzerland be after the war.
ok buddy
Cry about it all you want continental but until ground transport can compete with shipping you're going to have to let the Americans protect your trade.
@@levytassion174 aww babe why dont you want to be my buddy?
Would you happen to be swiss by any means?
Peter's defeatism and hatred of Britain are all too evident in this piece. He's revelling in it.
The American Empire is bankrolled by the you- know -who control the US economy and the US foreign policy dictated by the US 51st state. Yes, it is a conquest. Where all this is going, I don't know, but I fear it's to hell.
Peter Hitchens really is talking a bit of rubbish here,
At least two things stick out
re lack of nuclear cooperation from the USA : Peter has forgotten to remember the nuclear spying carried out by British intelligence/diplomacy
Some, like me, suspect that in principle such spying was justified otherwise a hot war probably involving nuclear weapons may have occurred.
Suez: Eisenhower opposed Israeli interests but since then US M/EAST policy has been run by Israel : a major change around NOT brought about by accident.
Having been invaded by Japan the USA was powerful enough to launch major military resources against Europe which almost certainly would not have happened were it not for the Jewish question.
divvy1400yam600 Oh it’s the Jews Fault
Enough said
@@seanmoran6510 Perhaps you can tell why having been attacked by Japan the US decided to apply a large part of its military resources to moving against in effect Germany.
FYI Japan is NOT in Europe and and far as I know there are NOT many Jews in Japan.
I see that was in my first post.Never mind the truth may well emerge...eventually !!
Probably when USA/Europe is MINORITY white and all JEWS are white.
Odd really !!!
So you'd rather be speaking German and flying the NSDAP flag?
??? I don't think anyone is saying that.
History began on 1776!!!!
Did it bollocks
"History began on July 4th, 1776, every thing before that was a mistake" - Ron Swanson.
The ancestors of the British and Dutch emigrating because European christianity wasn't mental enough for them was the worlds biggest mistake.
@@storm7792 Ok.... what I think you are missing here is, and its probably because you haven't seen the show.... this is a line said by a character in a TV show called "Parks and Rec" Its a joke. nobody watching this video would think History started on July 4th of 1776. Sorry this upset you.
History began on 1776 because it was Britain's first mistake
~ 5. min en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlli_Barnett
Enough with the self pity Peter. Yes we don't have an independent foreign policy, boohoo but at least we weren't annihilated by German power which the Americans bailed us out of. The fact that we're still here with our own language far outweighs any pathetic insecurity about British power. America bashing is so pathetic here, especially the kind that tries to take credit for the entire victory of WWII whilst crying about American lateness to the war effort. They saved our arses regardless.
Troll
Eh, wadya gonna fo ‘bout it, ya pansies?
Capture Washington & eat the presidents dinner, before settling the place alight? ...oops..already done that
11:20 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Aldrich
8:45 ~.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter
~ 18 min en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Meyer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benn_Steil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Powell,_Baron_Powell_of_Bayswater