Brexit Britain And Trump America: A New "Special Relationship"?

Authored by Henrik Choy via,

Can common enemies and threats keep Britain and the United States together for decades to come?

British prime minister Theresa May’s narrow victory in the 2017 general election has earned her the reputation of a “dead woman walking,” given that her failure to win a Conservative majority in the House of Commons has drastically slimmed her chances of executing her party’s manifesto. Across the Atlantic, President Donald Trump is facing domestic and international problems of his own. Faced with polarization in both their parties and respective countries, Trump and May face uphill battles to achieve their political agendas. Appealing to the more nationalist and populist elements of society, Trump and May have entered uncharted territory by promising to tackle issues in ways that differ from their predecessors. For decades, Britain and the United States have been bound together in a unique relationship through their common vision of a world they wish to create, the external and internal threats they share, and the personal relationships their leaders have developed. Today, the changing mood in both Washington and London is forging an unusual new chapter in this long standing “special relationship.” Trump and May face an uncertain future, but they can still look back to see how their predecessors maintained the Anglo-American special relationship during the tumultuous and transformative years following World War II.

1941: A Grand Vision

Coined in 1946 by British prime minister Winston Churchill, the term “special relationship” between Britain and the United States describes a bond born out of common cause in defeating the fascist powers in World War II. Since then, it has endured strain and a cyclical reinvigoration of mutual understanding and commitment. While the origins of this relationship precedes World War II, it was solidified in 1941. That’s when Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt came up with eight principles that were to promote world peace and spread democracy worldwide: the Atlantic Charter. These principles, with a general emphasis on Wilsonian style self-determination and economic liberalization, would act as a foundation for the Anglo-American special relationship well into the twenty-first century. World War II left a power vacuum that the North American superpower quickly raced to fill at the encouragement of the exhausted Brits. Under the guidance of the Atlantic Charter, both Britain and the United States utilized their power and influence to create the United Nations and develop other international organizations based on the liberal Western democratic vision of the world. The Soviet Union and its allies challenged this vision, creating a common threat against which the United States and Britain could consolidate the anti-Communist bloc under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

In addition to pursuing a common cause, British and American leaders developed personal bonds that were crucial in the early days of the special relationship, as demonstrated by Churchill and Roosevelt. Away from the war maps and professional public atmosphere, the two men had their personal bonding moments, such as when the president accidentally walked into the prime minister’s room in Washington to find him naked shortly after showering. The joyful Brit assured the embarrassed Yank that he had nothing to hide.

The close-knit relationship was not always smooth, as disagreements erupted early over how to honor the principles of the Atlantic Charter. On one hand, Britain was very reluctant at first to grant independence to its colonies, while the United States appeared idealistically hypocritical with its increased military involvement in Vietnam throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The Suez Crisis of 1956 represented the low point in bilateral relations, when Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s decision to send troops to Egypt along with French and Israeli forces angered President Eisenhower. Unlike his predecessor, Eisenhower did not have the best relations with Churchill during World War II and was suspicious of British colonial interests after the conflict ended. The Suez Crisis demonstrated that the former general had had enough of dealing with British politicians, angry that his counterparts in Westminster had not given him prior notice of this military venture.

1980s: Cold War Hawks

By the early 1980s, new leadership on both sides of the Atlantic reinvigorated the special relationship in a way not seen since the end of World War II. President Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher both came to power with the intention of reintroducing the old school Anglo-American way of thinking, with an emphasis on free-market capitalism, less government intervention, and a hard-line foreign-policy stance against the Soviet Union and Communism. The two had each other’s back in times of international crisis, with the United States supporting Britain in its 1982 war over the Falkland Islands, and Britain allowing the United States to use its airbases during the latter’s bombing campaign against Libya in 1986. It was this ability to see eye-to-eye that made it easier for them to cooperate in the struggle against Communism and engage with Mikhail Gorbachev and his attempts to reduce tensions with the West. This would help bring down the Berlin Wall and, eventually, the whole Eastern bloc.

For Reagan and Thatcher, their ideological perspectives made them ideal partners but also created numerous disagreements. Reagan was initially reluctant to support Thatcher’s war against Argentina’s military junta in 1982, as Buenos Aires was a key anti-Communist ally. In 1986, Thatcher flew to Iceland to convince Reagan to forgo the Reykjavik Summit due to her fear of the security consequences of nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, both leaders managed to contain any bilateral dispute that came in the way of the special relationship, which they both needed in order to sustain a hard-line approach against the Soviet Union. Their unwavering friendship hastened the end of the Cold War, bringing a new chapter for the special relationship and opening up new opportunities for their successors to implement the ideals of the Atlantic Charter.

1990s–2000s: New Idealists

The United States found itself being the world’s undisputed superpower in the early 1990s, with Western capitalism attempting to fill the vacuum left as a result of the collapse of the Eastern bloc. The “Washington Consensus,” a term coined by British economist John Williamson, was essentially an expansion of the Atlantic Charter’s principle of economic liberation. Interestingly enough, it was not the Thatcherites or the Reaganites who brought this new “consensus” into the twenty-first century, but the traditional left-leaning political parties and politicians who accelerated the transition towards globalized capitalism. President Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” and Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “New Labour” party revealed their firm idealistic views for a new world order based on the Atlantic Charter, which meant encouraging developing countries to open up their markets to Western capital investments, as well as military interventions (very reluctantly in most cases) to stop the rising power of authoritarian leaders. The most notable foreign-policy issue of the Clinton-Blair years was the successful intervention in Kosovo in 1999. The joint Anglo-American decision to pressure Yugoslav president Milosevic to end hostilities proved to be the decisive move that tipped the balance against the use of mass violence to achieve political objectives in the Balkans. This active interventionist policy carried over when George W. Bush took over as president. Despite coming from different political backgrounds, the new president and Blair got along well and bolstered the special relationship as they joined together to fight the War on Terror in wake of the 9/11 attacks. Their unshakable belief in promoting democracy led to their fateful decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. As the conflicts dragged on with increasing loss of life and money, both leaders faced mounting political backlash for being overly ambitious and perhaps carried away in their idealistic military crusades. By 2008, the war-weary public gave their optimistic leaders the boot when the housing market crashed and a worldwide recession brought tensions to a boiling point. Bush and Blair left office with controversial scars on their political legacies and domestic populations that today are increasingly skeptical of the global neoliberal economic system and the interventionist military policies they pursued during their leaderships.

2010s: Reluctant Partners

By the time Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009 and David Cameron took his first steps to 10 Downing Street in 2010, the special relationship was at risk of being pulled apart by dissatisfied populations on both sides of the Atlantic. These new leaders took measures to resolve the problems that their predecessors left behind, although they had stark disagreements regarding the best methods to tackle them. Starting with the economy, the Obama administration implemented deficit spending to bail out the nation’s most troubled banks, acquire debt-ridden assets, and ultimately pull the nation out of recession. Across the Atlantic, Cameron pushed through a series of austerity measures that gradually reduced Britain’s deficits, but nonetheless caused major contractions in the economy. The arduous task of restoring public confidence in the global capitalist system was quickly followed by the problems related to the War on Terror and other matters of foreign policy. Cameron resembled his predecessor more than Obama resembled his, opting for direct intervention where there was trouble. The prime minister took the helm with French president Sarkozy in the overthrow of Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011, with reluctant support from the Obama administration. It was the crisis in Syria that brought the biggest challenge to both Obama and Cameron and ultimately the Anglo-American special relationship. In August 2013 both governments were ready to use military force in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Their plans fell apart after a vote from both Parliament and Congress shut down the idea, a reminder that the public had not forgotten the long drawn-out wars from the Bush and Blair years.

Relations between Obama and Cameron did not improve much. The Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the election of president Donald Trump in November of that same year saw the end of their administrations and also the end of the world they both knew. As much as Obama and Cameron differed in the best course of action when responding to crises, they both shared the vision that their predecessors had and openly sought policies that promoted democratic values and globalized trade. Their legacies will be saturated with the failure to bring peace to the Middle East, unpopular economic policies that stirred populist sentiment, a divided Europe in wake of the Brexit referendum, the growing scarcity of jobs available for the working and middle classes, and ultimately the end of the Atlantic Charter establishment as we knew it.

Today: A New Type of Special Relationship?

Where does that leave the special relationship today? To start off, neither the Atlantic Charter nor any of its post–1941 evolutions appear to be the guiding principle for today’s Anglo-American special relationship. President Trump and Prime Minister May share a vision of the world that departs from the neoliberal policies of their predecessors and focuses more on protecting jobs at home and the public from terrorism. Both leaders are suspicious of twenty-first century globalization, and they hope to challenge this trend by implementing policies that reflect the interests of the nationalist and populist sectors.

Economically, Trump and May have already begun pursuing such policies, with the former having withdrawn the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and renegotiating the U.S. position in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the latter having activated Article 50 in March of this year. We will most likely see a general shift in preference towards bilateral free-trade agreements and away from multilateral ones. This will allow them to pick and choose which nations they would like to trade freely with and also provide more leverage in negotiating trade terms. Both leaders, however, may find it difficult to maintain such policies. May’s weakened position following the 2017 general election and the creation of a coalition government with the Democratic Unionist Party may pressure her to compromise on the “hard Brexit” that she originally sought, potentially leaving the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as an EU-style free-trade zone. Should this happen, an ideal response would be for both nations to prioritize a U.S.-UK free trade deal. This has already been put on the table, as both leaders have expressed great interest during the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg. Such a deal could potentially open up new bilateral deals with other nations worldwide, with an emphasis on the Commonwealth of Nations, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as with wealthy developing economies throughout Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Common enemies and threats have kept Britain and the United States together for decades. Today’s leaders agree that global terrorism is a major threat that has to be dealt with. Trump and May have pledged to continue the War on Terror in response to the recent terror attacks that hit Britain. Although Trump himself did not explicitly endorse NATO initially, he has since backtracked from his previous remarks during the joint press conference with the Romanian president in June, ensuring that the United States will continue to be a major player in military global affairs. Even before changing his opinion, Trump has demonstrated his willingness to use force after his decision to strike a Syrian airbase in April of this year. While May has promised to increase defense spending, she has a long way to build up her credibility due to the major defense cuts she oversaw as Home Secretary under Cameron’s administration. Considering both nations have shaky relations with the EU, they may have little choice than to rely more on members of the Five Eyes intelligence pact for information, binding the major English-speaking nations closer than ever before.

Trump and May appear to have started off well in a long-term partnership, given that they are both struggling to deal with domestic problems and shaky international reputations. Their suspicions of modern globalization, in particular towards free trade and immigration, will cement their personal bond. But that does not mean they will entirely escape the looming possibility that their shared vision of a post–Atlantic Charter era may follow up with disagreements. Disputes regarding intelligence sharing after the Manchester attacks in May of this year have opened up potential weak spots in the struggle against terrorism, and the pursuit of bilateral trade agreements may not be enough to sustain economic growth in the long run. Trump and May’s vision to roll back post-war Atlantic Charter ideals may become compromised should their execution strategies conflict with one another.

For the moment however, the current leaders of the Anglo-American partners seem content with one another and will put their differences aside to tackle bigger problems that lie ahead. May’s stiff manner may clash with Trump’s blunt character, but their common interests and the threats they face will more than overcome the obstacles in developing a resurgent special relationship. Their desire to create new economic models, fight global terrorism, and promote democratic values without excessive military intervention will ensure the transatlantic alliance does not falter. If Trump and May are serious about transforming the world, then perhaps it is time for them to fully understand the significance of the special relationship and to realize the potential impacts they could have on a global scale.


LindseyNarrate… (not verified) Fri, 08/18/2017 - 03:48 Permalink

Fuck this HALF-ASSED BULLSHIT!!!  President Trump, you have a LITERAL coup-d'etat and OUTRIGHT INSURRECTION!!! taking-place, RIGHT NOW, IN OUR NATION, and you MUST, MUST, MUST!!! focus on this untenable situation, and reverse-the-train-wreck that is happening to The United States of America, NOW!!!! JFC... What is WRONG with people???!?!!  Has, LITERALLY, damned-near everyone in our nation lost-their-mother-fucking-MINDS???!?!?!!  This whole situation, Ladies and Gentlemen, is BEYOND!!!!!!!!!! insane, unacceptable, and outrageous!!! Lindsey

Twee Surgeon LindseyNarrate… (not verified) Fri, 08/18/2017 - 04:03 Permalink

Donald still has his shit together, Lindsey, where as, you don't. Does he look worried ? No, because he isn't.He has enough evidence in his reach to hang a Hillary ten times and burn it at the stake, live on PBS with 70% of the Nation doing a celebratory square dance.Just for openers. He has evidence against an entire foundation of a Pyramid of foul shit. Why do you think the Lib's are pulling out all the stops?Donald is going to be the face on the Penny one day.

In reply to by LindseyNarrate… (not verified)

LindseyNarrate… (not verified) Twee Surgeon Fri, 08/18/2017 - 04:49 Permalink

Some of you people, here, are as fucking out-of-your-minds as the common-people whom know next-to-nothing that you people do, and that is an absolute DIS-GRACE. You people had better stop living-in-fantasy-land, and realize that President Trump WILL be impeached, based-upon nothing but lies, if things are not reversed, ASAP.  I do not "just" read Mr. Durden's site, nor THOUSANDS-OF-COMMENTS, here, but at several other media-fora, and I AM TELLING YOU, ALL--you had BETTER take-seriously what The Lunatic Left, RINO's, (((The Deep-State))), BLM, etc., are doing, because this LITERAL insurrection, and LITERAL coup-d'etat, are as serious-as-fucking-serious-gets. End of discussion. Lindsey

In reply to by Twee Surgeon

peopledontwanttruth LindseyNarrate… (not verified) Fri, 08/18/2017 - 05:28 Permalink

It's not easy watching communities to state to an entire nation die. What we're seeing is not just the death of a nation but a world in general. I speak about this with many people who remember this country in its zenith where now we can barely manufacture a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It goes much deeper than that as across the board of the complacency in people's minds and hearts. Sounds like small things but where people can't move out of your way with a grocery shopping cart in the aisle, step a little to the side when walking towards you but rather deliberately walk into you with a stiff shoulder. No common courtesy to say thanks for holding the door open. It's everywhere where people want a voice on trivial matters and are wrapped around the axel on stupid issues while the house is burning down. People are saturated in fantasy land and I don't mean just so called entertainment but the realities of life and sacrifices and hard work, where everything is given to them and grownup people lie in bed like teenagers sleeping half the day away. No one considers tomorrow but live like animals for today with no planning of tomorrow's meal, bills and having even a small nest egg for a rainy day.

This runs deep in every part of society from the top to the bottom to young to old. From the laborer to the professional to the educated to the uneducated. It's not meant to be a spandex comment but it's by far the majority in many parts of the world and not just this country. As a part of mankind we're reaping what has been sown. The anti-God establishment has won from out right atheism to the false religious teachers spewing spoiled milk instead of feeding the truth.

Speak all we want about drain the swamp, liberals to conservatives. There's no turning back to the old glory days. This infectious disease of arrogance, pride and completely having our priorities mixed up is all coming home to roost.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

In reply to by LindseyNarrate… (not verified)

LindseyNarrate… (not verified) Eyes Opened Fri, 08/18/2017 - 16:57 Permalink

Mr. Opened, if you only knew ANYTHING about what I have done in-the-past, as well as my diminished-efforts, lately, you would not be so dis-respectful. I have paid-my-dues, MADE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, given-up on everyone and everything, and have returned to continue-my-efforts, knowing that time is running-out, literally, to inform/awaken as many human-beings as is possible. I do not have to explain myself to you, but choose to inform you that you are not dealing with "a regular person", but someone whom you WANT TO HAVE YOUR ON SIDE. Seriously. Lindsey

In reply to by Eyes Opened

quadraspleen Fri, 08/18/2017 - 03:56 Permalink

Whatever that relationship is, it won’t be with May, as she’s gone at the next GE. Will Trump stay the distance? At this rate, it doesn’t look too good. But whatever; there’s a false equivalence here. The same people who ultimately pull T.May’s strings are the same forces arrayed against Trump. Special relationship my arse

Hkan Fri, 08/18/2017 - 04:08 Permalink

Enemies, 5 min later allied.Strategy comes before trust.No one will ever trust anyone.So ur out there alone all by rescue unless its strategical beneficial.

Ross123 Fri, 08/18/2017 - 04:20 Permalink

The problem is the way the Brexit negotiations are going ( or the ideas being put forward by the UK) there won't be a Brexit worth talking about. It will be a complete fudge. 

BritBob Fri, 08/18/2017 - 05:20 Permalink

Keep an eye on the Spanish Donald...Ceuta: an unofficial Russian naval ‘base’ in the Strait of Gibraltar?Right-wing groups in the US and UK criticize frequent stopovers in the Spanish enclave(El Pais, March 2016)Spanish Guardia Civil vessel Rio Cedena twice tried to disrupt the visit by ballistic missile sub USS Florida as it was approaching the British Overseas Territory on the southern tip of Spain.According to the Sun, the incident has caused outrage among senior officials in Gibraltar with one 'top source' saying: 'This is not only a very dangerous game for the Spanish to play but it is unbecoming of a NATO ally to treat the US Navy with such contempt.'(Daily Mail 6 May 2016) Looks like Spain will try and play the Gibraltar card  (A worthless sovereignty claim): Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: is an important NATO base. 

activisor Fri, 08/18/2017 - 05:21 Permalink

As a Brit., I sincerely hope not. The US is in terminal decline, and is likely to take decades to recover. Unfortunately the UK faction of the Deep State are elite psychopaths who could not care a jot about the British people. The Establishment must be removed from power, and new governance introduced.

smacker activisor Fri, 08/18/2017 - 06:44 Permalink

I don't disagree with your comments but I continue to believe there's a great future for America and Britain working together and having free trade deals between us. Canada, Oz and NZ should join us too to create a powerful English-speaking bloc that earns respect from the rest of the world by example, not by bombing them into submission. That means the likes of HRH Tony Blair must never be allowed into power again because he will get back into bed with the EU to further his personal aim of becoming the unelected President of Europe with his own A380 to hold sex orgies and the like.To cement this English-speaking union I'd recommend that all members adopt the American Constitution, or at least use it as a template and makie it a serious criminal offence for any .gov to undermine it.That would set us on a common course for the future.Not sure if Theresa May is the right person to achieve that, maybe Jacob Rees-Mogg, "Honourable Member for the Early 20th Century" is a better bet.

In reply to by activisor

Eyes Opened activisor Fri, 08/18/2017 - 10:08 Permalink

"The Establishment must be removed from power, and new governance introduced"As an Irishman, I wish u well in your endeavors....Edit.."there's a great future for America and Britain working together and having free trade deals between us."These "deals" are NEVER about improving the lot for citizens.... elitist pockets are being lined... but u know this....

In reply to by activisor

Unholy Dalliance Fri, 08/18/2017 - 05:42 Permalink

Can common enemies and threats keep Britain and the United States together for decades to come?

No - Britain's economic and cultural interests now lie in the East. We have always had strong ties with Russia - you only have to read the history of the 18th and 19th centuries (apart from the unfortunate 'Crimea Excursion' with France as co-aggressor) to see that Britain does not see Russia as a threat. Britain saw the Soviet Union as a threat to the European status quo post-1945 but that is an entirely different story. I don't see that there is anything to be gained by seeking a closer alignment with a country which is hell-bent on tearing itself apart and is a dangerous 'partner' as well! Also, Russia (and China) will be bulwarks for Britain as the slow disintegration of the EU continues to unfold.

Look for a new northern European union established with Germany as its (economic and cultural) leader with the possible reintroduction of the D-Mark. There is anecdotal evidence that the printed currency is there and that a switch to Germany's national currency could happen over a weekend. D-Marks are still in regular use in eastern (the old GDR) Germany. It is accepted by banks in exchange for Euros but I suspect there is more 'traffic' in the other direction. If this happens, Germany will be joined by The Netherlands, Austria, Finland, the Czech Republic, poss. Slovakia, Poland and Hungary, ditto Denmark, in said northern European union of more or less democratic states. Just thought: the acronym for the 'Northern European Union' is NEU which is German for 'new'! Cool, huh!

All of these countries have already forged new economic and trade agreements with Russia for the free exchange of goods (east) and raw materials (west) and the same agreements will be forged (if they have not been already) with China with the added bonus of using China's new gold-backed currency for the financing of trade (in place of the Euro or the smaller countries' own currency - if they are not in the Euro: Denmark and Poland, for example).

It is for these reasons that any 'close ties' to the US are madness. Any British politician who advocates 'closer ties with the US' will find themselves without support very quickly.

Blanco Diablo BritBob Fri, 08/18/2017 - 06:21 Permalink

'After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested byFrance, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The governmentof Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewiseused them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement.England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was leftin charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer wasnext sent, unsupported by any power and when we arrived, we found himin charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runawayrebels and murderers.'Charles Darwin : March 1833The Voyage of the BeagleBoob has abandoned England and his Kinsman ........... Escape from King Khan's English Caliphate, searching for stolen lands in order to avoid King Khan's Jizya tax and Sharia in Londonistan....or maybe a job with the "White Helmets"Muhammad is now the most popular name for baby boys in England and Wales.....Stoning for adultery. Amputations for theft. Death for apostates.This is life under Sharia law and it's alive and well in, of all places, Great Britain.UK Muslim Patrol: "This is Not a Christian Country... We Will Implement Islam Upon Your Necks"The NHS recorded more than 9,000 incidents of female genital mutilation (FGM) in England between April 2016 and March 2017....The 23,000 jihadists MI5 officials have publicly admitted are living in the UK “may be the tip of the iceberg":Colonel Richard KempThe changing face of Britain: A child in Birmingham is now more likely to be a Muslim than English.THREE major towns and cities have seen their white British population fall to a minority, mirroring that of London. And other population centres are set to follow. Birminham: ‘Aggressive’ Islamic Push in City’s SchoolsMainly financed from Saudi Arabia, which “is heavily involved in exporting an illiberal, bigoted Wahhabi ideology.” 

In reply to by BritBob

Sandmann Fri, 08/18/2017 - 06:36 Permalink

Whoever wrote this article needs to learn some history. The 80th Congress cut off support to Great Britain and moved to withdraw all Us Forces from Europe leaving a 5 million strong Red Army to handle matters. Lend-Lease to Britain was stopped 1946 leaving the country bankrupt. Marshall Aid was promoted by Ford Motor Co and GM who needed Dollars to re-tool their plants in Europe and knew European counties were as broke as in 1918.Morgenthau had blackmailed Churchill in Quebec into agreeing his bizarre plan to deindustrialise Germany and cause mass famine. Stalin offered a United Germany without famine. JCS1067 was implemented until replaced in 1947 by JCS1779 to rebuild Germany. Otherwise Europe would have relived 1920s with total collapse.USA cut all cooperation with Uk on Atom Bomb so Britain had to build its own under Labour Govt and Penney built the H-Bomb under the Conservatives in 1955.UK was left so high and dry by USA in 1946 it was selling Rolls-Royce jet engines to USSR for revenue (then again Churchill had given the technology to USA in 1943).USA cancelled Skybolt leaving Britain without a launch platform for its nuclear weapons in 1962 causing a major crisis. They then had to agree on Polaris to save face.LBJ was so peeved when Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to VietNam he facilitated a run on Sterling in 1967 which led directly to the US going off gold in 1971. FDR played Churchill using US Navy Signals to communicate with Churchill behind Chamberlain's back and although Chamberlain was very close with Joseph Kennedy as US Ambassador, FDR was playing Henry Bullitt as US ambassador in Paris to urge Warsaw to be obstructive with Berlin. Chamberlain was manipulated by FDR into declaring war in Sept 1939 which destroyed Poland.....and FDR and Churchill later approved the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by signing off on Stalin's acquisition of 77,000 sq. miles and compensating Poland with 40,000 sq miles of Germany by moving the eastern border of Germany westwards. This is why Western Ukraine was Poland in 1939.–Ribbentrop_Pact#The_secret_protocolUS and UK screwed up by wasting zillions on weapons rather than deveoping their industrial base and then used Easy Credit to paper over the cracks. They simply had a Debt Splurge and debased their currencies so they could play Imperial Powers and pretend the USSR was outspending them on weapons.  

Hank Reardon Fri, 08/18/2017 - 07:29 Permalink

The only way for the US & UK to have a bright future is to return to our historical Christian roots and traditions. Re-institute the morality based on the 10 commandments in the Bible and reinvigorate our Christian relationships. Reinstitue prayers in parliaments and school assemblies. Faith and pride in who we can be. This is what gave us our strength of character and inspired generations to strive to have the right stuff and do the right things. We have forgotten what made us great and we quickly need leaders to help guide the populations back to the only path that will save the countries and western civilisation.

Mimir Fri, 08/18/2017 - 08:06 Permalink

for decades to come... !!!!Really ???Referring to a so-called President who is likely to be evicted within months and a Prime Minister who is not likely to survive in her position beyond the automn.

HenryHall Fri, 08/18/2017 - 08:11 Permalink

>> personal bonding moments, such as when the president accidentally walked into the prime minister’s room in Washington to find him naked shortly after showering.Not exactly. It is well known that President Roosevelt did no walking. And Churchill did not shower, he soaked in bathtubs.