I disagree entirely - I think in a sense it is quite condescending to the British. Yes, they were fucked out of their position as a superpower, but they are certainly not a vassal state. They may have (under the auspices of a dimwit Prime Minister) followed us into Iraq, but they didn't in Vietnam. They've broken with us in terms of their recent economic parleying with China, joining their international investment group and etc. We didn't fuck them out of Iran - hell, we ousted a government that had the potential to be friendly with us because of the British!
Respectfully: you lack the basis to debate this knowledgeably. The British Empire has been a proxy since the Yalta conference. Operation Ajax was not about dethroning a 'friendly' government, it was about deposing leadership that was willing to suffer economic ruin in order to sell oil on its own terms. Result: oil got sold on American terms. You're right - the British weren't in Vietnam. They had no reason to be. Indochina was the French sphere of influence and the British could only benefit from discord. Meanwhile, find the United Kingdom on this page and tell me why economic deals between the British and the Chinese matter.
But that's my point - the British had a huge stake in Iranian oil. They asked the CIA to get involved precisely because they had such a huge stake. The British planned the coup. It was their idea. We certainly had a lot to gain, and we went along with the ride - that doesn't scream to me "VASSAL STATE" Especially when the British had a great deal to gain themselves. Furthermore it is pretty important to note that Churchill asked the American government to get involved on the British government's behest - the Truman administration had been incredibly reluctant to have anything to do with a coup and even Eisenhower wasn't entirely keen on it to begin with. Our relations with the British, though, were deemed more important that Mossadegh's government. We pressured the British to enter Vietnam. Wilson was adamantly against that. We asked them not to join the organization China created. They went against that. They have consistently taken a harsher stance against Israel than we have. I live in the United Kingdom. I can tell you that the sentiments about American politics, even amongst the political elites, do not seem to point towards anything resembling a vassal or a proxy. Indeed, amongst many of the politicians here during the last election, that was a great deal of derision for many American policies, both domestic and foreign. Respectfully: I disagree with your interpretation of the historiography. And I must stress that this is all this discussion (which, don't misunderstand me, I feel is quite interesting) is centered around. I agree with the idea that we dismantled the British Empire for our own benefit but I think you are being needlessly dismissive of an entire country's sovereignty. If you were to simply say we have an unequal friendship, I'd certainly agree. The power-dynamic favors us heavily.The British Empire has been a proxy since the Yalta conference. Operation Ajax was not about dethroning a 'friendly' government, it was about deposing leadership that was willing to suffer economic ruin in order to sell oil on its own terms. Result: oil got sold on American terms.
And left without one. And their coup failed. My condolences. The best kind of vassal. Rule britannia. The British have been one of the most erosive forces in the history of politics. They built a nightmare in Europe and paid the butcher's bill. Nothing the British have done has mattered to anyone but the British since '56.But that's my point - the British had a huge stake in Iranian oil. They asked the CIA to get involved precisely because they had such a huge stake.
The British planned the coup. It was their idea.
I live in the United Kingdom.
I can tell you that the sentiments about American politics, even amongst the political elites, do not seem to point towards anything resembling a vassal or a proxy.
I agree with the idea that we dismantled the British Empire for our own benefit but I think you are being needlessly dismissive of an entire country's sovereignty.
Not unlike the US since 9/11. And you certainly seem to have them beat at that game.They seem to have spent the past 30 years doubling down on fear, however
I was talking less about state surveillance (but yes, it's apalling. Especially infuriating is how they don't even think it's an issue.) but more about political rhetoric and things like the patriot act/ invading whole countries. You can't deny that the invasion of Iraq was based on fearmongering - remember those weapons of mass destruction?
Believe it or not, I'm arguing that the invasion of Iraq was a lot more "business as usual" in the course of empire than an anomaly. Vietnam was justified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We did the same thing with the war in the Philippines, the Mexican American war, etc. We've always been trigger-happy.
True dat. Regardless, the fact that the British went from a 100% stake in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to a 40% stake - particularly when they were willing to overthrow the government rather than take a 50% stake - is hardly a win. Especially when that oil is extracted under the government of an American puppet state.his has gotten horribly off-topic, I'm afraid!
Aye but considering that the Americans themselves got about ~12%, it does put things into perspective as well - the British had to 'share the wealth', as it were, mostly with other European countries like France and Italy. I agree that the we completely restructured the dynamic of our alliance with the British after WWII, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to the extent of that change in dynamic! (Interestingly enough, we were very much in favor of the Iranians and the British splitting profits from oil sales 50/50 but both Churchill and Mossadegh rejected that. We even went through the International Court of Justice! Geez, things have changed since then, heh.)
Mmmm.... Wikipedia's math is a little different than yours. - BP (UK) - 40% - Gulf (US) - 8% - Royal Dutch Shell (UK/ND) - 14% - Total SA (FR) - 6% - Chevron (USA) - 8% - Exxon (USA) - 8% - Mobil (USA) - 8% - Texaco (USA) - 8% That's 40%.
Ah so it is - I was just working off my (clearly outdated) memory. 40/40/20 between the UK, US, and Europe still doesn't quite point to a hegemonic dominance of the oil on our part, though. Interestingly enough, the proportions of stakes of Iranian oil were pretty similar to the stakes in the Iraq Petroleum Company - I'd probably wager the Americans wanted to keep up the status quo in the region by emulating what had been arranged in Iraq.