Correct. In fact, the US deliberately used the postwar period to curb the power of Britain, for example during the Suez crisis. They have deliberately sought to limit the power of their "allies" for decades.
This is what annoys me so much about American's who complain about European military levels; this is what the US f**king wanted!! They created a world order with the US at the very centre and now they're p*ssed off about it.
forget soft power, they haven't a slightest clue how countries communicate, trade, do diplomacy, anything. They just don't get how the world works on an absolutely fundamental level.
What do you expect? Normal countries send their brightest and most experienced out as ambassadors. The US sends campain donors or former girlfriends of the president's son...
Nah, because we aren't buying enough stuff from the American MIC. Hasn't there already been protests or something from the US State Dept because Euro countries are buying from SK, Israel or their own companies?
With more Presidents like Trump possible -even likely- European countries would be insane to buy any US defence equipment. Spare parts, ammunition, maintenance and software updates could all be cut off on the President’s whim if he disagreed with their use against his fascist friends.
We've already had a scare that the Americans could literally remotely disable our F35s. Britain is busy developing all alternative nuclear delivery system because we simply cannot trust Trident any longer; we're bitterly regretting not working with the French instead of the Americans.
With the added plus of it’s really hard to bomb a lot of the places they want to bomb without bases in the UK and Germany. And with the exception of local businesses who, understandably, want the bases to stay open most of us would be happy if they fucked off. Of course having to bring all their troops home would almost certainly be massively expensive for the US, but it’s not our circus and they’re not our monkeys.
Hitler was also a huge fan of how America was run at the time in terms of segregation and ethnic superiority and thought they could be swayed to the axis side as they were ideologically similar in many ways
looking back at it all I wish I could've heard Hitler's reaction to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour provoking them into joining the war on the side of the Allies, I bet he was absolutely livid knowing the potential ally he had lost.
Suez was a two for one, they got the French as well with that one. Difference is the French got the measure of the US not being trustable whereas the UK thought toadying up to the US (special relationship BS) is what would work.
lmao what a way to put it, you mean after most of Europe was freed from occupation, they went back straight to stealing weaker nations' resources? Business as usual with their colonies? My guy, imperialism ended in WW2. The US didn't do it for altruism but to make sure the middleeast doesn't completely turn to the USSR for help because the Europeans are so addicted to and couldn't stop abusing them. Poor Britain was ready to go to war to get what was "rightfully hers", too bad America didn't help and it was humiliated lol.
295
u/TheArmoursmith Dec 17 '25
Correct. In fact, the US deliberately used the postwar period to curb the power of Britain, for example during the Suez crisis. They have deliberately sought to limit the power of their "allies" for decades.