Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship [Paperback]

I feel compelled to write a short review of this book in order to underscore how badly I feel that many of the leftist reviewers here have misunderstood it, probably based on no more than reading the title if history is any judge. This book IS NOT some bloated Noam Chomsky fairy tale about America and its misdeeds throughout time; it IS a very nice survey of the 'special relationship' between America and Great Britain, and its enduring components of blood, class, and nostalgia (as the original title that I own went).

So, look elsewhere for loony paranoid fantasies; here you will only find the usual intelligent Hitchens style.

Hitchens is both a polemicist and a comedian and this re-issue is a timely reminder of his wicked sense of fun. It probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. If read as an extension of an amusing hypothesis it's very effective, if read as a serious work of geo-political analysis it may be something of a disappointment.

I enjoyed it tremendously, but then I came to it mostly expecting to be entertained and reminded of some hazy anecdotes that might adorn the history of the 'special relationship' at a dinner-party level.

Reading the reviews that this book has garnered on amazon ironically demonstrated to me the very sizable difference in character between the two partners in this uneasy, but now very long-standing marriage.

The British Empire was an empire based on 'grace' (of necessity - that small temperate isle anchored off the coast of continental Europe could only enforce its 'imperium' by diplomacy and grace. Let's be honest: the Brits CHARMED the Indians into accepting their rule!)

In contrast the American Empire is based on 'power' and the projection overseas of American interests through financial and military 'might' based on a trans-continental nation with unparalleled economic and technological capability has been the exercise of effective, determined, aggressive self-interest.

It is therefore a not-too-surprising irony that your reaction to this work will be determined by your expectations based on whether you are looking for a Brtish-style work of charming anecdote illuminating by wit, or whether your need is really for a hard-headed geopolitcal analysis to satisfy the most self-interested Beltway policy wonk.

My advice: sit back and enjoy the charm. Thank God that we (eventually) went and saved Britain from Hitler and thus helped them secure Europe for civilisation and democracy. Life would be immeasurably less rich without these crazy Brits and their incomprehensible wit and, despite their all-too-obvious concerns of late, they have repaid that debt with interest in supporting us through thick and (recently) thin and adding their not inconsiderable weight to our strategies. You can just hear Harold Macmillan saying something like "Think nothing of it dear boy".

No 'serious' American writer would have produced this confection. That's why we serious Americans should read it.

It was surprising to me that "Blood, Class and Empire: the Enduring Anglo-American Relationship" seemed to jive with John Coleman's "The Conspirator's Hierarchy The Committee of 300." You can read my review of that book if you'd like.
Of course, most people (like myself) would say that Coleman's book went way over the top, but after reading Hitchens' book you start to wonder if some of the topics Coleman tried to tackle were sound arguments, considering Hitchens discusses two major think-tanks that influence foreign policy in Europe and the United States, which are The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), and The Royal Institute of International Affairs (known to Europeans as Chatham House.) I also highly recommend reading James Perloff "The Council On Foreign Relations and the American Decline."

Anyhow, Hitchens manages to dime out "The Rhodes Scholarship and Ditchley Park, which all seem to be a part of the Round Table groups that rightwing conspiracy theorist such as Coleman, Texe Marrs author of "Circle of Intrigue," and G. Edward Griffin author of "The Creature From Jekyll Island" discussed in their books.

Hitchens argues in a sort of satirical fashion that these think tanks influence Western policy, and of course, Hitchens is spot on about this. According to Hitchens, the Rhodes Scholars schemed in South Africa, running "the Kaffir Compound System, [which was a] forerunner of apartheid operated De Beers diamond mines"[owned by Cecil Rhodes.] Moreover, they were behind the Boer Wars and the Filipino Wars.

Also, Hitchens said, "The British branch of the Institute of International Affairs, with Lionel Curtis as its secretary, swiftly took on the essential prefix `Royal,' under which title it flourishes to this day. Most outsiders know it by its less cumbersome name of Chatham house, and it is by no means unknown to receive a Foreign Office briefing under what are agreeably known as `Chatham House rules'-the surreptitiously, deep-background culture that informs so much British public life."

He then explains how America's number one think tank (The Council On Foreign Relations) is really a spin off of Chatham House. Furthermore, Hitchens goes on to say, "By 1922 the Council had begun to publish Foreign Affairs [magazine,] and it was not long before words like `judicious and authoritative' began to be applied to the magazine. Its launching was the brainchild of Edwin F. Gay, a Council figure and the first dean of the Harvard Business School." Hitchens then quotes Edwin F. Gay as saying, "When I think of the British Empire as our inheritance I think simply of the natural right of succession. That ultimate succession is inevitable."

Can you say "New World Order" three times fast?

Anyway, Hitchens parenthetically states, "Broadly speaking, the composition and character of the Council On Foreign Relations was one of post- [Woodrow] Wilsonian internationalism, with a self-conscious emphasis on America's duty to shoulder a global role. It ranged itself more or less explicitly against the isolationist, and drew strength from the more forward-looking and adventurous element of the business community."
It seems to me that Hitchens is in agreement with conspiracy theorist such as Anthony J. Hilder (founder of the Free World Alliance) who claims that the Council On Foreign Relations is really America's de-facto government, what the elite CFR would call the "Pax Americana" initiative.

Hitchens cites a bevy of points, but one in particular was when the CFR tried to persuade Franklin Roosevelt to extend the Monroe Doctrine to annex Greenland as part of the American Continent in the auspices of protecting it from Adolph Hitler, just in case he decided to usurp Danish colonies.

Also, Hitchens wrote about how Winston Churchill wanted to establish duel citizenship between The United Kingdom and the United States. Of course, this invidious idea would have sparked outrage among the American people. So this idea never saw the light of day.

Hitchens also writes about the backroom deals between Josef Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt during the Malta Yalta conferences.

Hitchens comes to the impasse as to why the Western powers are so xenophobic. The U.S. and Britain share a loving bond, but it seem that Britain in some respects has become the junior partner in the whole scheme of things since today the U.S. pretty much polices the territories the former British Empire usurped before World War II.

The conclusion I came to after reading this book is that nation building is not the answer as Hitchens put it, "it will be a splendid thing if, showing that countries can after all learn from history, [if] the United States decided to become less Roman, and the British decided to become more Greek, and both rediscovered republican virtues in a world without conquerors" then the world would be all the better for it.
In other words we the people need to embrace the ideas that embodies the Constitution and up hold it and set an example to the world. I think that's what Hitchens was trying to say throughout this book.