The British-U.S. Special Relationship: Dispelling a Few Myths and Applying Logical, Rational Analysis Over Ideological Interpretation

I recently found this gem of a video that touches on a subject I recently tackled – the myth of the British Crown and, more broadly, myths about Britain. First, I want to express my amazement at the lack of logic and rationality in people’s analysis of history and the world, as well as the extent to which ideology shapes their perspectives. I also want to clarify that I am not pro-British or some British fanboy. Unlike many people today, I simply use logic and rational analysis rather than ideological assumptions to analyze history and global events.

Recently, I discussed the myth of the so-called British Crown and the idea that Britain somehow controls the U.S. – a claim I find absurd. This video, which serves as the basis for this post, does an excellent job of debunking that notion. It also covers other topics I have frequently addressed, such as Thatcherism and how America used Britain to spread neoliberal ideology with the goal of dismantling social democracy in the UK.

Economic Aspect

As those who follow my content know, I am a socialist, so I want to highlight an important point related to the economic struggles of the Labour government, which this video touches on. However, the video fails to fully explain the issue. Libertarians and right-wingers will argue that the economic problems of the Labour government are caused by socialism’s inherent flaws – a claim with which I strongly disagree.

I recently had another debate with a friend who repeated a common right-wing argument: “Socialism doesn’t work, and it has never worked whenever it was tried.” This argument is complete nonsense.

Now, you may ask why it’s nonsense. There are many great videos explaining this issue in depth, and I’ll share one such example here:

This video also touches on another important topic – why socialist experiments often turn authoritarian. That’s a lengthy discussion for another time, and perhaps I’ll write a post about it in the future. For now, I want to focus on the economic aspect, particularly how it relates to the Labour government’s struggles, as discussed in the main video.

While the video addresses these economic problems, it overlooks a crucial factor, which can be best illustrated through the example of Chile. This is something my friend didn’t know, and I suspect many others don’t either – especially those who blindly claim, “Socialism doesn’t work, and wherever it was tried, it failed.”

Anyone who repeats that statement clearly lacks an understanding of history, and Chile is the perfect example to counter it. My friend, like many others, was unaware of a crucial historical fact. Here’s an official U.S. government document that proves my point:

Historical Documents – Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

The document states:
“A potential 1 in 10 chance, perhaps, but it’s worth spending to save Chile! We are not concerned with the risks involved. There will be no embassy involvement. $10,000,000 is available, with more if necessary. This will be a full-time job for our best men. Our game plan: make the economy scream.”

I suspect many people are unaware of this document and the historical events it reveals because knowing about them completely destroys the argument that “socialism doesn’t work wherever it was tried.” This document proves that, at least in the case of Chile, socialism’s economic struggles were not caused by inherent flaws in the system but rather by deliberate sabotage. The U.S. government, the CIA, and Henry Kissinger actively worked to destabilize Chile’s socialist economy, as the document explicitly states: “make the economy scream.”

I have raised this issue many times and have repeatedly asked a simple question that no one has yet answered with logic or reason: Why did the West need to sanction and actively undermine every country that attempted to implement socialism? The only response I ever get is, “Socialism is evil, so they sanctioned those countries to help their people,” which is a completely ridiculous justification.

If socialism is truly so bad and inefficient, why did the U.S., the CIA, and Kissinger feel the need to spend millions of dollars and orchestrate covert actions to “make the economy scream”? If socialism were inherently doomed to fail, they could have simply left Chile alone, and its economy would have collapsed on its own.

I always say: If you want to prove that socialism doesn’t work, there’s a simple way – stop sanctioning socialist countries and let them operate freely. If socialism is really so bad and inefficient, then countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and others that pursue socialism should fail on their own. But that never happens. Every time a country attempts socialism, a Western capitalist cabal intervenes to “make the economy scream.”

Who Controls Who?

What I just discussed regarding the economy can also explain the British Labour government’s economic struggles. It’s not only the Third World that is subject to such interventions. In my opinion, the economic problems faced by the Labour government in Britain were not due to inherent flaws in socialism but rather the actions of the Western capitalist cabal, which sought to make the British economy “scream” – just as they did in Chile. They likely took similar measures to destabilize Britain’s economy under a Labour government, and as a result, they successfully exported the neoliberal agenda to Britain in the form of Margaret Thatcher.

This attack on the British economy under the Labour government was carried out by the same Western capitalist cabal I referenced in my recent post:

“Understanding Deep Politics” featuring Michael Parenti

As Michael Parenti explains:

“In 1978, I came across a quote by somebody from the Business Council - his name wasn’t given - but he was saying things like, ‘What’s going on? The income gap between the highest and lowest is more narrow than it’s ever been. Human services are increasing. If we don’t watch it, we will end up as a social democracy.’”

“The core task that the Republican Party has had was to stop and reverse, to some degree, the drift of democratic countries after the Second World War towards social democracy. And that is what we did in the US. We stopped the drift towards social democracy.”

The deliberate sabotage of the Labour government in Britain and the manufactured economic crisis paved the way for Thatcher to take power. Once in office, Thatcher enabled the same capitalist elites to, as Parenti put it, “stop and reverse, to some degree, the drift of democratic countries (like Britain)... towards social democracy” and spread neoliberalism across Europe.

Now, let’s address the question of who controls whom - does Britain control the U.S., or is it the other way around? I argue that the video exposing how the British Labour government was undermined with the help of the CIA demonstrates that it is the U.S. influencing and controlling Britain, not the other way around. I tackled this issue in my last post, and I am addressing it again because I keep hearing strange, illogical, and irrational theories about British influence.

One of these theories claims that Britain and the British Crown control the U.S. I hope my last post, this post, and the main video in this discussion make it clear that this is simply not true. However, there are also many other strange and baseless theories floating around.

World War II

Another theory I have previously addressed in my posts is the claim that the British started World War II. I have explained before that while Germany was, of course, responsible for initiating the war by attacking other countries, the U.S. and the Soviet Union also played a significant role in setting the stage for it. Both nations used Hitler - who was, in reality, a complete idiot - to ignite war in Europe. Ironically, the country that wanted to avoid war in Europe the most was Britain.

This is not because the British were inherently virtuous. The problem with many historical analyses today is the lack of logic and rationality, with people substituting ideology for critical thinking. Those who blame Britain for World War II often do so not based on reason but on ideological bias - since they view the British as "evil," they assume Britain must be responsible for the war.

However, history should not be analyzed through a simplistic lens of "good" and "evil." Real historical analysis is grounded in realpolitik, logic, and rationality. The forces that shape our world do not act based on morality but rather on self-interest.

When we strip away childish ideological biases and examine history through logic and realpolitik, we uncover the truth. Britain sought to avoid war in Europe not out of goodwill but out of self-interest. The First World War had only served to strengthen the U.S. while weakening Britain, even though Britain was technically victorious. The British policy of appeasement toward Hitler and the Nazis was not a conspiracy to start a war - it was a desperate attempt to prevent one. They understood that if another European war broke out, even if Britain emerged victorious again, it would only further weaken their position while strengthening the U.S.

British leaders were aware that the U.S. was growing stronger and had ambitions to take over the British Empire. The U.S., in turn, understood this reality and therefore supported Hitler and the Nazis, knowing that war in Europe would weaken Britain and provide an opportunity for the U.S. to take over its global influence.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, also wanted war in Europe, as it aligned with Lenin’s strategic vision. The Soviets believed that another war among capitalist nations would weaken the European powers, allowing communism to spread.

As Molotov stated:

“We are more firmly convinced now than ever that our brilliant comrade, Lenin, was not mistaken when he assured us that the Second World War will help us to gain power throughout all of Europe as the First helped us to gain power in Russia.”

This explains why the Soviets supported Hitler.

“Tactics at the time depended on exploiting the differences between various capitalist countries, playing one off against the other, following Lenin's advice. The Soviets consistently supported Germany, the biggest loser of the First World War, circumventing the bans imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. The Reichswehr secretly trained on Soviet grounds.

Another key decision that irreversibly altered history was Stalin’s order forbidding the German Communists from forming a coalition with the Social Democrats. This enabled Hitler's National Socialist Party, which otherwise would have remained a minority force, to form a government. In doing so, Stalin paved the way for Hitler’s rise to power.”

Both the Soviets and the Americans helped the Nazis and used Hitler for their own strategic goals. Their ultimate aim was to divide Europe between themselves, which they successfully achieved after the war.

For evidence of U.S. support for Nazi Germany, one example is explained in a video from the Eyes Wide Open channel. At 25:37, it states:

“The Dulles brothers saw serious potential in Nazi Germany, not only from a business sense but also from a geopolitical one. It's important to note this because it will keep coming up, especially with the CIA's continued support of fascist governments around the world.

This leads us into another key tenet of the U.S. intelligence network and U.S. intelligence history: these people are rabidly anti-communist. This was ingrained in the institution at its most fundamental level, as most of its key members were members of the American ruling elite who benefited from the capitalist world order.

The Dulleses certainly fit into this anti-communist mold. Broadly speaking, American anti-communists viewed the Nazi regime in Germany as a useful fixture in Europe due to their violent anti-communist stance. They were seen as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The Nazis believed in private property. This aligned with the Dulleses and even included a policy of reprivatizing businesses, wherein they restored seized property to former owners, especially the seized property of Jewish people.

Anti-communist elites, such as the leaders of the OSS, viewed the Nazis as workable allies against communism in Europe. Therefore, the OSS and the subsequent CIA would often ally, arm, and fund fascists to fight the Soviet Union and other socialist states. This phenomenon gave rise to multiple alliances forged between the OSS and high-ranking Nazi officials.”

Another reason for U.S. support of Nazi Germany was Nazis and Hitler’s endorsement of eugenics, which was a pseudoscience originally developed by American capitalist elites such as Rockefeller, Kellogg, and J.P. Morgan. The Nazis’ early sterilization programs were modeled after U.S. sterilization policies targeting Native American populations, which is why many American elites supported Hitler.

This is the real history of World War II, a history you won’t hear often because history is written by the victors. Western sources may acknowledge that the Soviets helped Hitler but omit the fact that the U.S. did the same. Meanwhile, Soviet and Russian sources will admit to American support for Hitler while ignoring their own complicity. As a result, mainstream history is told from two biased perspectives:

• The Western perspective, which omits the West’s role in aiding Hitler.
• The Russian perspective, which omits the Soviet role in aiding Hitler.

The truth is that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union helped Hitler and used him to start a war in Europe for their own interests. The one country that truly sought to avoid war was Britain - not because they were morally superior but because they had the most to lose and no strategic interest in initiating a European war.

The claim that Britain wanted to start World War II is completely baseless. Britain had nothing to gain and everything to lose, which explains their appeasement of Hitler - not as an effort to enable war, but as a desperate attempt to prevent it at all costs.

This analysis also clarifies what is often seen as Hitler’s "insanity" in opening the Eastern Front. His decision to attack the Soviet Union can be logically explained when viewed through the real historical context.

The Soviets had helped Hitler rise to power and were preparing to attack Nazi Germany at some point. Eventually, Hitler realized that he was being used by both the Americans and the Soviets. The Soviet Union was preparing an offensive against Germany, intending to spread communist revolution. Stalin’s strategy was to wait for a prolonged, bloody war - similar to World War I - that would weaken the British, French, and Germans. What they didn’t anticipate was how quickly and decisively Germany would conquer Europe. However, their ultimate goal remained unchanged: they were still preparing to attack Germany.

At some point, Hitler finally understood this, which led to his desperate decision to launch a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union while he still had a chance. The longer he waited, the worse his strategic position would become. If the Soviets attacked first, Germany would stand no chance. His only option was to strike first before the Soviet Union was fully prepared.

This explanation resolves one of the biggest historical mysteries of World War II: Why did Hitler attack Russia and open the Eastern Front? The answer is not that Hitler was insane - while he was undoubtedly stupid, he was not irrational. His attack on Russia was not an act of madness but a desperate move in response to Russia preparing an attack.

Bolshevik Communist Revolution as a Color Revolution

Another illogical and irritating myth I’ve heard recently is that the British were behind the Bolshevik Communist revolution. This claim is not based on logical, rational analysis or realpolitik but rather on ideology. The reasoning seems to be: The British are evil, so they must have been behind the evil Bolshevik revolution. That is the gist of the argument.

Instead of engaging in a childish, ideological, and illogical analysis, let’s apply logic, rationality, and realpolitik - focusing on self-interest. At the time, Russia was an ally of Britain and played a crucial role creating the Eastern Front. What possible self-interest would Britain have in orchestrating a revolution that would collapse the Eastern Front and eliminate a key ally from the war? Those who claim that the British were responsible for the Bolshevik revolution fail to use logic, rationality and realpolitik. Instead, they rely on a simplistic ideological framework: British = evil, so Britain must have been behind the evil Bolshevik revolution.

The truth is that the Bolshevik revolution was indeed a strategically engineered uprising, a form of color revolution, but it was not initiated by the British. Instead, it was orchestrated by the Germans and later supported by American financiers. Both Germany and certain American financial elites had clear self-interests in backing the Bolsheviks.

For Germany, the motive was straightforward: they wanted to ignite a revolution in Russia to destabilize the country and end the Eastern Front, allowing them to redirect their forces to the Western Front. Meanwhile, American financiers also had a vested interest in closing the Eastern Front - not because they supported communism, but because they knew that without Russia, Britain and its allies would struggle to win the war and would be forced to turn to the United States for assistance.

German Involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution

A document from the German government to the Deutsche Reichsbank’s Stockholm branch, dated March 2, 1917, confirms Germany’s role in supporting Lenin’s movement:

"We hereby inform you that you will receive requests from Finland regarding money transfers for pacifist propaganda in Russia. Applications will be sent by individuals such as Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sumenson, Kozlowski, Kolontai, Sivers, or Merkalim. Following our instruction number 2754, Swedish, Norwegian, and Swiss branches of private banks have opened accounts for these persons."

Germany’s goal was not a global communist revolution but rather the weakening of Russia to secure their own victory in the war. However, they failed to foresee the long-term consequences of their actions.

Another key event was Lenin’s return to Russia. In March and April of 1917, German authorities facilitated Lenin’s transport from Switzerland to Petrograd in a sealed train, granting it diplomatic status. The tickets were arranged by Alexander Parvus (Israel Lazarevich Gelfand), who acted as a liaison between Lenin’s group, the German general staff, and international financial institutions. As Winston Churchill later remarked:

"Lenin was transported into Russia like a plague bacillus."

A German report dated April 21, 1917, stated:

"Lenin's arrival in Russia successful. Acts strictly as intended."

American Financial Support for the Revolution

While Germany had military and strategic motives, American financiers played a role as well - though not out of support for communism. In New York, Trotsky was swiftly granted U.S. citizenship and met with representatives of banking houses that were to continue financing the revolution.

The Americans saw the Bolshevik revolution as a means to an end. If Russia exited the war, Britain and France would be unable to win without American support, forcing them to plead for U.S. intervention. This put the United States in a stronger position to dictate post-war terms and expand its influence.

Without the Bolshevik revolution, the Allies might have won World War I without American assistance. That scenario was not in the interest of U.S. elites, who saw an opportunity to consolidate power and control over the post-war order.

The Nazis’ Distorted Interpretation

Later, the financial aid Trotsky received from American capitalist financiers became the basis for Nazi propaganda, which falsely portrayed the communist revolution as a Jewish bankers' conspiracy. However, as previously explained, American financiers did not support the revolution itself; they merely saw it as a tool to disrupt the war. Once the revolution had served its purpose and the war ended, the same financial elites who had indirectly helped the Bolsheviks turned against them.

They never expected the revolution to succeed. Its primary purpose was to halt the Eastern Front, not to spark a worldwide communist movement.

Conclusion

The claim that Britain was behind the Bolshevik Communist revolution is completely baseless. It is an illogical, ideologically driven myth that ignores historical reality. The revolution was primarily facilitated by Germany, which wanted to eliminate Russia from the war, and by American financiers, who saw an opportunity to strengthen U.S. influence.

So, the next time you hear someone argue that Britain was responsible for the Bolshevik revolution, remember: history should be analyzed with logic, rationality, and realpolitik—not ideological bias.

Final Thoughts

I decided to address the myth of the "evil British" because it reflects a broader issue in how history and the world is analyzed today. Too often, people interpret history and global events through ideology rather than logic, rationality, and realpolitik - the analysis of self-interest.

Consider the following claims:

• "The British control the U.S." - Why and how? It doesn’t matter. They just do because they are evil, so every bad action the U.S. takes must somehow be Britain’s fault.
• "The British started World War II." - Why and how? It doesn’t matter. They just did because they are evil, so they must have been responsible for such a devastating evil war.
• "The British orchestrated the Bolshevik Communist revolution." - Why and how? It doesn’t matter. They just did because they are evil, so they had to be behind the evil Bolshevik Communist revolution.

These statements contradict facts, logic, and realpolitik analysis of self interest. They are not based on an analysis of self-interest but on the simplistic belief that Britain is evil, therefore Britain must be responsible.

This widespread lack of logic and rational thinking both surprises and disappoints me. Have logic and rationality died in our society? The replacement of realpolitik with ideological narratives is a serious problem.

We must stop viewing history and global affairs through the lens of Good vs. Evil. These concepts do not exist in geopolitics. The only thing that matters is self-interest. As Michael Parneti always says: Cui bono? - Who benefits? What are the self-interests of the key players?

This approach aligns with Marx’s material analysis of history, which I have discussed in previous posts. To uncover the truth, we must strip away ideology and moral judgments and focus instead on self-interest and the fundamental question: Cui bono? Only then can we truly understand history and world affairs.

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“...people have those gripes and they have a semi awareness of it but the thing of putting it together and directing it toward actual issues and describing it and being able to detect the lies, that they're telling us and how they manipulate what are called cultural issues or identity issues to get you not to look at your own straight bread-and-butter economic issues. That's a job that I try to do, which I don't do very well because I write books about it. Well who the hell in America reads books, right it's ridiculous.”

― Michael Parenti

That's a job that I try to do, which I don't do very well because I write posts about it. Well who the hell nowadays reads posts, right it's ridiculous.

― Grzegorz Ochman