The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence, 1953-1955; Reagan And Thatcher
Two radically different perspectives on the "special relationship" between Washington and London that now seems to have finally ended with the advent of John Major and George Bush. Churchill and Eisenhower came to know each other intimately during World War II. But after Stalin's death Eisenhower, the new president under the influence of John Foster Dulles, resisted Churchill's efforts to open a line to the new leaders in Moscow. Their correspondence documents the carefully couched debate that Churchill finally lost. The book by Smith, a columnist for the London Times, describes the surprisingly close relationship between two leaders who scarcely knew each other, but became political allies on most issues. While the relationship was more troubled than popularly supposed, on one issue-"doing business" with Gorbachev-Thatcher succeeded where Churchill failed, in engineering a "subtle but fundamental shift" in the president's attitude toward the Soviet Union.
Related
Let us put our cards on the table. There are two basic views about President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. One, the Administration's, appears to be accepted (if the opinion polls are to be believed) by the majority of Americans. It is that the United States, after years of weakness and humiliation, has once again faced the challenge of an aggressive, expansionist Soviet Union, revived the global economy, rescued the Western Alliance and generally reasserted true American leadership in the world. The other view is shared to a greater or lesser extent by much of the rest of mankind, with the possible exceptions of the Israelis, the South Africans, President Marcos of the Philippines and a few right-wing governments in Central and South America. It is that the Reagan Administration has vastly overreacted to the Soviet threat, thereby distorting the American (and hence the world) economy, quickening the arms race, warping its own judgment about events in the Third World, and further debasing the language of international intercourse with feverish rhetoric. A subsidiary charge, laid principally by the Europeans, Canadians and many Latin Americans, but frequently endorsed in the Arab world and the Far East, is that in a desperate desire to rediscover "leadership," the United States under Reagan has reverted to its worst unilateral habits, resenting and ignoring, when it deigns to notice, the independent views and interests of its friends and allies.
The surface was all smiles and harmony. After years of transatlantic distress, the major nations of the democratic West assembled in May in the splendor of Colonial Williamsburg to manifest their unity and their confidence. There were two new faces among the seven heads of state and government, both symbols of a significant political change in their respective countries: West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who had replaced Helmut Schmidt in October 1982 and whose party, the Christian Democrats, had just been confirmed by a massive popular vote on March 6, and Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, the leader of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party and government who, in striking contrast to his predecessors, articulated a newly confident, internationally minded Japan.
During the Cold War, the ever-present Soviet threat helped keep the West united. More recently, however, attempts to mend the transatlantic rift by pointing to present dangers have only deepened the cultural divide. Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic must accept that "the West" has now split into European and American halves. But both sides still need each other -- now more than ever.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.