ROY HARROD, University Lecturer in Economics at Oxford since 1946; Joint Editor of the Economic Journal; author of "Are These Hardships Necessary?" "The Life of John Maynard Keynes" and other works
IT IS impossible to enter into a rational discussion of Anglo-American relations without reference to the basic and very simple human issue involved. On one side is a rich and prosperous family, already established for a long time, occupying great positions in the land, highly esteemed and treated by all with much consideration. On the other there is a younger generation; one may think of them as nephews, or perhaps as cousins, who have struck out on their own line and become far richer than the established senior branch. They have made their own connections and proceeded from strength to strength, increasing their wealth to a fabulous extent, while the senior branch has remained comparatively static. The pattern is familiar enough. There is danger of friction and lack of mutual appreciation; jealousy plays its part, generating feelings of impatience and resentment. But jealousy is not admitted, and the basic emotions find vent in every kind of criticism.
Whatever the younger generation do must be wrong. The houses that they live in are hideous, their furnishings tasteless; at the parties which they give, everything is done in the way it ought not to be done. They comport themselves in a flashy style, and in all their social relations they say the wrong thing and do the wrong thing. These criticisms are, of course, not grounded in reason. If the young people did everything in quite a different way, they would be criticized no less; in the nature of the case they cannot do right. They, on their side, find the older people stuffy and tedious, attaching great importance to a thousand and one things which are of no real significance, hidebound in meaningless etiquette, pompous and conceited beyond endurance, spoil-sport in their attitude to life and basically stupid, but retaining a certain wily cunning by which they still seem able to continue to feather their nests to a moderate extent. It seems clear that no love will be lost between these groups...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
ANGLO-AMERICAN economic relations are passing through a period of uncertainty; and where there is uncertainty, there is inevitably some danger. The new British Government entered office in 1951 in a phase of acute crisis; rather drastic first-aid measures had to be taken to restore solvency.
DEFEAT in war invariably brings in its wake an avalanche of apologetic writing by the losers. The leaders of the vanquished nation are intent on exonerating themselves; men of action, military and political, who made history without much thought of how it would be written, suddenly become concerned about the opinions of posterity. A debate, for the most part quite unedifying, begins at once and is apt to continue far beyond the point where it is of interest to any but historians.
ANY attempt to specify authoritatively the most important military decisions of the Second World War would require too much by way of preliminary definition to be possible in reasonably short compass. Yet to join together, however sketchily, some of the events which to one individual marked the general pattern of the war may induce other more serious efforts and possibly provoke a reappraisal of some events heretofore overlooked or taken for granted.

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