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

by Christopher Hitchens

Since the end of the Cold War so-called experts have been predicting the eclipse of America's "special relationship" with Britain. But as events have shown, especially in the wake of 9/11, the political and cultural ties between America and Britain have grown stronger. Blood, Class and Empire examines the dynamics of this relationship, its many cultural manifestations -- the James Bond series, PBS "brit Kitsch," Rudyard Kipling -- and explains why it still persists. Contrarian, essayist and polemicist Christopher Hitchens notes that while the relationship is usually presented as a matter of tradition, manners, and common culture, sanctified by wartime alliance, the special ingredient is empire; transmitted from an ancien regime that has tried to preserve and renew itself thereby. England has attempted to play Greece to the American Rome, but ironically having encouraged the United States to become an equal partner in the business of empire, Britain found itself supplanted.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Essays, British Literature, Journalism, United States

428 pages, Paperback

First published June 11, 1990

About the author

Christopher Hitchens was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic known for his sharp wit, polemical writing, and outspoken views on religion, politics, and culture. He was a prolific essayist and columnist, contributing to publications such as The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, and The Nation.
A staunch critic of totalitarianism and organized religion, Hitchens became one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his time. His book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) became a bestseller and solidified his place as a leading figure in the New Atheism movement. He was equally fearless in political criticism, taking on figures across the ideological spectrum, from Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger, 2001) to Bill and Hillary Clinton (No One Left to Lie To, 1999).
Originally a socialist and supporter of left-wing causes, Hitchens later distanced himself from the left, particularly after the September 11 attacks, when he became a vocal advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His ideological shift, combined with his formidable debating skills, made him a controversial yet highly respected figure.
Hitchens was also known for his literary criticism, writing extensively on figures such as George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Karl Marx. His memoir, Hitch-22 (2010), reflected on his personal and intellectual journey.
In 2010, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer but continued to write and speak publicly until his death in 2011. His fearless engagement with ideas, incisive arguments, and commitment to reason remain influential long after his passing.

Reviews

[Ana · Rating 5 out of 5]

This 1990 study of the "special relationship" between America and Britain has been everything I wanted it to be: long, detailed, personalized and written with the impossible wit and sharpness of Hitchens' mind. The discussion surrounding politics and policies and trades between the two countries is heavily researched, so much so that the author brings in clippings and fragments of letters and essays or books of well known (or not so well known) public figures and proves points through their medium. A very interesting chapter concerns itself with the correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt. Another one touches on the use of intelligence by (or between) the two powers. The 20th century is covered in depth. I would recommend this to anyone with a keen interest in history, specifically political and social history, as you can find a lot of fascinating information in this work.

[Betsy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finished! My gosh, this was crunchy. Hitchens covers the entire history from the founding of the United States through 1990, and of the United Kingdom during that time span, and assumes a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the reader. Which was very nice and not at all condescending and I've realized (without much surprise) I have some massive holes in my knowledge of both histories.

That said, despite my moments of confusion I found this a fascinating read. For one, Hitchens has a very good way with words. For example, speaking of Britain training the US into the world of international espionage: "(I)t is beyond a doubt that wherever the United States needed to lose any kind of virginity in global affairs, the British were on hand with unguents and aphrodisiacs of all kinds." (p.330) Such moments of amusement kept me reading even while I skirted dangerously close to being hopelessly lost.

For another, this is a completely different way of looking at the way the US was shaped and the very real (though often with more instinct than malice) hand Britain had in it. And in turn (with both the instinct and the malice), the way the US shaped Britain. At times I was outraged by Britain's behavior, at times I was outraged at the US's behavior. So I suspect Hitchens gave a fair read of the two countries.

I also learned some fascinating little facts. For a brief while there the Founding Fathers leaned towards conducting government business in a language not English. (Washington favored Hebrew.) Both Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill adored Mark Twain, and both had a chance to chat with the man, and he, with his usual wit, deflated both of them. (Churchill wrote almost fanboyishly about it, which was kind of adorable. He was pretty young at the time.)

In the end, I'm glad I read it, though I'm even more pleased with finishing it. If you're at all a history nerd, I think you'll get a kick out of the way Hitchens pulls various histories together to argue his theme. A theme I think is best summed up by Mark Twain (as told by Churchill):

After some exchanges I found myself beaten back to the citadel, "My country right or wrong." "Ah," said the old gentleman, "When the poor country is fighting for its life, I agree. But this was not your case." (pps. 187-8)

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my third Hitchens this year - two Peters and a Christopher. As ever, it's sharp, funny, deep and surprising. I'd honestly never thought about the "special relationship" in these terms before but the perspective really shifted my understanding of history, especially since the war.
Of course, in these days of brexit and the forces of gravity pulling us into Trump's orbit, its would have been interesting to have his take on how Britain's role in the EU had changed the dynamic but its not really up to date enough to furnish an answer to that question anyway. Still, though, this is as lively and as thought-provoking as anything else you're likely to read on the subject.

[Andrew Robins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read, despite having been written almost a quarter of a century ago.

The story of British - American relations, and the "special relationship", which turns out not to be that special after all, unsurprisingly.

I read a review of this book on here which said that Hitchens makes the mistake of thinking the reader is as clever as he is.

In my case, that definitely wasn't the case, and I found myself scratching my head at some of the names and events he mentioned in passing, but even so, this didn't disturb my enjoyment of the book.

The world is a poorer place without the likes of Hitchens.

[Tripp · Rating 5 out of 5]

While not as provocative as some of his writing, I suspect this one will get some people's goat. In it he argues that the US-British relationship is far shabbier than we thought. On the one hand, the American upper class and its adherents see British class structures and Imperial grandeur as justification and guidance for their own attempts to create a New Rome. On the other, the British leadership sees the relationship as one that allows them to maintain a sense of undeserved greatness, all while being unduly servile. Plenty of wit and good writing, highly recommended.

[Danial Tanvir · Rating 1 out of 5]

i am a big christopher hitchens fan but i am very sorry to say that this book was just terrible.
it was a very hard read infact and i still was able to read it twice.
it is one of the most hardest and difficult book i have read.
it is about politics.
it is about the relationship of great britain and america.
it is about the anglo-american relationship.
it talks about winston churchill and roosevelt.
it was long and boring , i dont know what else to say.

[Aaron Eames · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hitchens on the ‘special relationship’, that ambiguous tie of consanguinity and convenience between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, which he exemplified in his professional life and later personal life by becoming a US citizen, tracing its progress from the subliminal to the ridiculous, from the late-nineteenth century to the inglorious end of the British Empire as its ‘burden’ was rapidly transferred, both willingly and unwillingly, to the anti-colonial superpower across the Atlantic. Reading this on a flight from LAX to London Heathrow, I should have started at the back cover.

[Mike Futcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Blood, Class and Empire is a densely argued and slow-paced historical review from the usually very readable Christopher Hitchens. I was surprised, given Hitchens' usual ready wit, choice quotations and forceful arguments, that I found this one - on a subject I've long had an interest in - to be largely absent of those charms and, unfortunately, a bit of a grind.

Rather than the usual Hitchens charm, we get a mostly humourless and almost entirely negative accounting of the Anglo-American political relationship. The negativity comes mostly from Hitchens' arguments about this 'special' relationship (as I shall discuss in the next paragraph) but it was still disappointing, on a personal level, that few of the typical Hitchens attractions could be found here. Similarly, the author's usual eye for quotations is less apparent. This is largely because he is forwarding an argument that relies on providing documentary evidence and consequently needs extensive quotation from governmental memoranda, political assessments and other typically unexciting sources.

I also found Hitchens' central argument, whilst intriguing, to be rather limited. The thrust of the book is that Britain, with its empire declining, sought to attach onto the rising power of the United States in order to maintain its own status. This, of course, is not a new argument and is quite an orthodox suggestion among historians, but Hitchens makes a related argument that seems to blame Britain for how the United States has turned out in the 20th and 21st centuries. He suggests that Britain traded on its cultural and political ties with the fledgling world power not only to support its own creaking superpower status (the orthodox view) but also to subvert the American republic and infect it with imperial values: to "stimulate and [help] aggrandize... the superpower spirit among American elites" (pg. 28). For Hitchens, this "unlocking [of] the imperial potential of the United States" (pg. 188) was a deliberate attempt to create a sort of British Empire by proxy.

This is bordering on conspiracy theory (though Hitchens is nowhere near as hysterical as that), taking the suspicions of 'perfidious Albion' too far. Britain sought to influence American policymaking, of course, but to claim - as Hitchens does - that "every time the United States had been on the verge of a [historic] decision... there has been a deceptively languid English advisor at the elbow, urging 'yes' in tones that neither hector not beseech but are always somehow beguiling" (pg. 360) is quite paranoid and ridiculous. There may be some merit in the view that a close relationship with Britain has not been a positive influence on the USA but, if the republic has indeed been replaced by an American 'empire' in all but name, then the fault and instigation for this rests with America alone. Britain may well have "reimported" to the USA all the "elements of pre-1776 [political] antiquity... that 1776 was intended to dissolve" (pg. 360), but it did so only because it found such a ready market on American shores. If the British were always "on hand" whenever America "needed to lose any kind of virginity" (pg. 330), it was only because she was willing to be seduced.

The truth is that the United States in reality has never measured up to its self-projected image, even as far back as 1776. (For example, it is a commonly-known fact nowadays that a number of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and an abolition or condemnation of slavery did not find its way into any of the assertions of universal liberty in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.) A country with the global superpower potential of the United States was always likely to forget its early republican and freethinking ideals, or at least deal hypocritically with them. In fact, the main rival to the fledgling superpower's immediate interests (up until 1917 and maybe even 1945 - or even Suez in 1956) was Britain itself, and the two powers could have warred with much more frequency than they actually did. So it is hardly likely that a British superpower - which was still earnestly trying to reassert its imperial primacy as late as the 1950s - would have spent all that time trying to nurture a foreign power that would provide a direct threat to its interests. Hitchens' argument is coloured by an excessive disdain for Britain's political system (which he sees as an aristocracy more than a democracy) and an excessive belief in the ideal American republic. The United States has always been a martial country and a colonial country - first with the Spanish and the French, then revolting against the British, then eliminating the Native Americans in the colonizing push West, then establishing regional hegemony with the Monroe Doctrine, then the suppression of a Confederate rebellion... I could go on.

Hitchens' argument is an arresting one, and possessing of such poetic justice that I can see why he would want it to be true. At first I thought he was overdoing the 'Greeks to their Rome' analogy, but when I read the conclusion - with its reminder that it was imperialism and Caesarism that brought the Roman republic down - I could see the strands of excited thought coming together. It's a powerful idea to suggest that Britain eventually won its revenge for 1776, and replaced the Republic with a neo-British Empire under another flag, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's a shame that Blood, Class and Empire proved to be so ordinary, as Hitchens was well-placed to write on the subject of the 'special relationship'. A British man living (and in love with) the United States, and a wry and vigorous critic of contemporary politics and society, this book should have been a tour de force. But Hitchens does not play to his strengths here. Much of the book is historical narrative, tracing the development of Anglo-American relations during that critically important first-half of the twentieth century, but with conclusions that are somewhat unsound. He does better when discussing the various 'cults' and affectations - the American love for 'Brit kitsch' like monarchy and Churchill and so on - but these choice passages are mixed in with a much denser prosing.

Also to the book's discredit is that it doesn't really address much beyond 1990. This was when the first edition was released under a different title, but Blood, Class and Empire in its current guise was published in 2004. Yet, with the exception of a brief Preface, it doesn't address anything after 1990. It makes the book less topical; there is no 9/11 or Afghanistan or Iraq or Bush and Blair or WMDs or anything in Hitchens' discussion.

But despite my disappointment at the absence of the usual Hitchens charm and my disinclination to accept the general thrust of his main argument, I did gain some things from the book. One was an appreciation that American imperialism came much sooner and was much more ruthless than historians usually admit, even if I remain unconvinced by Hitchens' attempts to foster all the blame for this onto sly British power-players lurking in the shadows. I also gained a further appreciation that the 'special relationship' is much messier, more volatile and less structurally stable than the rhetoric of politicians and journalists usually assures us. Hitchens claims in his 2004 preface that one merit of his book is to argue that the assumption that "an Anglo-American partnership is in the natural order of things... is historically unsound" (pg. xv - xvi). He succeeds in this aim, pulling the rug from under the claim of eternal Anglo-American brotherhood (or at least cousinhood), and so, for all its faults I still feel I have gained something of considerable value from Blood, Class and Empire.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens’ Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship (2004) offers a sharp and critical analysis of the historical and ideological ties between Britain and the United States. Hitchens, known for his incisive political commentary, explores the deep-seated cultural, military, and economic connections that have shaped the so-called “special relationship” between the two nations. With a characteristic blend of erudition and polemic, he argues that this relationship is rooted in imperial ambitions, class interests, and a shared sense of global dominance rather than democratic values or mutual affection.


Hitchens structures his book as a sweeping historical investigation, moving from the American Revolution to the post-9/11 world. He scrutinizes figures such as Winston Churchill, whose role in fostering the Anglo-American alliance he views with skepticism, and he challenges romanticized notions of transatlantic unity. The book’s title itself reflects his argument: “blood” symbolizes both lineage and the wars fought together, “class” underscores the elite-driven nature of the relationship, and “empire” highlights its underlying geopolitical motivations.


One of the book’s strengths lies in its literary and historical depth. Hitchens interweaves references to literature, political philosophy, and historical episodes, demonstrating how narratives of Anglo-American solidarity have been carefully constructed and maintained. His discussion of cultural imperialism—how Britain’s influence subtly persists in American institutions and attitudes—adds an important dimension to the analysis. Furthermore, his critique of American foreign policy under successive administrations, including its interventionist tendencies, remains relevant to contemporary debates on U.S. hegemony.


However, Blood, Class and Empire is not without its limitations. Hitchens’ iconoclastic style, while engaging, sometimes overshadows empirical rigor. His reliance on literary allusions and rhetorical flourishes can make the argument feel impressionistic rather than systematically substantiated. Moreover, his portrayal of the Anglo-American alliance is overwhelmingly critical, leaving little room for alternative perspectives that emphasize cooperation in democratic governance, economic partnerships, or shared security concerns.


Overall, Blood, Class and Empire is a compelling and provocative work that challenges conventional narratives of the Anglo-American relationship. While it may not serve as a conventional diplomatic history, it offers valuable insights into the ideological underpinnings of transatlantic power dynamics. Scholars and readers interested in international relations, political history, and Hitchens’ distinctive critique of Western power structures will find it an engaging and thought-provoking read.

GPT

[Rena Sherwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can clearly hear the late, great Hitchens' voice in the prose of Blood, Class and Empire. He had a great way of weaving together a clear picture in the seemingly tangled clumps of historical literature.



The only problem is that the reader needs to be up on American and English history in order to understand most of the book. For example, Hitchens mentions the big Suez Canal brouhaha in the 1950s yet does not explain it. You gotta work in order to "get" this book. Nothing is handed to you on a plate.



Great bibliography, though, broken down for each chapter.

[J K · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm glad this wasn't the first book or writing of his that I'd ever read - I love his work, but as others have said, this one is a lot more academically written, far more of a slog than anything else I've read by him.

It's dense with information, requiring some research or greater familiarity with the politics and people of the time to get the most out of it. Yes, reader, I skimmed in places.

Still found most of it very interesting, it's still highly intelligent writing, but I'm still kind of glad I finally finished it. There's some amazing tidbits of information, and delicious sentences within this rather complex stew of words.

And I really miss Hitchens being around to tear through all the bullshit. RIP.

[Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading a (presumably) earlier version called _Blood, Class, & Nostalgia_. Hitchens is a little impressed with his own vocabulary prowess, has some axes to grind, and states opinions, or at least undocumented facts, as facts. The book is also rather dated. It's dealing with history, but was written in the 1980's, and seems to have been inspired at least in part by the Princess Di cult in the U.S. and the relationship between Thatcher and Reagan. Not a fun read, but it was thought-provoking and a good reminder that the U. S. is an imperial power, whether it uses that word or not.

[Bobby Daugherty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book about the American fascination with Europe and noble blood. The cult of Churchill is mentioned along with British grifters who exploit the desire of some wealthy Americans to have "cultured" friends.

[John Bleasdale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good

[Roger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book of inter-connected essays about the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain. It's a highly personal view and written as a polemic, but when that view belongs to, and the polemic is written by, Christopher Hitchens, you know it's going to be well worth reading.

While we might (up until Trump's second coming anyway) take for granted the very close geo-political ties between Britain and America, there was never a guarantee that those ties would ever form or be enduring. One look at American history shows us why - America threw off the British yoke in the 1770s, and fought them again in the early 1800s; and through most of the 19th century England did what it could to thwart American expansion across the continent. Britain also supported, for its own reasons, the Confederacy in the Civil War. Given that history, it was not given that both America and Britain would forge such close ties in the 20th century.

The theme that runs through the essays, which roam from Rudyard Kipling to nuclear warfare, is the idea expressed by Harold Macmillan, and noted at the beginning of this book, that Britain, on losing their status as a first rank power would play Greece to America's Rome ("We...are Greeks in this American Empire. You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans - great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt. We must run Allied Forces Headquarters as the Greek slaves ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius."). Hitchens goes on to explain that in his view this is not an entirely correct explanation of what was happening.

There was actually something much more subtle going on. Britain, clinging on the the vestiges of its empire, was coming to the realisation that it would have to let go, and formed the view that America was the obvious successor, and so if it could guide and direct them in how to have, hold and run an empire, they could be an indispensable partner - providing intellectual heft and skill to ensure that America's power and treasure could be spent wisely. So rather than Britain's Greece to the Rome of the USA, what was envisaged was the Roman centre moving across the Atlantic, but with Britain still very much part of the infrastructure.

Unfortunately, as Hitchens points out, what sounds good in theory doesn't always work out in practice. There were many in Britain who didn't like this idea, and tried to cling on to bits of the Empire, until they couldn't, and then essentially ran to the US cap in hand to get help. This put America in a stronger position, and also reinforced the idea that was held by some in power that they were being used in a way that they didn't like or want.

While we are bombarded at the moment with news about Trump cutting ties with Europe and other places with his trade policy, he is in some ways merely the latest iteration of American exceptionalism and isolationism. Hitchens explains that, between the wars, there was a significant part of the American polity that didn't like Britain (for example those of Irish descent), and certainly didn't want America to "take up the white man's burden", or begin its own empire building.

World War Two changed the dynamic of the relationship between Britain and the USA. Britain during the war did assist the USA greatly in the spheres of atomic weaponry, and in spycraft and intelligence gathering in general. These lessons were gratefully received, and while America was later on grudging in the way it shared nuclear information, the genuine camaraderie between intelligence services was often a major fixative in the "special relationship" during the Cold War years.

So from enemies, to a connection that led to semi-serious discussions of a political merger between the two states, Hitchens chronicles the demise of the "special relationship" to something that doesn't really have much power anymore, beyond nostalgia and what he calls kitsch. While Britain still feels the bond, America it seems sees Britain as one among many powers that they deal with, just easier to talk to because they speak the same language.

Blood, Class and Nostalgia is well worth reading not only for Hitchens insight into the relationship between Britain and the US, but also for the interesting bits of information he imparts. From Kipling's correspondence with Teddy Roosevelt, to Churchill's conversation with Mark Twain, there are many fascinating insights into how major figures have crossed paths during the last century or so, and what they thought of the "special relationship".

A good read.

Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au

[Jack Glynne-Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 'special relationship' is aptly named with its transcending of the merely political, and its seat in the subconscious (or the 'blood'). This book dares to take on this abstract leviathan, and, through the combination of the broad and the specific, manages to pull it off, like a surgeon who is careful to step back and observe as well as make incisions with the smallest of his scalpels.

To write about a subject like this, a lot of research is always needed beforehand, but this is something else. It is as if Hitchens had meant to write this book from adolescence, and had been compiling facts and anecdotes over the following decades until the time finally came for him to unload his cartridge. The range and depth of references is remarkable, and is shocking even to someone well acquainted with the bottomless memory of the Hitch.

Politics, literature, film and religion are all discussed as mediums through which the relationship is both expressed and changed, and it is through this that Hitchens is able to apply one of his key characteristics as a writer; the ability to see important links between seemingly disparate topics, which most would miss. Despite this ability, he does fail to mention 'the people' of either nation that much, only those 'in power', which is ironic (or not) considering that Hitch was a Marxist.

Anyhow, he focuses on the form the relationship took, not just at the time the book was written, but over a timespan of around 350 years, with most of the book focusing on the late 1800's and early 1900's. This is because it was around this time that the USA took up the 'burden' (a word which has many different meanings in this context, which the book discusses) of power and empire from Britain. This painful (for the British at least) process sculpted the relationship into the form that it still takes today.

Some of the anecdotes are quite long, meaning that it is easy to get lost in each story while forgetting the general argument, but more vigilant readers will have no problem here. I found that re-reading the contents page now and again helped me to keep the entire frame in mind. The reason why it is so easy to become submerged in the stories is because they are simply fascinating. The stand outs for me are those on Churchill, where Hitchens discusses the most shocking cover ups, but in classic Hitch style offers both a generous and highly incisive critique of the man.

I was also taken with the poetic elements of America's relationship with the 'old country', as shown through anecdotes such as that about the Harvard Club in New York, where in the men's room are found etchings of, not Washington, Memorial Hall, nor the Statue of Liberty, but of Peterhouse College, Cambridge, the Cathedrals of Ely and Durham, and the West Highlands. It can also be observed in the Oxbridge scholarship culture, with Georgetown University treating its Oxford-bound Rhodes scholars with £1000 to be spent at Blackwell's bookshop, and a free tuxedo for debates at the Union and 'those all-important formal and club dinners'. There is something adorable about how close this comes to sounding like a Diagon Alley gift pack.

Hitchens is able to see the charming elements of the coupling, while also being willing to accept that the relationship is mostly driven by self-interest and a kind of exploitative view of the other. If, as he says elsewhere, dealing with Iran is like ‘having sex with someone who hates you’, then maybe the special relationship is like having sex with someone who is impressed yet also slightly repulsed by you.

Overall, this book has depth, breadth, intelligence, charm, and even humour. However, it is the section on secret intelligence, where Hitchens gets carried away the with the depth and specificity of his research, and the concluding chapter, which suffers from the same over-indulgence, that strip this book of the fifth star which it would otherwise have got from me.

[Chris Hall · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a bit difficult to know how to rate this ...

Although it's well written and reasonably readable, it wasn't what I expected. I expected a much broader approach to the subject - it's essentially a book of modern political history rather than an analysis of the current situation. I would have liked more of a focus on the cultural rather than the political relationship between the two countries.

I also found the style of writing very dry - previously I've always found Hitchens able to liven up otherwise dull subjects but he doesn't really pull that off here.

Maybe I just had the wrong expectations ...

(It seemed odd that Hitchens suddenly decides to start discussing literature in the conclusion to the book - surely this warranted coverage in the body of the book ...?)

[Aaron Makepeace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Hitchens flair is not as strong in this book but the content is no less important.

The nature of the "special relationship" between the US & UK is roundly undressed & shown to be a popular fiction.

I wonderful account of history on a subject that has itself become a hollow cliche, used for political posturing.

Britain is no more than America's "airstrip one".

[Paul Basile · Rating 4 out of 5]

"...it will be a splendid thing if, showing that countries can after all learn from history, 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 conquerers." - Christopher Hitchens

[Chad Montabon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hitch at his best, skewering sacred cows with precise abandon.

[Kevin Somerton]

Gave up. Disappointed.

[Andrea · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Dense and annoying. Too narrow to be useful in the 2020s.

[DeterminedStupor]

Status: have read only up to Chapter 3 The Bard of Empires.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed bag. Wished some wouldn’t end and others were like wading through self-satisfied treacle.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review title: The relative viscosity of blood and water
Hitchens is a well-known pundit and paradox, a serious thinker who inhabits the entertainment world of American cable news channels, who makes serious points with acerbic wit and erudite language (it is not many writers who use words that make me scramble as often to google the nuances of the meaning). And he is unmistakably British in character, looks, and voice. Perhaps, then he is not such a paradox at all.

"Blood" is a serious look at the "special relationship" between the United States and England. United by reason of language, culture and some elements of ethnic solidarity, separated at birth by politics, geography and some elements of ethnic incompatibility, the two countries are bound by this relationship (always in quotes!). Hitchen's defines it in brief (but well toward the end of his explication of it in detail) as "an uncheckable, untestable charter for the freedom of action of an unelected class." (p. 318). Along the axis of that charter the fates of both countries have risen, fallen, and changed course, sometimes in tandem, sometimes in inverse, but always in relation to one another.

Hitchens tells the story of this evolving relationship as only he can, with sharp examples and pointed language, tracing its history in literature, culture, politics and history. The centerpiece is a serious of chapters on Churchill's contribution to the relationship over the many decades where he was at the epicenter of it, and attempting to mold it to his specific expectations of what it should be and should become. Hitchen's chapter headings suggest that Churchill's worship, defeat, and revenge have had a huge impact on the "special relationship" and the world it has attempted to mold and survive in since his passing. I was surprised to learn, for example, that as the partners considered the makeup of the post-war world in 1944, Churchill proposed joint Anglo-American citizenship and concurrency! That this proposal never came to fruition, and that England later (and much belatedly) threw in its lot with the European Union, says much about the strength and continually evolving status of the "special relationship".

While Hitchen's book is now two decades old, its insights still sparkle and are still relevant. Even his brief bibliography and source notes for each chapter is a delightful and polemical mix of primary and secondary sources. Don't expect "value-free" analysis here, but do expect source that prove his point in spades. His point is most tellingly made about the periodic (near-constant) strain of the "special relationship" and the now long-standing reversal of the relative position of the parties to it. For example, less than 100 years after building the Alabama to sink dozens of Union (American) ships, Hitchens quotes Churchill begging the US to "give us a fair and just assignment of your new vast construction to sail under our own flag" (p. 216)!

And this isn't just ancient history--British defense of imperialism to spread democracy echos the current American efforts to spread democracy around the globe. As Hitchen's notes (p. 224) "It appears that the imperial motives of others are always easier to discern." It is a warning America still--and especially--needs to note today.

[Liam89 · Rating 5 out of 5]

At times sober, at others very funny, this is a simultaneous critique and celebration of the Anglo-American relationship. Christopher Hitchens, a duel citizen of both Britain and the United States, analyses all the characteristics of the "special relationship": the ties of language and literature, family and blood; the antagonism and resentment that existed (and for some still does); a genuine sense of shared sacrifice in war; the American obsession with British affectations ("Just keep talking, I love that accent!") and the British snobbery towards this brash new pretender to the throne. Above all, this relationship is characterised by empire, and the decision taken by the United States to adopt a policy of deliberate receivership of Britain's imperial "burdens". Britain's job in this brave new world? In the words of Harold MacMillan "To be Greece to their Rome". This is the long-standing view that American has the cash, but Britain has the knowhow. There is also analysis of nuclear jealousies and aspirations, the painstaking way British intelligence helped nurture and create American's national security apparatus, and ultimately the way Britain has managed to keep American actively engaged in so many of the problems across the world that she created, leading to a conundrum: is Britain teaching her younger but more powerful cousin, or is America simply exploiting the knowledge and experience of her older but weakened mother country?

[Michael Goldman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hitchens wrote this book for those who are already well versed in both British and United States history. Never are the "characters" introduced so much as brought in at a point where the casual reader could appreciate Hitchen's biting wit about them.

Whenever he would mention a historical figure that I would know, this book became fascinating so I'm sure for those starting out in his intended audience (that being history majors in the United Kingdom it would seem) I'm sure it's brilliant.

What is worthwhile about the book is that it really exposes an area that is ignored, mainly the the United Kingdom and the United States didn't suddenly just make peace with each other forever in 1814. It has been a constant struggle to keep the peace between the two partners we see today because of often conflicting interests.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Hitchens' non-fiction prose is always a pleasure to read--even when I strenuously disagree with the assertions being offered. Fortunately, I found little to disagree with in this book. It is an engaging and enlightening exposition of the creation of the modern world. Many readers will find it a startling retelling of conventional history. For instance, who knows that an American general, Gracey, rearmed Japanese prisoners of war to fight a Vietnamese insurgency at the close of WW II? Readers will find a plethora of equally unknown facts. Hitchens' most astute observation is that America did not embrace the legacy of the English-born Thomas Paine, but the "intoxicating" ideas of a "natural aristocracy", an "expansionist credo", and and an "affectation for the marks and baubles of caste" (360).

[Erin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I got really bored with this book. I guess I just don't care if Americans have an idealized view of the British, or if our relationship with them is complicated and greatly fictionalized. The information was good and very detailed and cited, I just couldn't care enough about it to be really interested.

[Chris Elkjar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting take on the "special relationship" that exists between the British empire in decline and the American empire. One of the more heavy books from hitch that I've read. The list of "to-read" history books from his references will keep me busy for a while.

Took a while to finish with a ton of trips to Wikipedia.