The Wilson-Johnson Correspondence, 1964–69 ed. by Simon C. Smith (review)

Simon Smith has conducted diligent research in the UK National Archives, Harold Wilson’s private papers, and the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library among other sources, emerging with a collection of bilateral correspondence published in one place for the first time (some of the material is also available in the relevant 1964–1968 Foreign Relations of the United States series). Smith builds on research done on this era by the likes of Jonathan Colman and broader diplomatic and case-study contributions from, among others, John Young, the late Saki Dockrill, Sylvia Ellis, and John Dumbrell. The introduction is in the form of an in-depth historiographical essay on the Wilson-Johnson relationship. Drawing on the rich vein of writing and other works on U.S.-UK relations of the last two decades, as well as numerous biographies and memoirs, the introduction provides an excellent overview of the key issues, developments, and interpretations of the “special relationship” during these years.

The established interpretation of a turbulent, occasionally fractious relationship between the two leaders is maintained, albeit one much better than often assumed when the finer details are examined; and the message from the subsequent collection likewise conveys a closer connection. Johnson, for example, often emphasized the value he saw in his “friendship” with Wilson. The volume thus allows the reader to question what is meant by a “special relationship” as articulated through the pragmatic and personal connection between the two men.

The content further reveals the wide range of subjects the two men conversed on in an era of much international political and economic upheaval. Presenting such high-level, chronological communication gives readers an insight into one element of an empirical approach to diplomatic relations, not least one as heavily scrutinized as the U.S.-UK connection. Such an approach fits the occasionally heard comment on studies of the “special relationship”: that the focus tends to be on the elite level whereas the actual glue of the partnership is bonded at a lower, bureaucratic level, particularly through the diplomatic service and embassies (the latter’s role is the focus of two Palgrave studies, in 2009 and 2012). In addition, much “unseen” cooperation is carried out in the defense and intelligence establishments.

Nevertheless, many useful insights can be drawn from high-level correspondence. Here the selection demonstrates that Wilson was far from a puppet of the U.S. president and not sycophantic in his written dealings, as has been suggested in the past. Such qualities could similarly be attributed to other British leaders, contradicting the oft- misunderstood dynamic of the relationship in the UK popular imagination. Although the communications are frank, they are equally cordial, with many personal messages relating to events such as birthdays, anniversaries, and contemporaneous achievements (successes in the U.S. space program for example), giving readers another side of the varied forms of exchange.

That said, given the undeniably unequal power nature of the relationship, it is unsurprising that the quantity and volume of communication weighs more heavily on the British side; for example, Wilson’s eagerness to maintain the UK’s status as the most important U.S. ally, despite and perhaps because of the widening gulf in purpose between the two. Wilson, who inherited a balance-of-payments deficit of £800 million, wrestled with maintaining sterling’s faltering position as a reserve currency and expensive overseas military commitments. Both issues were key to the strategic cohesion of the special relationship, gaining in importance as the United States became heavily involved in the Vietnam War, which ultimately carried its own financial consequences and strategic overextension for Johnson. Much of the correspondence that follows thus involves the evolution of U.S. policy in Vietnam, from military escalation to the protracted attempts at beginning settlement talks.

Amid this complex situation, the cause of much of the discord in U.S.-UK relations, the frustrations Johnson felt are clearly visible and exacerbate his irascible temper. Wilson’s refusal to become militarily involved and his dissociation...