• Anne Orde


Power may be defined as the capacity to use resources for the attainment of desired ends. It always involves relations with others, as objects, rivals or allies. It is never static, and always relative. Resources can be quantified; ends and ability to achieve them involve factors such as policy and will, which can not.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Donald Cameron Watt, Succeeding John Bull. America in Britain’s Place (Cambridge, 1984) is an excellent study in a short compass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Comparative figures from P. Bairoch, ‘International Industrialization Levels from 1750 to 1980’, Journal of European Economic History, XI (1982) pp. 269–333.Google Scholar
  3. Other figures from B.R. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics 1750–1970 (London, 1975);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. B.R. Mitchell, International Historical Statistics. The Americas and Australasia (London, 1983).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Memorandum by Sanderson, 21 Feb. 1907, British Documents on the Origins of the War 1898–1914, ed. G.P. Gooch and Harold Temperley (London, 1926–38), henceforth cited as BD, III, Appendix B.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    A recent overview for the period before 1914, with references to other literature, is Avner Offner, ‘The British Empire 1870–1914: A Waste of Money?’, Economic History Review, XLVI (1993), pp. 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    Imperial Conference 1926, proceedings, quoted in Anne Orde, Great Britain and International Security 1920–1926 (London, 1977) p. 164. Comparative figures for 1907–10 can be found in the article cited in note 4.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Royal Institute of International Affairs, The World in March 1939, Survey of International Affairs 1939–1946 (London, 1952), p. 454;Google Scholar
  9. Peter Flora, State, Economy and Society in Western Europe 1815–1975, I (Frankfurt, 1983), p. 248.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    See in particular papers by Lord Beloff and Wm Roger Louis in The Special Relationship. Anglo-American Relations since 1945, ed. Wm Roger Louis and Hedley Bull (Oxford, 1986), pp. 249–83.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    The Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, henceforth cited as HCDeb., 5th ser., vol. 415, cols. 1295, 1299; Churchill to Bevin, 13 Nov. 1945, Documents on British Policy Overseas, ed. R.D’O. Butler and M. Pelly, and others, henceforth cited as DBPO, ser. I, III, no. 102. For a discussion of the myth see Max Beloff, ‘The Special Relationship; An Anglo-American Myth’, in A Century of Conflict 1850–1950. Essays for A.J.P. Taylor, ed. Martin Gilbert (London, 1966).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Christopher Grayling and Christopher Langdon, Just Another Star? Anglo-American Relations since 1945 (London, 1988).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    See papers by Admiral Sir James Eberle and by Ernest R. May and Gregory F. Treveton in The Special Relationship, ed. Louis and Bull, pp. 151–82; and John Baylis, Anglo-American Defense Relations 1945–1984: The Special Relationship (New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Bruce M. Russett, Community and Contention. Britain and America in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1963) puts forward a theory of responsiveness and attempts to measure certain variables.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anne Orde 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Orde
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DurhamUK

Personalised recommendations