Esmond Birnie: Trump says he's all about getting best deal for US, but history shows America First policy is not unique to the current president

To an extent, Churchill’s loss is a metaphor for how in conditions of war, or near-war, the US has tended to gain economically at the expense of the UK. There are lessons for the Ukraine. Although, as we will see, the whole story isn’t simply one of America plundering a disadvantaged Britain.

Six years before that train ride Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany. Russia did not enter the Second World War until June 22, 1941 and America until December 7, 1941, both having been attacked by the Axis powers. It was almost as if a loud sucking sound was coming from the UK economy. During the war Britain could no longer export to the rest of the world but at the same time imports rose. Stocks of gold flowed out of the country and investments overseas were sold. The US was the main gainer from this process of liquidation. Of course, it could be argued this was no conspiracy but the inevitable process of adjustment between a powerful peacetime economy relative to another country which was ravaged by war.

Perhaps more question begging is the story of the bases-for-50-rusty-destroyers deal in 1940.

The Battle of the Atlantic was already going badly and there was a desperate need for escort ships to protect convoys against U Boats. US President Roosevelt did eventually respond to Churchill’s entries by supplying 50 very old US Navy vessels but there was a catch: the US took possession of a range of air and sea bases in Canada and the West Indies. It could be said that at least the UK got some ships. Something being better than nothing. And the projection of US military power began the process of gradually coaxing America into the Battle of the Atlantic even before Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

That said, it does look a bit Trumpian before Trump. Transactional (“what’s in it for me”) and a mighty real estate deal. Now it looks like the unfortunate Ukrainians were asked to sign away billions of mineral rights for little in return.

There is however another side to the US-UK economic relationship in war and peace. In 1941 Roosevelt introduced the Lend Lease scheme whereby billions of dollars worth of military equipment and other provisions were signed over to the UK (and later also to the USSR).

Roosevelt sold this to sceptical American politicians as being like a neighbour lending his neighbour the fire hose when he saw the house on fire. However, as one commentator has put it, a used piece of military equipment is about as useful as used piece of chewing gum.

Admittedly, US generosity had its limits. Lend Lease was cancelled in August 1945 as soon as hostilities ended. That pushed the UK economy into a balance of payments crisis which in turn required a massive loan from the US with onerous terms.

The economist J.M. Keynes described this as our “financial Dunkirk”. The last repayment of that loan was made in 2006. At that point then treasury secretary Ed Balls formally thanked the US for its wartime support.

Truman reverted to a more generous approach to international economics and diplomacy by introducing the Marshall Plan in 1948. Over the next four years this provided $13bn of aid to Britain and other Western countries. (Notwithstanding Irish neutrality during 1939-45 and since Eire did get $133m of Marshall money.) The total funding was equivalent to 5% of US GDP or about $180bn in today’s money.

In summary, there is nothing new under the sun and there are hints of Trump’s America First approach even during the Roosevelt-Truman era.

That said, the two earlier presidents appreciated two things which Trump doesn’t.

First, even as a superpower the US needs allies and bullying is not the best way to make and keep allies and at times it will be necessary to coax and educate American public opinion away from its default isolationism.

Second, there is such a thing as enlightened self-interest. Sometimes being generous to other countries (Lend Lease and Marshall Plan) helps secure the US’s long term economic and strategic interests.

Returning to the story of Churchill and Truman’s poker game. The president did begin to feel sorry for his political ally and so discreetly advised the Americans to go easy on him.

Let us hope that Starmer has successfully appealed to the better nature of US policy but Friday's events show how difficult that will be.

After all, as Churchill said (and he was American on his mother’s side), “America always does the right thing, after having exhausted every possible alternative”.

l Dr Esmond Birnie is senior economist at Ulster University Business School