Causes Of The Suez Crisis Of 1956

The National Government were successful in some aspects of softening the blow in Britain. Faced with a steep decline in international trade the; partly due to America’s protectionist tariffs

Not many people recognize what the Suez Crisis is, but to those who do, they all know that Lester B. Pearson played a crucial role in the neutralization of the situation. In 1956 3 , Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, thus triggering a crisis. Britain and France soon joined in a coalition along with Israel, in order to topple the Egyptian government. The invasion was halted due to pressure from the U.N. Lester B. Pearson understood that France, Britain and Israel could not all hold onto the Suez Canal without consequences, most thought of a war of some sort. He also understood that the war would cause NATO and the Commonwealth to crack under the pressure. Knowing this, Lester B. Pearson convinced the U.N. peacekeeping force in an impressive 57-0 4 fashion, thus diffusing the Suez Crisis altogether. For his contributions, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. This is a defining moment in Canadian history and is often regarded as the start to Canada’s humble and nice keeping persona and it all started because of this man.

All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer details the 1953 American-orchestrated coup in Iran. Iran was under British economic control, but as it modernized, Iranians began fighting for their own control. Their fledgling democracy was working to modernize, until the UK and the US decided to interfere to protect Britain’s colonial holdings from Soviet influence. Because the US was not interested in protecting a British business, British politicians emphasized the threat the USSR held to Iran, leading to Americans inserting themselves into a nation’s politics in which they had no place. They successfully orchestrated a coup, however, the negative, long-term, anti-Western results overwhelm any positive effect. All the Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer paints a picture of the results of action without adequate attention to future results.

Some of the motivations were seen with positive attitudes about the acquisition with the pro imperialist who benefited the economy in documents 2, 5, and 12. During the acquisition, the purchase of the Suez Canal was seen more of a positive attitude towards the government it was a nationalistic attitude. Benjamin Disraeli discusses

The Suez Crisis, about 60 years ago, was the world’s first designated UN peacekeeping mission. It was a significant advance within the United Nations and

BBC Documentary. "The Other Side of Suez." Youtube. Video file, 55:59. July 22, 2012. Accessed May 19, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETOUALw2EIs.

Document 4 explains nationalization of of African territories. Following the conclusion of the Second World War, the Egyptians decided to pass laws in order to evacuate the British military from the Suez Canal area. As implied in Document 4, during the month of July 1956, President Gamal Abdel Nasser exemplified the nationalization of the area. Nasser perceived that if here were to bring nationalism to the Suez Canal, then he could assign a fee to the citizens that were not welcome. With this fee, he would influence the construction of a newly structured dam, hovering the Nile River of Egypt. Nasser understood that by nationalizing this canal, the world, and especially the British and French stockholders that were in ownership of the Canal Company would be taken aback. Even though President Nasser pledged that Canal Company would receive a significant amount of affluence for the loss of their property, the British, French, and Israeli societies decided that they would initiate a procedure to re-obtain their company, and overthrow Nasser. These countries formed a secret alliance, historically known as the tripartite collusion. The Israel society decided that they would engage in procedures opposing the Egyptian society in hopes of obtaining approval from many of the western nations. This was because they were limited on resources, not very well developed, and were very fearful of being authorized by an Arabian

The 1763 Treaty of Paris was signed between the Great Britain, Spain, France and Portugal on 10th February 1763. This treaty was signed after The Great Britain emerged a victor over Spain and France during the Seven Years’ War. This treaty officially put an end to the Seven Years’ War also referred to as the French and Indian War in the North America. Further, the signing of this treaty also was the start of the era of the British domination outside Europe. In relation, this paper will examine the concessions that were forced upon France by England as well as what England gave in return. Also, this paper will discuss the significant role played by New World possessions in the treaty. In addition, this paper will also assess the European balance of power and the philosophy of mercantilism.

Secondly, militarism is the next to fall. As seen in Document C it is clear that the army

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

On 2 April 1982, the British political system was rocked by news of an extraordinary event eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic. A long-standing and thorny dispute with Argentina over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands – a tiny relic of empire proximate to the South American mainland – had erupted with a sudden and unprovoked invasion of British territory by Argentine forces. Britain’s Conservative government faced the greatest crisis in foreign affairs for a generation (Freedman, 1988). Behind this audacious Argentine manoeuvre laid the assumption that the British Government – struggling with union strife, plunging

The years 1959- 1964 saw the occurrence of several foreign policy failures within British Politics. The failures include the formation and downfall of a rival group to the EEC called EFTA, as well as the occurrence of the Suez showing British the loss of the British Empire which previously allowed Britain to stand as a dominating world power. Though, some historians believe that the lack of realism across British politics and society was the root cause of foreign policy failures, whereas other historians tend to disagree. To begin with, it is arguable to suggest that a lack of realism as

Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers

‘It was only because of the “special relationship” with the USA that Britain could exert an influence on international affairs in the years 1951 to 2007. ' Assess the validity of this view.

The Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national