What Happened during the Suez Crisis

To what extent was there a ‘post war consensus’ in British politics from 1951 to 1964? (900 Words)

The Suez War had profound short term significance in many aspects. It can be argued to be one of the first wars in the Arab-Israeli conflict which involved substantial foreign involvement. Although Britain and France were humiliated and lost their influence in the Middle East, it highlighted the rising importance of Cold War politics in the Middle East. Egypt and Israel can be considered as winners of the Suez War; Egypt gained complete control of the Suez Canal and Israel had access to the Straits of Tiran. However, both countries were to remain hostile and the legacy of the Suez War will be conflict, not peace.

The Suez Crisis began on October 29,1956 when Egypt was invaded by 10 Israeli brigades, British and French troops followed two days later. The invasion was the result of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalising the Suez Canal Company, Britain and France were concerned about their influence over the flow of oil into Europe. In response to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, English Prime Minister Anthony Eden, secretly formulated a plan with his allies France and Israel in which they’d retake the canal from Nasser, reinstating British and French authority over the flow of oil from the Middle East while allowing the newly created Israel passage through the canal which Egypt had blocked.

This was temporarily suspended as Britain believed that they could only be a great power if they gained control of the Middle East and, more importantly, the Suez Canal — which was seen to be as a route that would stabilize their trade. The Suez Canal was a critical route to India, further intensifying the need of Britain to have it under its control. Egypt, however, gained a revolutionary government which made Britain sign an agreement to leave the country and the Suez Canal, which would then be independent by 1956. The then President Abdul Nasser forbade the entry of goods coming from Britain and France. A short time passed and Britain and France devised a plan to take the Suez Canal from Egypt. However, after a week they suffered a humiliating defeat and were forced to retreat. This marked the beginning of the end of British and French

Egypt is a country located in northern Africa along the Mediterranean and Red Seas, with a Population of 80,471,869, its Capital is Cairo, with an area of 386,662 square miles, and coastline 1,522 miles. In this coastline The Suez Crisis took place in late 1956 when Israel, the United Kingdom and France wanted to take control of this canal and to remove President Abdel Nasser, until the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations forced the those countries to withdraw from Egypt. This incident humiliated the UK and France and help Egypt not only won the Suez Canal crisis but also gained respect by applying Ends Ways And Means.

To the Egyptians, this was Nasser regularly exercising his authority, but to the majority of the surrounding countries, they saw it as an act of power. It is argued that Nasser was abusing his power since he did not communicate with any source of council or legislature about his nationalization of the canal and that he stripped the power away from the previous owners; the British and the French. Surrounding countries held a meeting given by the Australian Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, proposing that Egypt makes Suez Canal international, but Nasser denied this and claimed it to be legal and still properly functional. If Nasser and his people viewed the canal as still properly functional and legal, then Nasser’s actions were only him exercising his use of authority, not abuse of power. At this moment, Nasser rejected the proposal of making the canal international. He kept the ownership of the canal to Egypt even after they proposed a deal, showing Nasser's use of power in an international way. In a national type of way, Nasser was doing what was right for his country since the Suez Canal is in his country and the people of his country supported him. The British and the French then made an ultimatum. They turned Israel on Egypt and this caused Israel to attack Egypt and to reach the canal. Once this happened, the British and the French came and called for a ceasefire and they told the people their ultimatums. Nasser still chose to deny the deals which the British and French proposed knowing that his country will be attacked by a stronger army making the people of Egypt worried, but they still had faith in the strong leader Nasser was. The people of Egypt were worried about the casualties to come and didn’t consent to Nasser’s actions at this point. Nasser controlled his army and the people and forced them to fight for their

Refusal to give up power served to highlight the problem with wanting to sustain a degree of executive dominance in a parliamentary system as learned in lecture. I believe in a significant degree that Gordon’s behavior was a contributing factor which dissuaded the formation of a coalition between Labour and Liberal Democrats. Additionally, the documentary argues that should have an alliance formed between these two parties, an unpopular backlash from Britons would ensue who would have seen the new coalition as undemocratic given the fact that neither Labour nor Liberal Democrats won the percentage of votes that the Conservatives had received. After several days of negotiations amongst the three respective parties, inevitably, a coalition was forged between the Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats. However, such coalition came at a cost for David Cameron who was forced to offer a promise of a referendum on electoral reform--an act vehemently opposed by his

Even agreements and treaties made with Egypt, the country that holds the stage of the Suez Crisis, were created and then also retracted by the United States for the cause of containing communism. Gamal Abdel Nasser rose to power in Egypt via a non violent coup, in which he was the backstage leader. He was later elected president and it is stated that Nasser had “three goals: to make Egypt independent by ending British occupation; to build up Egyptian forces for a successful attack on Israel; to improve Egypt’s economy by constructing a high dam at Aswan to irrigate the Nile valley.” (Milner) He made his intentions clear and tried to achieve them, especially by launching attacks

An earlier work by James Eayrs (1956) was a reaction to the nationalization of the canal under Egyptian President Gamal Abd al-Nasser. Other works such as Elizabeth Monroe’s, Britain’s Moment in the Middle East positions the canal as a connecting logistical point between British interests in the Middle East and India. Monroe’s central thesis maintains motivations for British interactions in Egypt is to support the large garrison of British Army forces remaining in India. A recent work, by Zachary Karabell, Parting the Desert: The Creation of the Suez Canal, seeks to follow the efforts of de Lesseps mitigating colonial powers interference while orchestrating the completion of the canal and ignoring the misery of the Egyptian populace in doing so.

As previously stated, Nasser developed part of his ideology around the idea that Britain had to withdraw their control over much of the Arab world. One of the first thing that Nasser did in 1954, even before he gained full power, was to make an agreement with Britain that saw their withdrawal from the Suez canal. Later on in 1955, when the U.S. And world bank had agreed to fund $256 Million for the construction of the Aswan Dam, however, in September of the same year, Nasser decided to negotiate an arms deal with the soviet union and Czechoslovakia. This deal outraged the U.S. who then recalled their offer to finance the Aswan Dam. Nasser was left to find alternative methods of finance... what he did, announced the nationalization of the Suez canal. The impact of such an act created a political tension between the middle east, west and non aligned nations that could have potentially left the middle east as a cold war battleground. For one of the first times in history, the U.S.A. chose not to assist the British in a week long war in October 1956, but instead protected their vested oil interests.

The Suez crisis refers to an event that occurred in October of 1956 where the Egyptian government led by nationalist president Abdul Gamal Nasser nationalized at took over the Suez Canal which was owned by a joint corporation between the United Kingdom and France. The U.K. and France then responded with a military counter attack with Israeli troops that took the world to the brink of nuclear war.

In the Suez Crisis, not all other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first because it was a surprise attack on Egypt. The British did not try other ways of solving the crisis and did not try diplomacy with Egypt. The British took “prompt action” against Nasser because they feared that their power in the Middle East would be compromised because of him.” (Dooley) They colluded with France and Israel so that they would all attack Egypt and forcefully recover the Suez Canal. Prime Minister Eden did not consider many options besides war because he saw a parallel between how “Hitler had begun by remilitarizing the Rhineland; Nasser had expropriated the Suez Canal.” (Kunz 97) Consequently, he did not want to try to appease Nasser because he feared that the Egyptians would influence the rest of the Middle East and cut off their oil supply. Although war should have been a last resort the British’s “immediate impulse was to hit Nasser hard and quickly” (Dooley). Clearly, diplomacy was not considered because the British hoped to seize the Suez Canal by force. This is why they secretly colluded in hopes of bombarding the Egyptians and forcing them to relinquish control of the canal. “Almost immediately, Britain with France started well-publicized military preparations in the Mediterranean” they hoped to force Egypt to agree to give the Suez Canal to the international community. (Epstein) When Egypt refused British, France and Israel retaliated against the Egyptians.

The Suez Crisis was a defining moment in British history, and by following its story we also follow the decline of Britain as an imperial power. It is also ironic that that the military operation in Egypt was, in fact, a great success. It is the diplomatic handling of the crisis that deserves to be called one of history’s greatest mistakes.

First there were many casualties during the crisis. The second thing is that a lot happened in the aftermath of the Crisis. There were many casualties, with there being 3507 being killed in this event and also 1000 other people died that were innocent civilians. The number of wounded soldiers was 4,900 and the number that were captured by different countries was between 20,000 and 30,000 people and innocent civilians. Now the aftermath of the suez Crisis.Egyptian sovereignty and ownership of the Canal had been confirmed by the United States and the United Nations. It weakened Britain and France as major powers in the eyes of the world, and the United States replaced them as a major player in the Middle East going forward. In retirement Eden maintained that the military response to the crisis had prevented a much larger war in the Middle East. Israel had been expecting an Egyptian invasion in either March or April 1957, as well as a Soviet invasion of

The Suez crisis of 1956, following Nasser’s nationalisation of the canal, resulted in disaster for Britain. Britain’s global influence was left in tatters, policy makers were forced to accept dependence on America, Prime Minister Eden was forced to resign, and America emerged as the era’s superpower. This essay will show how misjudged influence, poor leadership, a lack of American support and a polarised public opinion all contributed to this disastrous outcome. Britain’s use of full military retaliation against legal nationalisation, a lengthy mobilisation period which allowed time for global political discontent to grow and its belief that America would eventually provide support all proved wrong. The crisis of 1956 resulted in the loss of British prestige worldwide, a surge in popularity for Nasser and Arab Nationalism, and the inception of an alliance between Egypt and the Soviets. Additionally, the canal which Britain had sacrificed so much to protect was rendered unusable due to blockages from tankers sunk during the crisis.