NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6102536.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis

Pretty exactly 50 years ago the invasion of Egypt by Israeli, British and French forces occured.

It was an ugly little thing, with shady deals being made by all sides. Militarily it was a great success for the allies, but politically it was something of a disaster.

Scared that the Soviets would get involved, the US told the British to quit it, threatening to destroy the British Pound. With the Brits quitting in the middle of the fight, the French were left hanging, and had no choice but to retreat themselves.

This was actually the time France came to the conclusion that it can't rely on its allies, particularly the US. It removed itself from NATO (more or less) and decided to be rude to the Americans for all eternity. ;)

German Chancellor Adenauer is quoted as saying to de Gaulle: "Europe will be your revenge."

I just thought it would be nice to remember the reason the Americans and the French don't get along, and thus one of the popular recurring discussions on NSG.

I can totally see the French point, the Americans betrayed their Allies.

Its pretty recurring actually. We have to follow them to every war they're part of, but they get to chose when they fight with us.
Hypocrisy ftw...

Hmmmm, portraying Nasser as a "mad dictator", falsely bumping up the premises for war and then going in and killing a whack of civillians in an ill-conceived escapade. Aren't we all lucky times have moved on from then?

Allhough it is ironic that America allowed the UN to slap manners on Britain, Israel and France, insisting on a full withdrawal from occupied territoriesbefore any negotiations.

Don't forget that this incident hammered the final nail in the coffin of the British Empire. Squeezing Britain out forever from the high castle politics of the new bi-(and later mono-)polar world order.

Bump?

It's an interesting topic. There's an article on the BBC site somewhere by a historian who says that Eisenhower considered not supporting the Allies in the war to be his worst foreign policy decision.

It was wrong of Britain to try and behave in the ways of Empire, but they were right to go for Suez (right action, wrong reason). The canal had been bought fairly in the 19th Century, and Nassar's actions were little more than theft.

The canal had been bought fairly in the 19th Century, and Nassar's actions were little more than theft.

Considering the colonial nature of the regimes at the time, nationalisation was hardly "theft".

Considering the colonial nature of the regimes at the time, nationalisation was hardly "theft".

It wasn't really that much to do with Colonialisation; the canal was owned by British and French investors, purchased fairly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6102536.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis

Pretty exactly 50 years ago the invasion of Egypt by Israeli, British and French forces occured.

It was an ugly little thing, with shady deals being made by all sides. Militarily it was a great success for the allies, but politically it was something of a disaster.

Scared that the Soviets would get involved, the US told the British to quit it, threatening to destroy the British Pound. With the Brits quitting in the middle of the fight, the French were left hanging, and had no choice but to retreat themselves.

This was actually the time France came to the conclusion that it can't rely on its allies, particularly the US. It removed itself from NATO (more or less) and decided to be rude to the Americans for all eternity. ;)

German Chancellor Adenauer is quoted as saying to de Gaulle: "Europe will be your revenge."

I just thought it would be nice to remember the reason the Americans and the French don't get along, and thus one of the popular recurring discussions on NSG.

CANADA played a huge part in the resolution of this crisis...give the boys up north the credit they deserve.

It wasn't really that much to do with Colonialisation; the canal was owned by British and French investors, purchased fairly.

Very few things are bought from colonised peoples fairly. I will grant you that it was purchased legally.

It wasn't really that much to do with Colonialisation; the canal was owned by British and French investors, purchased fairly.

It was built when the people of Egypt were subject to a colonial regime. Therefore any ownership lacked legitamacy.

It was built when the people of Egypt were subject to a colonial regime. Therefore any ownership lacked legitamacy.

It was nothing to do with a colonial regime. The French obtained permission from the Egyptian leaders to build a canal, and then shares were sold on the international market.

It's an interesting topic. There's an article on the BBC site somewhere by a historian who says that Eisenhower considered not supporting the Allies in the war to be his worst foreign policy decision.

It was wrong of Britain to try and behave in the ways of Empire, but they were right to go for Suez (right action, wrong reason). The canal had been bought fairly in the 19th Century, and Nassar's actions were little more than theft.

Dead wrong. Nasser was simply exercizing the right of ALL sovereign nations to compulsory resume important resources or lands. Every nation on earth does this. In the US they try and ease the pain by requiring compulsory resumations to be purchases, for "fair market value" (not that it ever is), but most countries do NOT have such requirements - they can simply take what they need, and need not pay one red cent for it.

Now, Nasser WAS also breaking an agreement he'd made with the British Government - basically, "we'll allow your independence provided you let us run the canal forever." But as both he and Sadat pointed out, an agreement under duress is not binding.