• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Suez Canal Crisis

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

SUEZ CANAL CRISIS ASSIGNMENT TWO: OBJECTIVES 2 AND 3 1. STUDY SOURCE A WHAT CAN YOU LEARN FROM SOURCE A ABOUT ANTHONY EDEN'S REASONS FOR OPPOSING COLONEL NASSER. Source A is a primary source taken from a broadcast by Sir Anthony Eden. In the broadcast Anthony Eden explains what Colonel Nasser has done with the Suez Canal and expresses his feelings about it. From Source A I can learn that Sir Anthony Eden opposed Colonel Nasser. He felt that something important that had belonged to the British, was taken away by someone who had no-use for it all. The Canal was very important to the British because it opened up a passage way to the red sea and further onto India. The Suez Canal was a gateway to the other side of the world therefore, such a significant asset. However, the Canal had been taken out of their hands by Colonel Nasser. He believed the Canal belonged to the Egyptians as it was on his land. The British had no right to it in Nasser's opinion. In reality, Egypt did not need the canal for they already were connected to the red and Mediterranean sea via their coastline. Before the taking over of the canal Eden thought that Colonel Nasser could be trusted, but when he nationalised it he thought otherwise. ...read more.

Middle

It cannot display the whole public opinion because it only shows a small portion of people and they cannot possibly represent an entire population. Source F is two small extracts of letters from readers, which had been published in the Daily Mirror. The extracts show the view of two random readers who had decided to show their opinion on the Suez Crisis. The first extract says that we have no right to assume that Nasser is going to do something bad. Of course, at this point the only thing Nasser had done was to nationalise what he believed should be his country's, and partly damaged Sir Anthony Eden's Ego. He had not killed anybody. I think that the first extract is from a person who I believe is not against the use of military action to remove Nasser, but sees no problem in what Nasser has done. And therefore sees no reason to use it. The second extract talks about the morality of applying military action. That it is completely wrong and should not happen. It is clearly evident that both readers think that there are other ways to treat Colonel Nasser instead of using Colonel Nasser. After analysing these pieces of evidence, I can see that the general public did not want another war. However, they saw that Eden's decisions could quickly produce a new conflict. ...read more.

Conclusion

The signs in source E clearly show the displeasure the public had for Eden's words and opposition to him must have soared. Nasser on the other hand was being praised by the people in his country. Sources B and C show the support he had. And the removal of hats in Source B shows the respect the people had for him. Britain, a country hating their prime minister, was attacking Egypt who loved theirs, all because the British one did not like the Egyptian one. This definitely would have made the British look like total fools to the international eyes. Also the Egyptians themselves did not see Nasser as a bad figure. After the crisis Nasser was perceived as the hero and winner, this heightened his status as the leader of the Arab world. The Reaction to Anthony Eden was completely different. Sir Anthony Eden reacted harshly, and this made the British people angry, not happy. Anthony Eden had humiliated himself and his party and the fact that he stepped down in 1957 before the end of the war, was due to the fact that he could not cope with the pressure which was being laid onto him by international opinion. He was forced to step down and was seen as a failure. It was not Britain, who had been humiliated; it was the prime minister. ?? ?? ?? ?? HISTORY COURSEWORK - YEAR 10 CARL JOSEF-IAN NU�EZ RENDORA ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE International relations 1945-1991 essays

  1. Decolonization of India - analysing the sources.

    This ongoing course of civil protests strengthened India's motive to gain freedom. Despite these factors influencing India in gaining independence, Source C (BBC, 1945: End of world war 2), depicts that the British Imperial power collapsed in the early 1940's (World War 2 period).

  2. CriticismCrisisEvidence For Evidence Against

    It is appalling that in the end, nothing happened and the Poland kept Vilna. This was the leagues first case so were inexperienced. They did make the right ruling but had problems in enforcing however it is also probable the league thought it was better to appease Poland to accomplish their main aim- no war.

  1. Sociologists and views on family structure.

    - they tended to have separate roles, carrying out their own chores and responsibilities. Stage 3: the symmetrical family. This is the modern nuclear family of today. According to Young and Willmott it has three main characteristics: � This family is predominantly nuclear, not extended.

  2. Why did the Suez Canal crisis of 1956 take place?

    "Under the terms of this deal, Czechoslovakia sold Egypt 200 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 120 MiG jet fighters, 50 jet bombers, 20 transport planes, 15 minesweepers, 2 destroyers, 2 submarines, hundreds of vehicles and thousands of modern rifles and machine guns."1 This huge number of arms volume saw a change

  1. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Was President Kennedy the Saviour of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

    The whole world was watching him back down including China, their communist allies. He also lost the personality clash with the inexperienced Kennedy. Khrushchev was politically experienced whearas Kennedy was the opposite. It could be considered a joint effort as both leaders wanted peace although both had started brinkmanship.

  2. Arab Israeli Conflict

    then why is there still so much violence and terrorism between these two countries? The problem behind this is the fact that the Israelis have broken these treaties in many different ways. The first peace treaty that was signed was the Camp David Peace Accord. The main points were: 1.

  1. Cold War Short Essays - Questions and Answers.

    Another reason was because of the Paris Summit in 1960. In this summit Khrushchev demanded an apology over the U2 crisis. Although the USA agreed to not spy on the USSR anymore, Eisenhower refused to apologise. Khrushchev stormed out of the meeting.

  2. Cold War Summary, quotes and revision notes.

    There were also "non aligned" and "third world" countries and the situation became more complex towards the end of the Cold War. Still, most international disputes were seen through the prism of the Cold War and many nations lined up behind one superpower or the other.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work