Suez Canal Crisis
Assignment Two: Objectives 2 and 3
- Study Sources D, E and F
Did public opinion in Britain support Eden’s decision to take ‘military action against Egypt’? Explain your answer using sources and your own knowledge.
Source D is an extract from The Daily Mirror during the time of the Suez Crisis. The extract insinuates that Nasser is like Adolf Hitler, a dictator who will go over the top to show he is great. The title ‘Grabber Nasser’ can also be used to compare Nasser to Hitler, since Nasser has ‘grabbed’ the Suez Canal just like when Hitler ‘grabbed’ Poland in 1939. The news paper writer probably thinks that Nasser will be stopped, just like many dictators, but the person who will be stopping him would be himself. But this piece of evidence has limited reliability since it only displays the opinion of the newspaper writer and not that of the public.
Source E is a photograph of a large demonstration held in London at the time of the Suez Crisis. The Photograph shows people holding signs saying ‘no war over Suez’ and ‘Stop Aggression, Eden must go!’ Of course you can see that these people are against taking military action against Egypt. By using the sign ‘Stop Aggression’ I can see that the demonstrators didn’t want to use force to stop Nasser. They would have wanted to sort out Nasser in a way which does not involve any military action or force. These people had just come to the end of one war and probably didn’t want to go through yet, another one. The people are also against Sir Anthony Eden, his campaign and views. The sign ‘Eden Must Go’ clearly states this. This source is a primary source which displays some public opinion. 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. The public felt that Colonel Nasser had not done enough for Britain to apply military action upon Egypt and that there was no reason to.
Suez Canal Crisis
Assignment Two: Objectives 2 and 3
- Study source G and H
Does Source G support Selwyn Lloyd’s statement (Source H) about Britain’s motives for military action against Egypt? Explain You Answer by referring to both sources.
Source G is an extract from a letter sent to Dwight D Eisenhower; the President of the USA, from Sir Anthony Eden. In this letter, Eden gives his views on how he wants to deal with Nasser and The Suez Canal. It also gives reasons why military action should be taken against Egypt. The Letter gives the impression that the president already agrees with what the prime minister has to say about the ‘primary objective’, of setting up an international regime for the Suez Canal, ‘I do not think we disagree about our primary objective’. If the President does not agree with it then the use of language, seems to be persuasive, as to make the president want the same things as Sir Eden. By saying, ’…our primary objective’, doesn’t just make it Sir Eden’s primary objective, but suddenly both of theirs. The persuasion does not stop their. Sir Eden also refers to the ‘west’ in his statement, knowing that the west is probably the most important thing to the Americans. The fact that he says it is also under threat is furthermore impelling to rid of Colonel Nasser. Sir Anthony Eden also compares Nasser to the Italian Dictator Mussolini and hints at Hitler. Just the mention of these two names would cause a stir in the mind of Dwight D Eisenhower, as he know what men like them have done in the past. Source H is an extract from a book entitled Suez 1956 by Selwyn Lloyd. It talks of the motives of the British for taking military action against Nasser, and that the objectives were in national interest. It states that Sir Anthony Eden was simply trying to protect the nation from another world war and did not want the death of 20 million people on his hands. These two points supports source G as we already know that Sir Anthony Eden was trying to rid of what he saw as another Mussolini. In each source we can see that there is a sense of precaution that is coming from the British. In source G Sir Eden has insinuated that he wants to rid of, in his eyes, an evolving monster, that could possibly create a threat to their nations. And in the source H Selwyn Lloyd has said that another world war could not be afforded.
Suez Canal Crisis
Assignment Two: Objectives 2 and 3
- Study all the sources
“Britain was humiliated by international opinion and made to look foolish” Use these sources, and your own knowledge, to say whether you agree with this view of the Suez Crisis.
I do not agree with this statement, and feel that Britain was not humiliated by the press and but Eden was humiliated by Nasser’s coolness. I believe Sir Anthony Eden simply overreacted to a small situation which could easily have been settled by words. Sir Eden took military action when it was not needed and he was made to look like a vicious person. The Suez Canal was built in Egypt and laid on Egyptian soil. It was only right for Nasser to take something which truly belongs to him. Nasser himself had not used violence to take over the canal.
In 1954 UK troops simply withdrew from the area and in 1956 the Egyptians legally nationalised it. Although they placed restricted entrance to Israeli boats, these were quickly lifted off as it breached terms of the of 1888. The was no harm to British economy what so ever and they were even paid full market value compensation over the 44% stake British banks and businesses had with the canal. Source F even states that no restrictions were made on British vessels, and that the idea had probably not even been mentioned. By enforcing military action onto the canal would, as stated in source F, be immoral.
Eden tried his best to get the backing of the British and even the Americans in his decision. He believed that his actions were justified and tried to gain peoples support. His letter to The President of America (Source G) shows his commitment to the cause. He believed that Nasser was going to be a threat, and that he had to stop. This was seen in some peoples eyes (source D) but not by the majority.
Although Sir Eden was being precautious and didn’t want to see another Mussolini (source G), he did not wait to try and declare war on Nasser, he didn’t believe in the appeasement methods which Neville Chamberlain believed in, and decided to go straight for the kill. Many people opposed this and did not want to be involved in another major war, as they were still grieving from the previous one. 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.
