From this we can infer that at some time during the Suez Crisis people were opposed to the decision to take ‘military action against Egypt’ but we cannot determine when the opposition rose up. From my own knowledge, I know that there were rallies in Trafalgar Square and that several riots and demonstrations that took place whilst the Suez Crisis progressed. On November 4th, there was a major demonstration held in London with against the military build-up. The demonstration was organised by the Labour Party and the most common banner on display was “Law Not War”. The demonstration turned more unpleasant and the police were needed to stop the riot near 10, Downing Street.
Source F illustrates the change in public opinion as the Crisis progressed. The source is from the same newspaper as Source D, which was promoting anti-Nasser ideals whereas, now this source is suggesting that the public opinion had drastically changed. This source is a mere two weeks after Source D and is raising an opposing view. The readers are making practical and ethical objections against military action against Egypt which suggest that not everyone supported Eden. This evidence is more reliable that Source D because it is from the public rather than a newspaper that might be trying to inform public opinion. Moreover, from this source we can infer that public opinion divisive and the ration of public opinion had shifted against Eden as the Suez Crisis progressed.
Additionally, from my own knowledge I know that even Eden’s own Cabinet was split since Eden had left them in the dark about the vital facts about Suez including the secret meeting between France Israel and Britain and had made this decision by himself.
In conclusion from the sources and my own knowledge I know that the majority of the public supported Eden, but as the conflict continued it became evident that support for Eden began to dwindle when demonstrations and riots by the public took place, after this Eden began to experience pressure from the public to stop the aggression against Egypt.
4. Study Sources G and H.
Does Source G support Selwyn Lloyd’s statement (Source H) about Britain’s motives for military action against Egypt? Explain your answer by referring to both sources.
Source G offers support to Source H because Source H is the justification of the reasons mentioned in Source G to take military action against Egypt. They both are against Nasser and express the need for military intervention in Egypt.
Source G is a letter by Eden to Eisenhower attempting to explain his intentions and to gain the support of the USA. Eden attempts to be inclusive by using the plural ‘I do not think we disagree’, he does this in order to make it appear as if the USA is included in his decision. Also Eden refers to Nasser’s regime to be hostile to the West in order to make this an international problem which concerns the USA.
Whereas Source H is an extract from Suez 1956 by Selwyn Lloyd in 1978 suggesting that it written from retrospect implying that its purpose is to explain and justify the actions he took part in. Both Eden and Lloyd concur that Nasser was a dangerous threat and menace, Source G agrees with Source H because they both refer to the argument of history and compare Nasser to previous dictator which have caused international problem. Both the sources suggest Eden’s primary motives for opposing Nasser were to eliminate him and to establish regime change in Egypt.
Source H states that their objectives were to prevent war in the Middle East, to deal with Nasser and to establish international control over the Suez Canal. Selwyn Lloyd uses these reasons to justify Eden’s actions claiming that it was in national interest and that they did what they thought was right at the time. Source G offers support because Eden suggests that they need to establish international control of the Suez Canal which agrees with Lloyd’s extract.
In conclusion Source does support Selwyn Lloyd’s statement Britain’s motives for military action against Egypt because they both agree that the primary motives were to establish international control over the Suez Canal and to make a regime change. Both of the sources identify Nasser as a menace and by referring to the argument of history state that he needs to be dealt with and a new regime should be in place.
5. 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 agree with this view of the Suez Crisis because although Eden had undergone this war against Nasser, Britain was forced to deal with the long term repercussions which are still being felt today.
The Suez Crisis proved to be a national disaster for the Eden and his Cabinet because soon as the conflict ended it came to light that Eden had been aware of the secret deal between France, Israel and Britain and that he had prior knowledge of the Israeli invasion of Egypt. This illustrated that even the government could be liable to cheat, lie and cause unnecessary aggression. This is lead to public opinion at home to shift against Eden and consequently riots and demonstrations occurred, as suggested by Sources E and F, and lead to his domestic government to fall within months of leaving the high moral position.
Eden had begun the Suez Crisis with the majority of public support and the newspapers were trying to gain more support for him as suggested by Source D. But as the conflict continued public opinion turned against him, whereas Nasser enjoyed support from his public during this time, as suggested by Source B, and became a more popular leader due to the Suez Crisis whilst Eden had become universally hated and his political career was left in tatters, leaving him no other choice than to resign. Although, Suez was a humiliation for Britain it was more directly felt by Eden and his Cabinet as a personal defeat that they would never recover from.
Critically it was Britain and Eden who had begun this conflict and Eden had tried to justify his reasons and gain support from the public, as suggested by Sources A and D, also from the USA as suggested by Source G. However despite this Eden was forced to retreat and was seen as failure. Britain had been humiliated because although the combined forces of Britain and France were military superior to Egypt, they had lost the political war for supremacy to Nasser. Overall, Britain's assault on Egypt was almost universally condemned throughout the global community, lead by the USA and the USSR, resulting in a formerly revered and prominent country in to a state of disarray and humiliation.
After the Suez crisis, Britain's world importance had been undermined, it had been humiliated at the U.N general assembly and its dependence on the USA was now completely evident. Britain’s actions were accountable to the USA as suggested by Source G because Eden had to explain his actions to Eisenhower in order to gain his support. Britain had been forcible made to realise that they could not act in defiance of the USA since the USA were the ones able to salvage Britain’s economy that had become weak and plunged into recession by the strain put on it by the Second World War and the war against Egypt.
Britain had been forced to submit to the will of the USA when they were given an ultimatum by the IMF if they wanted financial help. The USA also wanted to Britain to withdraw from Egypt because the USSR had threatened to intervene on the behalf of the Egyptian and the USA could not allow the situation to escalate. Additionally Britain had been forced to take a long look at themselves and came to the realisation that the dynamics of the world had changed from the era of empires to the new ‘Cold War’ rules.
Britain became to be understood as a paper tiger with delusions of power that had failed to appreciate the shifts in global power. Britain had thought that they could behave as they did pre-Second World War and take out the small nation of Egypt and no one would stand up against them, however they were taught a valuable lesson that they couldn’t do what they wanted anymore A shift in power had taken place post-Second World War from Britain, France and Germany to the new hegamons of the world, USA and USSR.
‘Eisenhower made the point that Eden did not seem to realise that the world had changed and that the time when military force could be used in the support of imperial policy had long since passed and new solutions had to be found. So he (Eisenhower) felt that in effect, Eden was living in the past.
General Andrew Goodpastor, the Chief of Staff to Eisenhower at the time of Suez
The Suez Crisis had devastating effects on the British economy because the value of sterling continued to depreciate at an increasing rate and the effects was only softened by relying on aid from the USA. Additionally, Britain’s evident weakness led to the commonwealth to crumble at an increasing rate because Britain was a paper tiger with limited power to stop the small nations from braking away from the British Empire. The Suez Crisis became the trigger for the dismantling of the British Empire because soon after the conflict ended Malaya and Ghana both claimed independence from the British in 1957. After this the chains of countries which made the British Empire continued to break away but this process was started at Suez.
In conclusion, Britain was humiliated by international opinion and made to look foolish but it became a personal humiliation for Eden and his Cabinet. Moreover Britain was forced to reassess its position in the world stand and realise that it could not act without the full support and backing of the new superpower of the world, the USA.
