Not Quite Mandalay - the Suez Emergency 1951-6

[Dragonlord]

Mandalay is the setting of a great poem by Kipling and was a city in Burma, a British colony and favorite posting of Tommy Atkins in the days of Empire. Life in Burma for the British was on the whole quiet, peaceful and safe, and the people -especially the ladies - were welcoming; a marked difference from how British troops found their time in Suez.

Ah, now I get it! Thank you!

 

[privatehudson]

Nice article, I remember studying the subject in school many years ago. One of my favourite political cartoons of all time deals with this period. I first saw it during one of those lessons and have been interested in them ever since.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Until recently I could never find a copy of it online but fortunately someone uploaded it to flickr recently.

 

[ParkCungHee]

To be honest I wouldn't mind doing one but haven't got a decent subject; hence why I've allowed/asked for suggestions. Military history's a good bet, preferably European or ideally British.

The deployment of British Troops to Ulster?

 

[Justo]

A good read. I look forward to your next article.

 

[Flying Pig]

The deployment of British Troops to Ulster?

I'd be shot down for that; I have very strong political views on that one. I think I'll work on some more empire ones, maybe the Mahdist Wars, for the time being.

Hey, I evinced pretty strong political views about the Home Rule Crisis and nobody got pissed about it.

Your article's amazing, but I think mine would be stronger, and I was far too involved in the whole business to write with any degree of objectivity.

 

[Dachs]

Hey, I evinced pretty strong political views about the Home Rule Crisis and nobody got pissed about it.

 

[Communisto]

How about something with the Seven Years War?

 

[Joecoolyo]

If we're going back that far, maybe something about the British in the Peninsular War?

 

[say1988]

The Second Boer War has always be one that held my interest.

 

[Lord Baal]

Anglo-Zulu War is a good choice, but I kind of like the Mahdist Wars as well.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Thanks, Flying Pig, very nice article.

Like so many others, the Zulu wars sound interesting. I need something to straighten out the two movies (Zulu and Zulu dawn). And I agree subjects that involve Britain are probably a better choice. I'm American and appreciate a slightly different point of view.

 

[wolfigor]

Indeed, Eisenhower said many times after the crisis that he greatly regretted acting against the allied forces there; especially since allied success in Suez would almost certainly have prevented the costly Arab-Israeli wars that wracked the region in the next few decades.

Like many dictators Nasser was a kind of political gambler.
In 1956, he was able to break a treaty (forcing the hand of UK and France), have its army smashed (de facto loosing the military part of the war), and still "win" at the end on the political field.
Nasser, most likely supported by the experience of 1956, will then try again the same gamble in 1967 (Nasser knew perfectly of not being able to win on the military field but was convinced that propaganda and politic may bring a new 1956).
The war in 1973 was a consequence of it too.

Would the world have saved itself from more wars (1967, 1973) and a huge set of problems (hate between Arabs and Israeli, Palestine, etc.) if the outcome of Suez war would have been different?

 

[Lord Baal]

Like many dictators Nasser was a kind of political gambler.
In 1956, he was able to break a treaty (forcing the hand of UK and France), have its army smashed (de facto loosing the military part of the war), and still "win" at the end on the political field.
Nasser, most likely supported by the experience of 1956, will then try again the same gamble in 1967 (Nasser knew perfectly of not being able to win on the military field but was convinced that propaganda and politic may bring a new 1956).
The war in 1973 was a consequence of it too.

Would the world have saved itself from more wars (1967, 1973) and a huge set of problems (hate between Arabs and Israeli, Palestine, etc.) if the outcome of Suez war would have been different?

It may have done so, but in the process it would have created even more problems, at least for the West. Eisenhower himself once said, when pushed by a member of his administration to prop up the French Empire by force, that he believed that any colonial people would gladly embrace communism, fascism, or any other unpleasant political option if the only alternative was continued foreign domination.

Even though Eisenhower must have known that an Egypt dominated by Britain and France would be much to the US's advantage geostraegically, he also understood that this would essentially force many former colonies into the Soviet camp for simple self-defence. That would be a geopolitical disaster for the US - and the UK and France, though they didn't seem to realise it - of much greater magnitude than the loss of Egypt.

 

[r16]

a maybe childish notion is the Suez intervention covered the Russians in Hungary and the probable fall of the Soviet threat would have been far more profitable to the West . Chest thumping to scare the Russian Bear is kinda hard when half of the NATO is thumbing Uncle Sam .

maybe this is why US Carriers steamed right into Allied fleet launching their aircraft to disrupt Anglo-French air operations and there were mock nuclear attacks on Malta .

 

[wolfigor]

It may have done so, but in the process it would have created even more problems, at least for the West.

Or at least a different set of problems

Even though Eisenhower must have known that an Egypt dominated by Britain and France would be much to the US's advantage geostraegically, he also understood that this would essentially force many former colonies into the Soviet camp for simple self-defence.

Yes, that's probably right.
Talking with hindsight, a lot of former colonies did fall in the SSSR camp anyway (especially in Africa), and middle-east countries continues never became completely pro-west, often trying to edge USA vs SSSR (Egypt, Iraq) trying to get advantages from both sides.

In my opinion a different outcome of the Suez crisis would have had some interesting consequences.
In first, without the wars in 1967 and 1973, probably, the Palestinian problem wouldn't be so acute and a decent solution could have come easier: This would have robbed the extremists from a lot of excuses for their propaganda.

Obviously the political management of the situation would have been extremely difficoult, with many countries thinking about a new colonialism enforced by Nato.

much greater magnitude than the loss of Egypt.

More than Egypt was lost.
The failure at Suez gave a message that the west was not ready to defend its interests, and that every dictator could wage wars and edge the two blocks against each other to get away with their crimes without a punishment.

 

[Karalysia]

Nasser stood against Western imperialism, he did what had to be done to defend Egypt and it's rightful sovereignty. Seriously talk about British apologists.

 

[Flying Pig]

Nasser stood against Western imperialism, he did what had to be done to defend Egypt and it's rightful sovereignty. Seriously talk about British apologists.

You can say that much for him, he did advance his country's agenda like almost no other. However, his continuing advocacy of -admittedly not new - less-than-legal-not-to-mention-ethical tactics against the troops at Suez and disregard for international law mean that to my mind he was far from a figure to be admired - from a foreign policy perspective, you can compare him to many of history's dictators - Hitler springs to mind immediately.

 

[Karalysia]

Hitler, wow because Nasser totally opened concentration camps and started a new Holocaust.
Nationalism is one hell of a drug dude. You people though Mossedqh was Hitler too. So much for that right.

It's like my professor always says, "When in doubt, blame the British. They're almost always the one's responsible."

Nasser was a great man who stood against Western imperialism and for that he is admired across the world today.

 

[vogtmurr]

Nasser stood against Western imperialism, he did what had to be done to defend Egypt and it's rightful sovereignty. Seriously talk about British apologists.

Are there any posters in this forum who feel the need to apologize for being British ?

I would bow down and kiss Sadat's feet before I'd give Nasser a passing glance. For some reason Sadat isn't so admired in the Arab world today, even though he was a martyr for the cause of peace.

 

[r16]

For some reason Sadat isn't so admired in the Arab world today, even though he was a martyr for the cause of peace.

he is a guy that defeated Israel , without dispute , at least for a week , an absolute cause for the dislike or maybe envy . And ı would say he wasn't killed because he signed a peace deal . It would have been harsher for the "world" to see him back in the Arab League , victory somehow crowned . Just like Russians were thrown out in July 1972 , and they had to replace the Migs and various other stuff for October1973 , because China would have done the same by 1976 ...