Suez Canal; End of Empire

[simonnomis]

I read this news item on the British BBC website today, which I thought gave quite an interesting view of the crisis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5199392.stm

What do you think? Is it a good explanation as to why the Brits and the French cast off their empires? And what about the idea that Ike made a mistake in not supporting the action?

 

[sydhe]

No, I don't. I don't think it would be a good idea to support colonial powers when the colonial era was clearly dying. The British hold on Suez had pretty much lost its reason when they lost empire, and I don't know what the French were doing at all.

 

[simonnomis]

Heres another bit contrasting the crisis with modern day Iraq intervention:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5212448.stm

Personally, I think Eisenhower was wrong to try and stop the Israel/UK/France since all Nasser did was create problems to the West until Egypt finally came to terms with Israel several decades later. The fact that it diverted attention from Hungary is, IMO, irrelevant since nobody was going to intervene against the USSR regardless of how much more in the spotlight it was.

 

[Yeeek]

Don't know what the French were doing at all.

I'll try to sum it up real fast, Nasser was funding Algerian rebels (seeking their independance). So it was in the best interest of France and of course a great oportunity at that for the governement at the time.

 

[Steph]

At the time we were supporting intervention against Arabs and supporting
Israel, the USA were against it.
Now, we do not support and intervention against Arabs, and are not longer supporting Israel, and the USA are still against it.
Americans : make up your mind!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

India, the crown jewel in the British empire, already got their independence in 1948 - many other territories were waiting in line. Burma soon after. Malaya in 1957. Regardless on how the Suez crisis turned out, the end of the British empire was already well at hand.

The attitude of the common Briton towards the 'empire' had changed during WW2 - as society moves along, there's simply no moralistic reason why the empire shld be maintained, esp with local independence movements were springing up all over the place. You can't justify being a representative of the free world (fighting against Communism) on the one hand and then keep an empire over other lands on the other.

Just look at the Indonesians throwing out the Dutch and the Vietnamese throwing out the French.

Plus, WW2 had also changed the perception of locals toward their European overlords. Esp in East Asia when the Imperial Japanese Army drove out the foreigners. Things will never be the same again, after that.

 

[luiz]

At the time we were supporting intervention against Arabs and supporting
Israel, the USA were against it.
Now, we do not support and intervention against Arabs, and are not longer supporting Israel, and the USA are still against it.
Americans : make up your mind!

The first article suggests that after Suez the French made it a national policy to always oppose the americans as a means of increasing their global relevancy.

 

[Headline]

Too bad after the fall of British empire all those nations still play cricket.

 

[Rambuchan]

I would say that what KD identifies here....

The attitude of the common Briton towards the 'empire' had changed during WW2 - as society moves along, there's simply no moralistic reason why the empire shld be maintained, esp with local independence movements were springing up all over the place. You can't justify being a representative of the free world (fighting against Communism) on the one hand and then keep an empire over other lands on the other.

....and the actual effects of having to fight WW2, were what rang the bell on Britain's Empire. Suez was something like the act of a headless chicken, running around and spluttering, moments before death.

Interesting to see how the ideas that inspired, and seemingly justified, the holding of that empire are still alive and well and kicking furiously today. The USA not only inherited the fall out of that empire's implosion, but it has also inherented its rhetoric and myth. See here.

The Suez Crisis highlighted the hand over of that myth in many ways.

 

[Steph]

When reading this article, I can see some similarities between France and USA. The difference is France needs to be more subtile because it has less power.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I got this article passed to me in another thread by Enkidu Warrior. It's a good read but I think the Empire was all but lost after WWI. By that time the uprisings had already started. WWII ensured that, as Ram points out, we didn't have the resources to keep the colonies.

I also don't think there was much use in keeping them at that point. The people had decided to cast us out so it was time for us to leave. IIRC correctly Churchill was unhappy with the US during WWII as he thought they wanted the break up of the Empire before joining WWII. I'll try to find a link incase this was a dream

In my view the Empire should have changed rather than be disbanded. A Commonwealth similar to how the EU operates now. Whether that idea was ever sustainable I don't know.

 

[simonnomis]

IIRC correctly Churchill was unhappy with the US during WWII as he thought they wanted the break up of the Empire before joining WWII. I'll try to find a link incase this was a dream

Thats correct. There was also talk in washington circles that the US should inherit the British Empire since the Brits were no longer able to defend it all for themselves.

 

[privatehudson]

As has been said already, evidence of the gradual reduction/collapse of the empire had been present for some time, Suez did nothing more than to be the visible reminder of how the future would pan out for the British. It taught us a valuble lesson, America could afford to ignore us before making decisions, we could not afford to ignore America. That lesson however was relevant during WW2 also so hardly new by Suez.