Suez 1956: How One Phone Call From Washington Bankrupted the British Empire in a Weekend
In 1956, Britain launched a secret military invasion of Egypt to seize the Suez Canal. Their soldiers were winning. Their objectives were within reach. And then one phone call from Washington brought the entire operation — and the British Empire — crashing down. Not with bombs. Not with threats. But with something far more devastating: an attack on the British pound.
This is the story of how Eisenhower weaponized the dollar against his closest ally, how a young Egyptian colonel named Nasser humiliated two European empires, and how the secret Protocol of Sèvres became one of the most cynical conspiracies in modern diplomatic history. It’s the story of Anthony Eden’s downfall, Harold Macmillan’s betrayal, and the weekend that proved once and for all that money — not military force — is the ultimate weapon of geopolitics.
The Suez Crisis didn’t just end a war. It ended an empire.
Sources and further reading:
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian — Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Volume XVI
UK National Archives — Suez and the United States (FO 371/120816)
UK Parliament Hansard — Gold and Dollar Reserves Statement, 4 December 1956
Imperial War Museums — “Why Was The Suez Crisis So Important?”
National Army Museum — Suez Crisis
Wilson Center Digital Archive — Speech by President Nasser, Alexandria, July 26, 1956
Origins (Ohio State University) — “The Suez Crisis (1956)”
Gresham College — “The Suez Crisis, 1956” Lecture
USAWC Press — “Waging Financial War”
Keith Kyle, “Suez” (1991)
Diane Kunz, “The Economic Diplomacy of the Suez Crisis” (1991)
#suezcrisis #britishempire #coldwar #eisenhower #nasser #suezcanal #financialwarfare #geopolitics #imperialism #history #documentary #egypt #1956 #anthonyeden #decolonization #economics #power #middleeast #unitedstates #britishhistory
10 Comments
I think the USA at that time made a mistake. Eden also. Within 1 day the military won. He should consult the two allies. French may have money. The second ally may help with soldiers.
I enjoy your work. Very detailed. No Addition nor subtraction.
The Suez crisis played out at the same time as The Hungarian crisis. Russia invading their puppet state Hungary, which had got too independent. If Eisenhower (USA) ok’d the Suez invasion, he in effect is saying OK to Russian invasion. As the US opposed this and wanted the world, 3rd world, to know they opposed both Hungarian & Suez invasions. It was a new cold war world. Was that mentioned? That WAS the political decision the economic banking measures followed.
BTW – Like your series and its concentration on the underlying economic background to world events, still.
The USA is no friend of the UK. It bankrupted the UK after WW2 by refusing to allow it to be discharged from money lent to it to fight the war as it allowed every other country to under the Marshall Plan. It forced the UK into the Korean War. It crashed the UK economy again after the Suez Crises and revelled in the collapse of the British Empire. The USA turned the UK into the snivelling wreck it is today by refusing to loan any more money to the UK after 1946 to help pay for their post war reconstruction, the welfare system and the NHS. The USA is a despicable nation that sucks the life out of every country on the planet. There is no special relationship, they are Shylocks.
as another one noted you missed that the US didnt stop the Brits out of good will, There was a balance with the soviets, who they were busy with the Hungarian uprising. As soon as they managed to control it they asked the US what is going on and then things unfolded as you describe them The second and probably the biggest thing you missed is the Israelis refused to leave from Sinai peninsula for decades for absolutely no legal pretext, something they will be doing constantly since.
20:38
Situation seems rather familiar.
The certificate shows France as the majority shareholder?
Good to see debt-collaps being the final weapon.
I think America’s biggest post WW2 mistake in the Middle East if not the world, was during the Suez crisis. The US should have either sided with the Brits, French and Israelis in taking down Nasser, or have created an international zone in the Suez Canal managed by the UN. I was reading a part of Ike’s big Gamble, a book by Michael Doran. According to the book when Dulles said in a meeting that the actions at Suez were old fashioned colonialism, Harold Stassen advised that the Canal Zone be made an international zone, similar to what the Sinai Peninsula became. Stassen said Nasser was siding with the Soviets and it would be best to still prop up the Brits and French as peacekeepers who would leave once they stabilized the Canal Zone. Nasser would eventually help to destabilize Iraq with the coup in 1958 that killed King Faisal and the Iraqi PM that are mentioned in the film. That in addition to forming the PLO, inspiring Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein, as well as help to start the six day war. I think the rule of Nasser also led to the death of Robert Kennedy by inspiring Sirhan Sirhan and making Sirhan Sirhan want vengeance for the Six Day war and Robert Kennedy’s support of Israel. Michael Doran believed that even Eisenhower admitted in private that he made a mistake at Suez. Not to mention how the Cold War heated up with Khrushchev launching Sputnik, developing ICBMs, building the Berlin Wall and putting missiles in Cuba. Not to mention supporting wars of liberation which included Vietnam. Khrushchev smelled a weak west with only one democratic superpower to protect it! I say the handling of the Suez crisis was America’s worst mistake and her second mistake was not to stand behind the Shah of Iran when fell in 1978/79. But that last mistake was the fault of the west as whole.
History rhymes…
The inhabitants of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant, have faced division and external control for centuries. It is simpler to separate individuals based on their differences than to unify them around shared traits. Opportunistic outsiders exploit this for their own benefit. During the age of empires, the power shifted from Rome/Constantinople to London/Paris during WW1 (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), and post-1950s, as European colonialism waned, Washington DC emerged as the new authority (the entire Middle East became a battleground during the Cold War). The aim remains to prevent unity in the Middle East, enabling the control/management/moderation of dissent, a classic divide-and-rule tactic. Currently, all leaders in the region are mere instruments. Borders were drawn arbitrarily without consulting those affected. They perpetuate endless conflicts and encourage persistent dissent.
Divide-and-rule illustrates the historical timeline.
Who has historically held a GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE, remaining distanced from the consequences of their own interventions while influencing other regions? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. Their consistent desire was for peace as they claimed they wanted, but who ends up picking up the pieces and benefiting while preventing others from uniting?
Different Empires. Different eras. Same strategies…
>>>
The people of Africa have also been divided and controlled by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism facilitates this division, keeping populations impoverished under the guise of exploitation. In the age of empires, North Africa was first influenced by Rome/Constantinople, then during Western imperialism, power shifted to the USA/Europe. After the 1950s, as European colonial power declined, Africa became a stage for Cold War conflicts. When the dividers reached their peak power, they drew borders without consulting the affected populations (Congo Conference/1884), allowing their systems to extract wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The goal was to prevent unity in Africa to maintain control over dissent, a classic divide-and-rule strategy. Today, all dissenters in Africa opposing unity, including some corrupt leaders, are merely tools. The cycle of endless wars and persistent dissent continues.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers…
Divide-and-rule.
Different peoples and systems. Different locations on the map. Same antics.
>>>
The people of the Americas have similarly been divided and ruled by outsiders for centuries, as it is easy to categorize people into "ingroups." In the early stages of European Imperialism, Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, applying the divide-and-rule strategy to local systems (Aztecs/Incas). As European colonial influence waned in the 19th century, Washington DC assumed the role of divider. With the USA's growing power, the world became their playground around 1900. Today, globalists employ imperialist strategies to execute divide-and-rule on their neighbors.
Forget nuclear weapons. The divide-and-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most potent force on the planet, as it can be applied equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crisis to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Since the two-faced snake descended from the tree of unity (fable), speaking deceitfully, wise individuals have warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. Succumbing to division caused by deception leads to the loss of a good life… "and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." Such divisions benefit OUTSIDERS. Eden represented a status quo fractured by lies and deceit. The current aim is to prevent unity in the Americas, allowing for control over dissent through classical divide-and-rule. Endless conflicts over various issues, from "drugs" to "terror" (sic.), create constant dissent, with everything framed as a war.
Insert mechanisms of lies and mistrust. The two-party duopoly serves as two sides of the same coin, creating favoritism by granting access to POWER/WEALTH to those who act as proxies for their authority. The chaotic lives of domestic politics mirror the larger reality of international turmoil. The systemic (MSM) narrative points fingers elsewhere, using paid agents to present their orchestrated violence as reactions from "the oppressed, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Deceivers create a BLACK LEGEND for the "other side."
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff stated: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan exemplified a GLOBALIST prototype. This is how they increased their wealth: by inciting conflict among people and siphoning off the wealth of entire regions.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is the hegemon's consistent approach, masquerading as the "good pax," while playing "good cop/bad cop" globally from a position of strength. Historically, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS/GLOBALISTS, while the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS/MILITARISTS. Their branding and doublespeak serve to mislead the public, who are enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses" existence.
America's allies and self-proclaimed rivals in Eurasia continue to be manipulated into a (quote) "pattern of relationships" that serves their dominance. This is how divide-and-rule is executed. Refer to Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the framework. Consult W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for guidelines on political, cultural, and economic domination. Read Smedley Butler (War is a Racket) for insights into the operational methods of imperialism/militarism.
The games of Albion. Post-WW2, Albion 2.0 emerged.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system favored in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-established managed and moderated division, benefiting a select few at the top of the hierarchy, accompanied by a frequently repeated appealing narrative. They create the script for their heroes. Their entire funded history resembles a Hollywood superhero film that seems too good to be true. Guess what? It is. What they conceal is what they strive to hide.
Who holds the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE to influence all other "buck catchers" (tools, proxies, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER) while remaining unreachable due to geographical, technological, organizational, military, strategic, and political advantages throughout history? They create default rivals/enemies along their own paths. Typically, the power most likely to succeed is designated as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, when a rival begins to produce high-value products and competes for markets, it quickly becomes a systemic rival, subsequently surrounded geopolitically by the greater empire. This occurred around 1900 when Germany began manufacturing high-value goods and again around 2000 as China shifted from producing cheap toys to higher-value products.
War is a significant divider. It affects millions and billions, from the highest tiers down to the individual level. War disrupts alliances, divides organizations, fractures political parties, and ultimately tears families apart, reaching into the hearts and minds of individuals as they grapple with internal conflicts.
It is divide-and-rule today, just as it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, because the local populations were too weak/divided to unite.
These dividers. See them for what they are. They want to meddle everywhere, but be responsible for nothing. Follow them, at your own expense.