The Suez Crisis marks the end of Britain’s era of global dominance. Professor Bogdanor explains its significance: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-suez-crisis-1956
In 1956, Egypts President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company. In response, Britain, together with France and Israel, attacked Egypt. The Suez War was the only major military engagement in the 20th century which was opposed by the official opposition. It was opposed also by the United States and the United Nations. Britain and France were compelled to withdraw from Egypt. Suez damaged the reputation of the Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. He had been the last Prime Minister to act as if Britain was still a world power; and the first Prime Minister to have to face the reality that she was not.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-suez-crisis-1956
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham’s mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/
35 Comments
Great lecture (again). If only this kind of incisive analysis of rivals' varying motives were part of the public discourse of current international crises like Syria & the Ukraine.
Superb lecture, thank you. I look forward to the others in this series.
An extremely interesting and very informative analysis of Britain's role in the Suez crisis.
it was a crisis mainly for those egyptians in cairo and port said who were bombed. it became a crisis because britain, france and "israel" didn't respect the sovereignity of egypt. it became a crisis because "peace angel" shimon peres dealed and signed the sevres accords with france about the zionist participation in the attack on egypt…
As always, entertaining, erudite, and informative to a fault. The good professor does not disappoint.
This professor present the Conservative British point of view of imperialism and colonies the channel is Egyptian and will always be ,he should not mix the history up he is one of those arrogant British old Guard that never forgive Nasser that he end the British Impair.
Any Nationalist like Nasser consider dictator , Nasser done more for Egypt than any PM for Britten , Eden is nothing but a liar and Tony Blair too .
I would like to Know why he do not talk about the lone Egypt give to Britten during world war 2 until now never paid back .
False what he said about Egypt was prepare for war against Israel in 1956 Egypt was not ready for such war Egypt need money for development
Some Americans still wonder why Britain did not support them in Viet Nam.
1:16:37 True, those wars would not have happened. Your earlier point about Nasser-led guerrilla war against the Anglo-French occupiers is what would have happened.
could be a great lecture, but starts out with belligerence to truth. the crisis didn't begin with nationalization of canal. it began with UK imperialism.
This guy is just dripping with typical British contempt for places he intimates aren't quite ready to rule themselves. What about the legality of "nationalizing" India for Britain? Eh? Put that in your Queen and smoke it
The first lesson in History studies – it's interpretive.
This professor has presented a view that excludes at least a couple of important facts. That Egypt was essentially going to virtually starve without funding from the West for the Aswan Dam and therefore sought aid from wherever else it could, and the important point that Communism is anathema to a religious society.
Listening to this professor reminded me of the revisionism that has plagued History departments since I studied it in the 90's. The language he uses, the false connections he implies (US and British convergence), the blindness to verifiable historical facts (Nasser found Communism quite antithetical)- this all suggests a historian on the fringe.
I had a high opinion of Professor Bogdanor – and Gresham – but this reminds me of the square peg/round hole forced narrative I've heard elsewhere by historians.
The best lecturer in the series. – Supermac! – I think the UN is useful as a place where contacts can be made between hostile powers who do not have formal relations. "World opinion" is an overrated concept, "world government" a bad one.
this bloc maybe well read and distinguished amongst his cambridge peers in speech and dedication to his studies… nevertheless he is a 22k liar … why and for whom , what is his goal ? my guess is as good as anyone elses… it was America that like a caravan mule , was guided by britain into every war in the middle east… beginning with the so called great war , then churchills war against the fascist of usa uk and europe… guarding against a communist takeover…. finally Edens copy of Churchill in Suez …. drove the nail in the English coffin as an empire .. they lost everything! simply shoe shine boys theyve become ….. cold war ? my arse …. just figure it out english men … you know better than anyone else , how Arabs sell their asses quick and cheap !
The Suez Crisis didn't change anything. The UK was no longer a world power by the end of World War II.
Food for thought. Very interesting.
And thanks to Eisenhower and american misjudgements Arab nationalists and the demise of their economies and ordinary people began the results of which are there for us to see.
This lecture is pathetic
The speaker has given the facts from UK perspectives. Actually British people were heated by Egyptians on the other hand the Egyptian were seeing British as invader to thier country. British's interest was to drain Egyptian resources.
For that the Egyptians struggled for thier freedom but Britian coukd not understand other's eight.
The end result was making an end to the British Empire.
I really enjoy these lectures. I've learned quite a bit.
Coming to these very late, but they're relatively concise for how large a topic they cover.
8:18 When the Americans tell the British that they, the Americans, took the view that they, the British, should leave, because otherwise they, the British again, would give the impression that the West is still colonialist, is when the Americans finally mastered the art of British understatement.
a reminder the perilous journey during low tech timelines
4:26 isreal was literally armed by uk,their militas got their equipment from britian,what are you talking about?
this guy basically calls what the british and french did in 1956 " not imperialist" lmao what? not mentioning the fact he keeps spouting " egyptian nationalists " as if the nationalists were the only ones against British imperialism in egypt,it's insane how biased he is.
13:12 arab imperialist? how delusional can this guy get? someone nationalizing their own lands is somehow an " imperialist " right?
Sir Bogdanor has specialized in being The Ultimate English Upperclass Dignitary
At c. 1:13:00 and after, the speaker several times says "Europe" when he means the E.E.C., which is not the same thing at all. The E.E.C. at the time of de Gaulle's veto was only 6 countries, only a small proportion of the whole continent.
Brilliant Analysis and very interesting concluding comments.
It took him 1' 18min to realise that the British empire was finished and they had to leave…. and leave from everywere. People didn't fight fascism to be ruled by another foreign power !!
In the end what they never tell you is that all British, French and Israeli forces rolled their tail were we know…. cos they got a 72hr warning from the USSR it's LEAVE OR WAR.
They left behind heavy equipment trucks cars etc there untill today…loaded their men and flew out ASAP to nearest base which was in Cyprus.
End of story, end of empire, then came beatles, drugs, skingeads, hooligans …..
He’s unrivalled. We are fortunate for his gifts.
It’s called kicking the ladder after you climbed it. The French and British empires climbed to their domination over most of the world by the exact same methods, set up friendly or puppet states and international rules that they sat at the top of and then when anyone tried to do otherwise got to claim “ my good man, we are reasonable and thinking about the international community”. Do as I say not as I do. It’s amazing how world powers who think they have the moral right to tell other nations and peoples what to do within their own boarders didn’t even have a basic grasp of how the executive branches of their closest allies worked. Same thing today, anyone who tries to nationalise resources the west has an interest in gets labelled “rogue or destabilising” when opening resources up to international markets usually means “ giving your nations resources to European and American companies that benefits European elites and American elites much more than it benefits the country that holds the resources or even European and American citizens. The UK and France would not have had a problem with Egypt’s actions if Egypt’s actions had benefited them. Hence why the dictator/ fascist moralising is bull. Because if they cared so much, they wouldn’t have done business with similar people, the only difference was was the country towing the line or not. If they toe the line, dictatorship and extremism and expansion is okay, look at Saudi Arabia, Iran before the revolution, Iraq before sadam turned, Israel currently and Cuba before Castro. Once they don’t play ball then its too the printing presses, we have pearls to clutch because there’s a big bad dictator who is the next Hitler.
42:10 “Ike will lie doggo” quote for the ages there
I disagree that Eisenhower was a strong president. Dulles was an inveterate anti-Semite, and the State Department has long been a nest of anti-American sentiment in the eyes of conservatives, who are fond of saying there is no America desk at the State Department. The wild charges of communist influence were essentially true, as ultimately revealed in Soviet documents. Eisenhower lined up with the Soviets against US allies and would soon stand for the Soviet intervention in Hungary. Eisenhower won by a landslide, but in 1957 US prestige suffered a further blow with the launch of Sputnik. 1958 was a disastrous off year for Republicans, as 2020 will be as a presidential year. US fortunes have slid downhill in the intervening decades, but it all started with Eisenhower, and by 1971 US hegemony will be over. Now we know that the winning enemy would not be the Soviets but rather the PLA, whose influence will grow further under the weakness of Biden.
It was de Gaulle who pulled the plug on the dollar in 1971, and Americans would adopt Freedom Fries. Britain would turn over HK to PLA.