Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Middle Eastern and African History Middle Eastern and African History Forum - Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and all nations of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula


View Poll Results: Who exactly would you have supported in the 1956 Suez Crisis?
Egypt 46 63.89%
The Anglo-Franco-Israeli coalition 26 36.11%
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 14th, 2015, 07:07 PM   #1

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,911
Blog Entries: 8
Who exactly would you have supported in the 1956 Suez Crisis?


As for me, Egypt, due to my anti-imperialism.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Also, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Futurist is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 14th, 2015, 07:09 PM   #2

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,911
Blog Entries: 8

Oh, and for the record, I myself am not particularly fond of Nasser. However, in this specific case/war, I don't think that the British, French, and Israelis had an acceptable reason for going to war against Nasser.
Futurist is offline  
Old September 14th, 2015, 10:52 PM   #3

Boudicca's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Iowa
Posts: 1,178

Egypt, for the same reason as you.
Boudicca is offline  
Old September 14th, 2015, 11:26 PM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,078

Egypt.

Unprovoked, unjustifiable aggression by GB, France and Israel.
pugsville is offline  
Old September 15th, 2015, 03:05 AM   #5

starman's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Connecticut
Posts: 3,490

I agree with the three posts above. Eisenhower did the right thing when he told the attackers to lay off.
starman is offline  
Old September 15th, 2015, 05:35 AM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Even Eisenhower admitted stopping Britain and France was amongst the worst decisions of his presidency; Nasser was no friend of the west, his friendliness towards the communists alone would have justified his overthrow, independent of the Suez Canal issues. But nationalization of a nation's assets by a foreign power must always and without exception be regraded as an act of war. Nasser was nothing more than a common thief, he should have been overthrown and hanged for his crimes, Egypt should have then been stripped of its sovereignty and split between Britain, France, and Israel if for no other reason than to clearly demonstrate to the rest of the world the consequences pro-communist policies like nationalizing another nation's assets.
constantine is offline  
Old September 15th, 2015, 12:16 PM   #7
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Far From Home
Posts: 698

I have some sympathy for British. So it seems sad things should go so bad for them. Can understand too why they worried about Suez Canal.

Still I too oppose imperialism. And here too they allied with a murderous terrorist state which murdered even many British people only few years before. So seems pretty obvious which side was more evil here.
Raskolnik is offline  
Old September 15th, 2015, 12:25 PM   #8

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 13,872
Blog Entries: 11

The Suez operation wasn't justifiable in my view; Anthony Eden lost the plot there. Rather funny the USA taking a moral stance on it, though, when one considers the far shadier enterprises it got involved in in South America etc. Can't really support another country against my own, so I'll abstain on this vote.

Last edited by Linschoten; September 15th, 2015 at 12:27 PM.
Linschoten is online now  
Old September 15th, 2015, 05:15 PM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: Queens, NYC
Posts: 1,026

F/GB/Israel.

Constantine has it mostly right; not entirely sure splitting Egypt up would have been feasible. The Egyptians might not have stood for it.
MJuingong is offline  
Old September 15th, 2015, 05:17 PM   #10

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,911
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Even Eisenhower admitted stopping Britain and France was amongst the worst decisions of his presidency; Nasser was no friend of the west, his friendliness towards the communists alone would have justified his overthrow, independent of the Suez Canal issues. But nationalization of a nation's assets by a foreign power must always and without exception be regraded as an act of war. Nasser was nothing more than a common thief, he should have been overthrown and hanged for his crimes, Egypt should have then been stripped of its sovereignty and split between Britain, France, and Israel if for no other reason than to clearly demonstrate to the rest of the world the consequences pro-communist policies like nationalizing another nation's assets.
How exactly do you envision a split of Egypt to look like, though? After all, don't Egyptians generally have a common Egyptian Arab identity?
Futurist is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Middle Eastern and African History

Tags
1956, crisis, suez, supported



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US does not intervene in the Suez Crisis? Wolfpaw Speculative History 19 May 24th, 2015 07:54 PM
Suez 1956: The Crisis that Made USA a Superpower M.S. Islam General History 47 August 17th, 2012 03:12 AM
Suez Crisis and Anthony Eden tvomx314 General History 0 April 14th, 2012 09:45 AM
The 'Middle Eastern' Reaction to Suez - 1956 Bam Bas Bat Middle Eastern and African History 4 October 24th, 2009 01:15 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.