Talk:Suez Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Egypt	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)	EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Egypt portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Israel	(Rated C-Class, High-importance)	IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
Israel portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit · history · watch · purge Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Ofer Dekel, Yarmukian Copyedit: Palestinian views of the peace process, Cinema of Israel Wikify: Agricultural Research In Israel Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Allon Plan, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv, Ovda International Airport, El Al Flight 426, 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting spree Stubs: Israel stubs Update: Carmel City NPOV: Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Six-Day War, Gaza War, 1948 Palestinian exodus Other: Translate from Hebrew: Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Israeli wine, Uri Davis, Aaron Valero, Mordechai Weingarten Add geographic coordinates: to articles in Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data Add images: Photograph of El Al's corporate headquarters at Tel Aviv Airport

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class)
	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on October 29, 2004, October 29, 2005, October 29, 2006, and October 29, 2007.

Archives
* Archive 1

	WikiProject British Empire	British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

There are serious questions to be raised as to the neutrality of this article viz a vis the British.

You're right. It does seem a tad unfavorable to the Brits.

Contents 1 Aftermath 2 Article Bias 3 Cold War Comments 4 ain't part of cold war? 5 uk in its glory -even in its fall- as ever 6 missing infos on nasser's violation of treaty of 1954! 7 lacks infos 8 videos 9 timeline notes 10 free world gentlemen invaders... 11 operation telescope 4 nov + operation musketeer 5-6 nov details 12 units from algiers & french government's goal 13 end of Anglo-French ops 14 A point of clarification 15 Disputed 15.1 Key figure completely excluded 16 What happened after..? 17 Egyptian casualties 18 Section on events leading to the crisis 19 Don't understand this: 20 End of hostilities question 21 Overcoverage of British perspective 22 Sentance makes no sence 23 Suez Crisis WP:AN 24 An important reason is clearly understated here- the reason for Israel's attack on the Gaza strip 25 Where to put reference to Kafr Qasim massacre? 26 The movie: I O U S A 27 Beligerents 28 This article is far too long 29 "End Date" for the Suez Crisis

[edit] Aftermath

After retiring from office Eisenhower came to see the Suez Crisis as perhaps his biggest foreign policy mistake. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world.

Really? I can't find a reference for this. thx1138 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that doesn't sound true to me...

I can't find that either. I'm going to remove it as there's no reference for it. If one can be found, that person can feel free to replace it with a link. Fatla00 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias

de gaulle launched france's nuclear programme against Ussr and everybody else including the us (veto) and british who abandonned the israeli and french allies in the middle of the war. france gave nuclear technology to israel according to the sèvres protocol. later aftermath: in 2002 de gaulle followers chirac and de villepin opposed the us and uk in the invasion of irak... feels like déjà vu. Shame On You 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some possible bias I see here is in this: "Three months after Egypt's nationalization of the canal company, a secret meeting took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt." Where is a source proving that Israel was enlisted rather than the one doing the enlisting? Since this seems to fall into the Israeli-Arab conflict category, it seems odd to say this without a source. This was not repeated in the Protocol of Sevres article, interestingly.--Shink X 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War Comments

Summary: Cold War Nuclear Blackmail Shaped the Suez Crisis
Action Required: someone who knows the surrounding history should boil these comments down to a short sentence, an aside.
In 1957, Britain's colonial power was not just down, ICBM atomic missile power was also up.

My father was a CIA Case Officer in Frankfurt, Germany during the Suez Crisis. I remember my childhood anxiety on a frightening day when the adults around me acted strangely. Mothers were whispering to each other about diaper changes, "days of baby food". There was a port in France, people were frantic to learn which one, there would be a trip. Copies of long-neglected mimeographed lists were found -- never drive with less than half-a-tank of gas, it said, always carry two full 5-gal cans in the trunk. It would be a long trip.

Dad took most secrets with him to his grave, but one day much later he talked to me about that day during the Suez Crisis. A contact known to the CIA had walked into the Frankfurt station. He was thought to have access to at least some members of the Politburo, or to those who knew their deliberations. But he had no official Soviet status. He was probably not a KGB agent, and yet he wasn't appealing to recruit as an agent for our side either, because he seemed put in place by the Russians, he seemed part of some game, not a clean walk-in. On that day, the man had walked into the CIA station in Frankfurt and said he carried a simple message from the highest levels of Soviet leadership: if the United States did not pressure her French and British friends to pull the Suez Expeditionary Force out of Suez immediately, Soviet nuclear-tipped Intermediate Range ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) would rain down on every major US base in Western Germany.

Dad was amused at first to see how that day looked to a child. He seemed most intent on impressing upon me the ambiguity of the situation. The threat of nuclear annihilation was both real and ambiguous by design. It would be easy and plausible for the Soviet Union to deny that it had anything to do with the wildcatting agent who pursued his crazy acts without their knowledge. Yet it was the judgment of the CIA Station in Frankfurt that the threat was real and a probe of American resolve. For this reason, all dependent families were immediately instructed to prepare for travel from German bases to the French coast for evacuation from Europe.

Is any of this known? Perhaps if no one can confirm it, it's worthless. I would like to see the story preserved because it enriches the Suez Crisis dialog and, more importantly, it is a concrete example of nuclear blackmail during the Cold War. Some would like to think the Cold Wall is a mental construct of disturbed minds (paranoia, delusions, whatever). The Cold War was a real conflict that deployed real power.

I don't know what more I can add to this, but I can be reached at jerry-va at speakeasy dot net.
Jerry-VA (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ain't part of cold war?

why not? since khrushchev threatened to attack us with nuclear bombs. Shame On You 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) This article is very biased - do not use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uk in its glory -even in its fall- as ever

operation musketeer/mousquetaire reads like the british were commanding or infiltrated among the french units. actually the british and french had two different targets and zones. i've watched a documentary telling the RAF raids missed their targets... while the french mirage IV didn't, maybe because the french were still in war since 1946 in indochina, following in algeria. the documentary told the us president put the pressure on Eden, threatening to devaluate the pound sterling, the public opinion was against war in england too. the french were already in war in algeria by that time, so it did minor change (the communists were against as ever) compared to the situation in uk. due to the us pressure, Eden had to withdraw his troops, but he didn't warned his allies france and israel! the french troops advance was blocked at some point by the british positions. this perfidious move from both the uk and us changed the look of the french on the cold war allies (see the help in indochina). hence the french atomic bomb, quit from NATO and fuck off for irak in 2002. i mean this article reads from the uk pov as ever. the documentary i've seen spoke as the French-English operation... Eden came the second day only at Sèvres, Israel and France had already have a discussion without the british. according to the documentary Eden was clearly against the invasion from the beginning even though his hatred for Nasser. the french were already in war so it was different. israel was close to france, france was close to britain, but there was a tension between britain and israel by that time. i mean maybe the british role is overrated and its sudden retreat (thanks to uncle sam) without warning underrated. it had strong backeffects however. the doc said it was because of suez that britain lose its colonial empire and submitted itself to the us until today. suez explains de gaulle's position against both the uk and us. doc said nuclear targets where everywhere on the map, it included the two of them. it was a major diplomatic crisis indeed. from the french pov it had a strong impact on the french commnding officers since the military operation was a succes but politicians wasted everything turning a military victory into a defeat. it happened before in indochina, the us felt the same in vietnam. and it happened after in algeria hence the generals upheaval (see the 1961 coup or putsch as you like). finally the french governement acted against the army in algeria toon hence the cease fire and retreat, and the OAS renegade organization. feels strange how the us don't use the experience of the french and finally experience the same failure. indochina became vietnam, and algeria is the same as irak. by 1958 the french had pacificated the revolution, but it lasted with terrorism, and finally civilian opposition and pressure see what's happenning in irak, it's all the same. it will end the same. [tv doc: L'affaire de Suez, le pacte secret - 2006 now available on emule] Shame On You 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

actually the british were commanding the operations. a french official "assisted" each british commander for each arm ground, aerial, airborne, etc. learn this in the archive news. wasn't in the doc. supreme commander was british General Keightley (he's dressed in white reviewing french paras in an archive video posted here), french comander was admiral Barjot. i guess the original invasion map was designed by israeli COS Moshe Dayan and french COS Challe, since the british delegation was of diplomats not strategists during Sèvres. so the british could had negociated execution role as a counterpart. this is only a supposition though. Shame On You 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. typical of the British get others to do the difficult and dirty work and then walk in. The Israeli operation GUARANTEED a successful military landing for the former Imperialists. Uncle Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.81.43 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unsigned, it wasn't a British plan, it was a French plan, and they wouldn't have needed Britain except that the French didn't have air bases in range of Egypt's airfields, only Britain did. Israel had their own reasons for wanting to deal with Nasser, but from the Anglo-French perspective the reason for bringing in Israel was to provide an excuse for sending in the troops - they were supposed to "stop the war" and to "protect the canal from the fighting" and the fact that Egypt wasn't going to just allow their troops in made them an "aggressor" and so justified the bombing of Egyptian air bases which Israel insisted upon. The Israel attack wasn't so Israel would do the "dirty work", but to provide a plausible excuse. Nasser had nationalised the Canal months earlier, and too many people had become used to the new situation for armed intervention to be politically plausible. Eden handled the whole affair extremely badly, with not even bothering to discuss his situation with his French and Israeli allies being just the last proof of it.

Reply to: "Actually, unsigned..." No IP, "Dirty Work" means enveloping the entire fledging Egyptian army to fight the Israelis far from the canal. This diversionary tactic practically let the former "Imperialists" walk-in. Ad-Hoc Egyptian soldiers with non-existent training were fielded against the valiant UK and French landing forces. Do not blame the French for the UK's poor decision to join in on a illegal excursion. The British knew that Nasser's control over the Suez Canal would lead to a Middle-East vexing to remove the European powers from controlling their rightful sphere of influence. The crisis played perfectly into the hands of the US, and hence the company ARAMCO was born. The old-Imperialist had gambled the whole Middle-East on the canal and lost miserably. The Dulles brothers played the game masterfully, for which the UK and France are still paying an enormous cost. --67.169.11.251 (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] missing infos on nasser's violation of treaty of 1954!

according to french news, nasser was supposed to not nationalize the canal built by the french until 1968 as agreed by a treaty involving egypt and britain too. LES ACTUALITES FRANCAISES, AF - 01/08/1956 the archive news video shows a meeting at downing street between Lloyd (foreign affairs secretary), Murphy (an american politician) and Pineau (foreign affairs minister). comment says in 1954 by signing the evacuation of the canal by the british, the regime of the canal was garantee until 1968. so what nasser did was a violation of the egyptian-british treaty of 1954. Shame On You 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lacks infos

lacks infos on

• landing training in algeria,
• Operation Amilcar and
• objectives change and hesitation between french and british about just getting back the suez canal or overthrowing Nasser hence Operation Musketeer Revised (opération mousquetaire révisée).
• also the French paras were dropped over the south of Port Said not only Port Fouad. the article only mentions the british.
• the beaches where the french landed were mined but the egyptian had left when they saw the invaders so the remote controlled claymore did not made casualties.

Shame On You 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] videos

damn i have too much archive videos now. i will move some in the operation musketer article and others in the operation amilcar.

• Occupation of Port Fouad & Port Said 14/11/1956 >> views of french at port fouad and british at port said.
• Anglo-French landing in Egypt 14/11/1956 >> views of fleet near port said, french landing in port fouad, brits in port said

is it me or it looks like a colonial expedition? :)

they thought it would be ok and nobody would notice them... LOL Shame On You 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

additionnal material (from the french ministry of defense archives), comments and scipted notes are useful for the article.

• "The Free Word & Egypt" directed 2 jan 1957, shows brits & french at port said and port fouad in november 1956, borrows from National Audiovisual Institute's rushes. + useful infos about the video's background Shame On You 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] timeline notes

the french landed in port fouad on november 6th, invasion was called "egypt expedition" (expédition d'Egypte), 2eRPC airborne unit embarked Nord-2501 on november 5, 10eDP (10ème Division Parachutiste) embarked ships from Algiers on october 22 1956. source: defense archives www.ecpad.fr, keyword "suez" Shame On You 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Suez canal was not opened in 2009. Someone needs to find the correct year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.106.105 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] free world gentlemen invaders...

it should be noted in the article isn'it? french news said egypt civilians were warned about dangerous zones to evacuate long before the dropping operations - hence some egyptian troops had run away. also before the agnlo-french retreat and the end of of the egypt expedition, the french gave food (army supply) to the civilians. pic dec.19 1956 + detailed note (report #947) Shame On You 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] operation telescope 4 nov + operation musketeer 5-6 nov details

1st: 1st wave of airborne enters in action, 2nd Anglo-british fleet (named "Task Force") delivers marine infantry through landing craft, while LVT Alligator bring LST (Landing ship tank) on the Port Fouad beach.

departure from cyprus nov.4: 2eRPC briefing/operation telescope launch full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #887

operation musketeer nov.5: port said south full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #886

2eRPC had to meet the british panzer unit at port said (brit tank models were "Centurion").

operation musketeer nov.6: port fouad full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #868

Shame On You 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] units from algiers & french government's goal

oct.22: departure of Gen. Massu's 10e DP from algiers - full report w/pics + report #663 Shame On You 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] end of Anglo-French ops

british's unilateral cease fire on 6th november, completion of anglo-french forces withdrew on december 22nd 1956. report #947 (nice introduction to the crisis' background) Shame On You 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

french withdrewal, dec.1-30 1956: pt.1+ report #946

french withdrewal dec.22 1956 full report w/pics+report #1012 Shame On You 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A point of clarification

I feel the following point needs clarification, for me at least. The British stake in the canal was purchased from the Egyptians as the article says, but it says nothing of the British stake in the canal after nationalisation. What I am trying to understand is, were the British out of pocket (without the canal as an asset or money as payment) after the nationalisation or were they reimbursed financially? Did the nationalisation then amount to stealing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.19.9 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

actually the suez canal which is a french work -the british were against from it's very beginning!- due to sir Ferdinand de Lesseps (see the great German documentary "Durchbruch Bei Suez"!), was exploited not only by the brits but also by the french leaving only 3% to the egyptian. recently i've watched a bbc documentary ("The Other Side Of Suez") about the suez crisis, the british focused on, sir Eden and just forgot to speak a word about the french... an excellent doc is "Affaire de Suez, le pacte secret". all of which were broadcasted on TV and are now available on emule. Shame On You 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This I never imagined there was this much intricacy to the economics behind the Suez Canal. But I cannot help but wonder if this really belongs in the Suez Crisis article, or in the Suez Canal article... Screen stalker 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

[edit] Key figure completely excluded

How come that one of the key figures, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, is not mentioned one single time in the article? - Historian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.125.46 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

In this UN text [1] the Secretary-General is mentioned over 100 times!

This article: "The United Nations Peacekeeping Force was Lester Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept "peacekeeping"."

Contradiction in UNEF: "in large measure as a result of efforts by secretary general Dag Hammarskjöld and a proposal from Canadian minister of external affairs Lester Pearson."

United Nations [2]: "This historic development was made possible mainly through the vision, resourcefulness and determination of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Mr. Lester Pearson, who was at the time Secretary for External Affairs of Canada."

This article is not accurate.

- Historian 213.132.125.46 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Historian, as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to add information about him to the article. The more comprehensive the article is, the better. Only be sure that the information is accurate and well-sourced (which, based off of what I've seen that you have posted so far, doesn't seem like it will be a problem for you).

Oh, and don't forgot to log on. Screen stalker 22:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since (a) this is not truly an objection to the factual accuracy of the article, but rather to how comprehensive it is, and (b) there has been no comment on this subject in a week, I am going to go ahead and remove the contention tag. If there are strong objections, please feel free to reinstate it and discuss them. Screen stalker 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The portion of the article stating the British Helo-born assault was the worlds first is incorrect. The U.S. Marines conducted a helo-borne assault in the Korean war. Using H34 Helicopters to move an infantry battalion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.51.173 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened after..?

I'm rather curious how Egypt used the canal after the war. It says they opened it up in 1957, but to whom? Did they keep the embargo on Israel, how about the rest of Europe?

[edit] Egyptian casualties

650 KIAs are casualties only in fighting with British/French troops. This figure comes from The Suez Crisis of 1956 article, which deals only with British operations. On Sinai front Egyptians had about 1000 additional KIAs (can't provide link right now). 195.248.189.182 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on events leading to the crisis

I have placed a POV template on this section.

Some of the problems:

• States that the "closing of the canal" was one of the events that "contributed most" to the crisis, and then devotes considerable space to discussing this issue. But that interpretation is not at all supported by the literature I have read on the subject.

• Fails to mention Nasser was legally entitled to nationalize the canal and that he agreed to fully compensate shareholders.

• The next section deals with "Arab economic and military pressure on Israel" which in fact had little effect on the Israeli economy. Indeed this alleged major reason for the crisis doesn't even warrant a mention in most accounts. Yet here it gets a substantial section to itself which has been promoted to near the top of the list of reasons for the war.-eygipt's mass of forces ont he borber caused the israeli's (wether by correct line of thought or not) to draft a large amount of the male population of israel, thus causing the "economic and military pressure on israel". so yes, there was a large amount of pressure, and there had been an estimate, that continued holding of the drafted soldeirs would cause the israeli economey to colapse within a month or two.

• Mentions the attacks by the Egyptian fedayeen but fails to mention the punitive operations carried out by Israel in the same time frame.

• "Egyptian arms deal" section fails to mention that following Nasser's arms deal with the USSR, Israel concluded a similar arms deal with France, thus restoring the balance of power.

• The main reason for the attack on Egypt - fear of Nasser's growing power and influence - gets no more than a couple of lines in the middle of the section. Redundant due to recent additions, see update below.

• "Anglo-Franco-American diplomacy" section implies that Nasser refused to compromise, and that negotiations were over. IIRC neither statement is correct.

• "Protocol of Sevres" section says Britain and France "enlisted Israel's support" for the war, implying the war was primarily their brainchild. But Israel was a prime agitator for the war. Ben Gurion wanted an even bigger war, against all the surrounding Arab states. So the account given here is misleading to say the least. Gatoclass 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update: A lot of new information concerning Anglo-Egyptian relations has been added in recent days. The information is presented almost entirely from a British point of view, and I believe the amount of detail on this single aspect of the conflict violates WP:UNDUE. So the article still needs a lot of work to conform with NPOV. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed two sections as not sourced and/or not notable on subject : A New Type of Warfare and Arab economic and military pressure on Israel.[3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't understand this:

"...Egyptian liberty to close the canal implied Israel's right to traverse the Suez Canal..." surely the word should be contravened?

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of hostilities question

"The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view"

As I understand it, british troops didn't make it further then about 20 miles down the length of the canal (see, e.g., http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/20_21_century/3037501.html?page=3&c=y, and others - some sources seem to say no more then 10 miles). I don't see how that can be called "highly successful" in any way. Israel's operation in the Sinai to destroy the Egyption army there might be called successful, but that's about it.

Is there something I'm missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.212.74 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The British and French military operations were a total success, they overcame all opposition quickly. They had to stop 20 miles in due to the political situation. There is no doubt, militarily or academically, that the French and British would have reached all their objectives with minimum loss of life and minimum delay, had they had 'free reign'. However, the political issues brought it to a halt.

It should also be remembered that the French and British plan was not to take over Egypt, or even occupy the entire canal from end to end. Their intention was to seize major locations and points of significance along the canal, to deprive the Egyptians of overall control. Quite clearly, they couldn't land a force of 50,000 or 100,000 men in a few days - in fact they would never have possessed the resources to do this at all. It was not really like the Iraq War of 2003-, which aimed to 'liberate'(!) and command the entire country.

Lastly, it should be remembered that the British and French armed forces were working under difficult conditions (from their point of view). They were not allowed to bomb built-up areas or shell civilian concentrations from the sea. This hampered the attack operation.

The British/French attacks were successful from military point of view, because they met their objectives, until they were called off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overcoverage of British perspective

This conflict is presented far too much from the British - and to a lesser extent Western - POV, especially in the "Events precipitating the crisis" section. I have therefore added a tag to that effect. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A Success is an over statement to imply. After all it was the British and French political bodies that declared the operation a complete and utter failure. The Main goal was to occupy the entire canal, to insure Anglo-French control. British Prime Minister Eden's hate for Nasser was also a reason that the objective of Nasser's removal was an objective. As for the statement that the British armada did not shell the shores of Port Said is false. They were forbidden to use their 9 inch main batteries to bombard the beach and surrounding areas, however, The British naval commander refused to let his marines land without fire support and this led to him ordering the use of all smaller sized munitions that caused a huge amount of damage as well as lives. The ease to which the Anglo-French forces had was due in most part to the earlier attack and destruction caused by the Israeli's preemptive strike and the following Anglo-French-Israeli bombing campaigns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.71.31 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentance makes no sence

On 3 20 November F4U-7 Corsairs from the 14.F and 15.F Aéronavale taking off from the French carriers Arromanches and La Fayette, attacked the Cairo aerodrome. Nasser responded by sinking all 40 ships present in the canal, closing it to further shipping until early 1957.

I think that is suppose to be "On 3 November 20 F4U-7...." but i have no expertise in this area what so ever so i am refraining from changing anything.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The best I can find is this, which says "On November 3rd, heighteen [sic] aircraft". It makes no mention of Nasser responding by sinking shipping. I'm inclined to just remove the "20" bit, since it isn't essential to the narrative in any case. Franamax (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suez Crisis WP:AN

Another troublesome article on my watch list, Suez Crisis, [4], previously I had an issue with LOTRrules editing the infobox to claim an Egyptian military victory against consensus and previous discussions. LOTRrules sparked an edit war with multiple edits till I issued a WP:3RR warning. This evening i noted he'd introduced the same changes and reverted again within minutes of my changes. I would also welcome admin oversight and comment on this issue. Justin talk 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not "sparked an edit war". An IP had added "military victory of the colition forces" which is to an extent true but is not metioned. By adding "military victory of..." it is not only in violation of POV but Original Research. in But I have edited the article and added citations from reliable sources to proove that is was won by Egypt.

Furthermore, I am not in inviolation of WP:3RR. I had taken your advice. In case nobady had noticed the article is on real world perspective, not only on what other editors think on the article. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources that Justin didn't bother to read and reverted within mere minutes after I had added them.

1. Here it states the Egyptians, although battered and bruised, had won the war with the retreat of the coalition forces
2. Again reinforces the above idea
3. Further supports claims made

Also what other discussions? Kindly point them out to me as there are innumerable material from sources which support the idea that Egypt won a political victory. There were no citations added or the mere mention of the coalitions "military victory" in the article itself. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those source support the contention of a military victory, the Eqyptian forces were routed as specified in [1.] above. The infobox used to specify the difference between the military victory by the allies and the diplomatic victory by Egypt. That was the long standing consensus agreed, rather the POV edit you have inserted. And noting your talk page you have a recurrent history of such edits. Justin talk 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still you have not answered my questions and have attacked me. Nevertheless I forgive. (We are talking about the article in hand not my past history -- they are different than this). Kindly answer them. My "history" is not plagued with such edits. These things happen. I challenge. I Correct. that is what wikipedia is about.

In no where in the above sources is it cited that the coalition forces are "military victors". If they are I would kindly put it in if you find a valid source with my sources. But since you haven't, and many say it is a political victory for Egypt the citations are viable and appropriate for an article such as this. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also we are talking about the overall result of the war. Egypts was political, end of story. You wouldn't say that the Americans won a military victory in the Vietnam war even though their casualties were lower than the others side. But they still lost the war - ie the overall result of the war was that they lost. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying it was a military victory would be basing an opinion on an article. Egypts pyrric victory which is cited as a political victory is true. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Right Justin, kindly stop edit warring. You have raised the issue and without consultation or by answering my questions and through lack of sources you cite you are in direct violation of WP:OR. This is the second time I've reverted your edits. Kindly respond and refrain from edit warring until the issue has been resolved. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Having had a look over the sources, they don't /quite/ say what you want them to (One of the sources seem to indicate a victory for both sides, one military, one diplomatically). From the same sources you could easily seperate to a military victory for the coalition but political victory for Nassar. I'm going to blank the info out totally until some kind of agreement can be found, I figure it is best to skip it than have you guys edit warring overit. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To LOTRules.

You're changing the long term consensus text from the infobox for POV reasons. The correct means of changing the consensus would be to take the change to the talk page, discuss it and achieve a new consensus. But you don't seem to want to do that, you simply revert straight back to your version. I have already responded to you pointing out that the sources you're quoting doesn't support the edit that you're proposing. You have chosen not to respond to that. I also took it to WP:AN requesting comments on my action, no one has seen anything wrong with it so I've reverted. I also removed two templates that had been added, to which there had been no action and the originator had not pursued for months, I noted that one of them had been satisfied anyway. You've simply blindly added those back without any thought in a kneejerk reaction.

What I have reverted is not WP:OR, its not even my edit, it was the previous consensus. See WP:CON for more details. Furthermore, I have not edit-warred. I've reverted twice and have no intention of editing any further, on the other hand you have already reverted 3 times today so are skating close to WP:3RR. It is 3 reverts, as you're reverting text that you attempted to introduce some days ago without success, remember the time when I issued a WP:3RR warning. And 3 reverts is not a given, edit-warring is simply reverting repeatedly against consensus and an admin could choose to block you on much less than that. Especially noting the history of a few days ago.

You claim that I haven't explained why to you, well that does show a certain lack of good faith as I have done so in talk, on WP:AN, on your own talk page and in my edit summaries. Your questions have been answered, I have not attacked you, I merely indicated on WP:AN that your talk page indicates a history of POV edits, which it clearly does.

I also offered a compromise to you, suggesting you added Egyptian politicial victory to the infobox, which was there previously. You've chosen not to do that, simply reverting to your version. Continue as you are if you like, I expect that someone else will be along presently note that you have changed the consensus, note the contents of the talk page and revert. You can then choose to revert again, earn a 3RR block, or force the article into being protected from editing. None of which is a particularly productive behaviour. Or you can choose to self-revert, discuss the matter with your fellow editors and move toward some compromise. Your choice. Justin talk 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've a look at your "sources" LOTR, you've exaggerated them quite a bit. I'd also say that two plain books and a bit off the "University of Singapore" website, aren't the best sources just the author's opinion. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now I'm satisfied about the compromise made. 4314, I have not "exaggerated" the sources. The two historians and the University of Singapore are reliable sources. I've tried to reach a compromise with Justin but again he reverted my edits without saying anything much about it.

Justin. For the last time. Please direct me to the consensus reached. Stop bantering and show me so I can read it. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 12:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you reverted whilst I was working on the compromise suggested. The point you are missing, is that the sources quoted DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR EDIT (emphasis added for clarity. Justin talk 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound so forward -- but you are lying. You did not work on a compromise. You ignored me. Sources do suppport my argument as one editor has previously said. (Also try not to shout at me -- its rude, see WP:UNCIVIL use italics next time.). Citations don't support yours and I don't see you discussing any you've found which support your biased claims. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 15:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you remove that remark and apologise, see [5] when I pointed out the long standing consensus. Justin talk 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - though I would also suggest that if you both agree in principle about describing military and diplomatic victories separately, discussing how you reached that agreement is pretty irrelevant as these things go.

In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have removed the peacock term "major" from "major victory". Infoboxes are blunt instruments and I think it best to go into detail in the article (as we do). Pfainuk talk 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I refuse to apologise as you wrongly accused me of violating WP:3RR when I was editing the article. You come across that way. We are getting off topic. If you want to discuss the apology you want me to give go to my talkpage. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(Where is that long consensus link you point out? If it is in WP:AN that's a weak argument. Show me the link for the Suez crisis archives. User:Narson had finished and resolved the issue -- he offered the solution, not you. According to the link you only made the consensus -- there was no "we" and "long standing consensus") サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An important reason is clearly understated here- the reason for Israel's attack on the Gaza strip

From 1948 and more and more frequently, groups of Fedayeen, suicide bombers, that have been attacking Israeli targets, were based in the Gaza strip, where the Arab National Movement had a lot of support among the populace. In order to stop the attacks, Moshe Dayan ordered a takeover of the Gaza strip. The invasion succeeded, and Gaza strip has fallen under Israeli control, and attacks indeed ceased. Ironically, in the peace treaty between Sadat and Begin, Sadat refused to recieve back the strip, despite Begin's requests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put reference to Kafr Qasim massacre?

There is a sentence briefly describing, and linking to, the Kafr Qasim massacre. The sentence is relevant to the article as a whole, but not the section it's in: Anglo-French Task Force, in a paragraph describing prewar preparations. As to where to put it, I'm torn between the earlier section describing the Israeli Operation Kadesh (given that it's a technical description of military operations, it doesn't quite fit) and Aftermath (putting in a sentence or two on the effects on Israeli politics). Any suggestions? Vonschlesien (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The movie: I O U S A

I don' see any mention of "Some historians consider this the exact moment that the British Empire ceased to exist." in this article.

As per the movie: I O U S A [A 30 minute highlight which can be seen here at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQTdZNXLecM (This section can be found at 20:25)].

America's top 5 trade deficits (2007)

Number 1 China, at 262 billion.

What does financial Warfare look like?

In the fall of 1956, the world was on the brink of a major international conflict. America's allies, Britian and France, were engaged in a battle against Egypt, over control over the Suez Canal. The Soviet Union was threatening to intervene on the side of Egypt. America wanted to avoid military action at any cost, and demanded that the British and French allies withdraw from the region. When their request was denied, the US turned to financial warfare. America, which at that time, owned much of England's debt, threatened to sell off or dump a signifigant part of its holdings in the British Pound.

Eisenhower: "So, as far as going into any kind of military action under present conditions, of course, we are not.

This would have effectively destroyed England's currency. The result, all British and French military forces withdrew from the Suez Canal within weeks. Some historians consider this the exact moment that the British Empire ceased to exist.

Ikip (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Soem sources other then thismight be nice, who are thes historians.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)]]

[edit] Beligerents

I think there should be a third column for the UN force that was situated on the suez. Seeing how they were a crucial element to this entire event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.32.195 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This article is far too long

This article is far too long and not concise enough for an encyclopedia. The article has 14 pages including 8 pages of introductory and background material before we even reach the section about the actual crisis.

An example from the article:

For example, on 31 October 1952, a cargo of meat was confiscated; on 2 September 1953, 500 tons of asphalt and a number of Israel-assembled cars were detained; on 4 November 1953, two boats destined for Italy were removed; on 28 September 1954 a shipment of 93 tons of meat, 42 tons of plywood and 30 tons of hides was confiscated, and the crew thrown in jail. On 8 July 1955, a Dutch ship was detained en route to Haifa. Part of its cargo was confiscated. On 25 May 1956, a Greek ship en route to Eilat was detained in the Suez Canal with a cargo of 520 tons of cement. The crew was not allowed ashore for three months despite a severe shortage of water and the spread of illness.

It's not necessary to list the details of the cargoes of those ships.

The above paragraph lists details of things which are not even part of the crisis, which is what this article is about.

I will delete excessively detailed or superfluous material. Twerges (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "End Date" for the Suez Crisis

There was some batting back and forth on the end date. Short-duration edit war between the two dates 'November 5, 1956' and 'March 1957'. Some discussion here might be appropriate. It is clear from the content of the article, that the "Suez Crisis" article speaks to the military conflict of November 1956. Background, Events Leading To, and on to the Invasion force, End of Hostilities, then Aftermath. A general survey of "Suez Crisis" in literature will, likewise, focus on the period of military conflict; the events leading up to the conflict are stage-setters, and the conflict is consistently noted as "ending" effective with the ceasefire of November 6. It is, of course, true that the Israeli forces remained in the Sinai until March 1957, but that can be well addressed in "aftermath". - Thaimoss (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There was one edit and a revert then your own step in. Not an edit war in the least. Now, lets be very clear, the Suez Crisis covers more than just a military crisis. It was a diplomatic event and (this bit is important) not a declared war with convenient beginning and end point. It is not understood entirely as a military event, but also along the lines of the diplomacy and impact of the crisis upon the middle east and on imperialism. It is also worth mentioning that there are various end dates (and we have appeared to pick the most incorrect one. The UN resolution was the day before, the British cease fire the day after. Some historians date the crisis through into various points of 1957 depending on their view point. For many uninvolved nations it ends on Nov 4th, due to UN. For the British it is often continued through into January 1957 to the resignation of Eden. For the Israelis through to March. I firmly believe we should be using the most inclusive dates, so earliest start date and latest end date within reason.

That being said, I'd suggest that if we want to have in the info box the end date of hostilities we have two end dates. Both of the active hostilities and the withdrawal of invading forces (Back to the status quo ante bellum). --Narson ~ Talk • 13:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Narson, I agree completely with your thread on the history, and the various "end dates" (and with everything else you've mentioned here). Good suggestion for a way to focus on the 'meat' of the crisis, while being most inclusive. I'd suggest some tweaking of the sections, as well. "Aftermath" no longer would have the "aftermath of the suez crisis" meaning, but would instead be "aftermath of the military action". - Thaimoss (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Narson, layout of dates okay? - Thaimoss (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Yes. The article in general still needs some work, I might have to make some time over christmas to expand on the aftermath. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)