Talk:Suez Crisis

1. Why did the Americans object to Suez?

   The same US administration had already supported colonialism in Korea and Iran. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

   The US fought a war to expel the colonial power (Japan) from Korea. US worked hard to make sure the Soviets left Iran in 1946. American policy encouraged decolonization in the British and French empires, and strongly opposed any use of military force to reimpose control by the former colonial powers. The Americans sympathize with the independence movement, which echoed its own independence movement in 1776. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

   So why did they fight a colonialist war in Korea until 1953, and reinstate British colonialism in Iran? Also the Truman administration allowed the French to re-enter Vietnam after World War II. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

   tenditious lefty boilerplate. As if repelling agression by North Korea was 'colonialism'. But this is not the place to discuss that; see guidelines above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.54.29 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

   That's an interesting point. Why did Eisenhower support British colonialism in Iran in 1953, yet oppose colonialism in Egypt in 1956? (HeddieLemarr (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

   Britain never had a colony in Iran. The issue was restoration to power of the Shah, who was much friendlier to both the US and the UK than was the incumbent. In those days, countries look after their own current interests. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

   So why did the US support British colonialism/imperialism in Iran, yet side with the Soviets over the Suez Canal? From what you're saying it seems the Americans would have supported Operation Musketeer had they received most of their oil via the canal. (HeddieLemarr (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

   Can anyone explain why the Americans supported British imperialism in 1953, but not in 1956? (Tgirsds (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

   This isn't the forum to discuss that question. This is a forum for working on positive changes to the article. Do you have changes you'd like to suggest to the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   Agree, but for the title question: what did US think & do? There is not a section title that mentions US. (in general, the sections overall are unbalanced imo). I can imagine a section under "7 End of hostilities", "U.S. reaction" or so. There the question could be answered. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   To control the Canal

   -@Thucydides411: You removed the "British and French" from the sentence :"The British and French aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian president". Your reason:"The source says that this was the aim of Britain, France and Israel". Since Britain and France formal ultimatum to both Egypt and Israel was to retreat from the canal and keeping a distance of 10 km (?), how come that Israel reason was to control the Canal? Ykantor (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   The formal ultimatum came from the British and the French, but as both the article, and the book you linked explain, the ultimatum was planned beforehand by the British, the French and the Israelis in concert. The book explains that when formulating the plan to invade Egypt, Britain, France and Israel planned the following: a return of the Suez canal to Western control, Israeli annexation of at least part of the Sinai peninsula, and the overthrow of Nasser. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   Israel joined Britain and France but Israel aims were different: "Reaching the Suez Canal did not figure at all in Israel’s war objectives. ". I have looked at few books and all of them do not mention the Canal or toppling Nasser as a part of Israel's aim. Moreover, They claim that Ben Gurion planned a war against Egypt sometime before the french initiative. i.e He planned a war and waited for the right timing. Hence it make sense that his aims were different from the Anglo-French aims. Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   Each power brought somewhat different goals to the table - the British and French were most interested in taking over the canal, the Israelis in capturing the Sinai peninsula, and all three in removing Nasser from power. But the invasion was planned by all three powers in coordination with one another, and as a coalition, they had a set of goals., but while planning the invasion of Egypt all three powers, in concert, developed a set of aims. The Israeli, French and British government formulated a plan in order to achieve a certain set of aims, including restoring Western control over the canal. That wasn't the aim that Israel brought to the table, but in negotiating with France and Britain, Israel agreed to fight in order to achieve those aims. The source referenced right now in the lede, "The Eisenhower Years," by Michael S. Mayer, doesn't really address the Tripartite Aggression in much detail at all, but the relevant passage is this:

   In late October, however, the British and French, without informing the United States, entered an agreement with Israel (which had been plagued by cross-border raids by Egyptian commandos and alarmed by an alliance between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) to take military action to restore the canal to British and French control and to remove Nasser from power.

   The source that's being cited here doesn't say that it was only the British and French objective to retake the canal. It was the objective of the alliance.

   If you really want to make the distinction (which I'm not sure is necessary in the lede), you can say that the three powers, Britain, France and Israel, conspired to engineer a war that would achieve a set of objectives, some of which were shared (e.g., removing Nasser from power), and some of which benefited different parties more (e.g., Israel annexing the Sinai peninsula, or Britain and France regaining control over the Suez canal). -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

   There are other examples of allies with some different aims. During WW2 , although the Soviets were allies of Britain and the U.S. they have not fought against Japan (except for the last few days). After Perl Harbor attack, the U.S declared a war against Japan but not against Germany. A few days later Hitler made one of his greatest mistakes and declared war against the U.S. Some historians speculate that otherwise, the Americans would not have joined the war against Germany. As you say, the bottom line is that each country has different interests and when they form a coalition, some of those interests are agreed upon but not necessarily all of them. As I recall (I am not sure) , Israel aims have not included ending of Nasser regime too. Israel would have been very happy if that would happen, but it was not realistic goal for such a tiny country. Ykantor (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

   It's fine to discuss how the goals of Britain, France and Israel differed, but that discussion has to be well sourced, and might be better suited to a sub-section (where there already is such a discussion) than the lede. One thing to recognize about this issue, however, is that it is somewhat different from other alliances, in that the three allies - France, Britain and Israel - drew up what was basically a contract beforehand, describing how they would provoke the war and what goals they hoped to achieve. When you say that it was unrealistic for Israel to believe that it would overthrow Nasser, it's important to realize that Israel didn't intend to fight alone. They had an agreement with two major European powers that they would enter the war within days of Israel's invasion of Egypt. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   At this point, I find the buildup by Thucydides411 eloquently convincing. I note that Ykantor in their third contribution says "Hitler made one of his greatest mistakes" which is judgemental (opinion/OR). Also the argument "some of those interests are agreed upon [between the three parties]" sounds a bit off, as interests do not require agreement and even may be kept secret for allies. The targets are not isolated by party indeed. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   -Thucydides411. Yours:"that discussion has to be well sourced". here are some sources:

   - "The aims were to be threefold: to remove the threat, wholly or partially, of the Egyptian rmy in the Sinai, to destroy the framework of the fedaiyyun, and to secure the freedom of navigation through the straits of Tiran."

   -"the removal of the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba. The blockade closed Israel’s sea lane to East Africa and the Far East, hindering the development of Israel’s southern port of Eilat and its hinterland, the Nege. Another important objective of the Israeli war plan was the elimination of the terrorist bases in the Gaza Strip, from which daily fedayeen incursions into Israel made life unbearable for its southern population. And last but not least, the concentration of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula, armed with the newly acquired weapons from the Soviet bloc, prepared for an attack on Israel. Here, Ben-Gurion believed, was a time bomb that had to be defused before it was too late. Reaching the Suez Canal did not figure at all in Israel’s war objectives."

   - "The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt

   -"Israel's aims were to capture the Sinai peninsula in order to open the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and to seize the Gaza strip to end fedayeen attacks."

   - Will you Thucydides411,DePiep , accept if I add the Israeli aims according to these sources?

   
   

   -"The (1956) war was waged by Israel, the French and the British. As stated before, Israel wanted to pre-emp the potential threat of the arms purchase, The French wanted to retaliate for Nasser's support to the Algerian Liberation movement and the British wanted to prevent Nasser from Nationalizing the Suez Canal." El-Hasan2010p154 Ykantor (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

   Notes

   References

   Coalition military victory

   A bold claim is an opinion, there are a number of sources which state that the campaign was an overwhelming military victory, why the need for this not to be included? Shire Lord 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

   Lord Eastfarthing, it would be useful if you would sign your contributions to this page with your username. It would also be appreciated if you would refrain from labeling good-faith edits as "vandalism" - those sorts of spurious accusations have no place here. I do indeed think that labeling the 1956 war a "Coalition military victory" is a bold claim, especially in light of the fact that two of the members of the coalition, France and Britain, failed to achieve their basic military objectives. What there is support for is something like the phrase, "IDF military victory in Sinai campaign". This would be supported, for example, by Avi Shlaim's well-respected history, "Iron Wall" (p. 183 in the First Edition). But if you want to claim a coalition military victory, which implies a British and French victory as well, that appears to me to be a stretch, and you should cite directly from the relevant works here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Looks like I had a problem with sig but now sorted thank you for showing me this. Shire Lord (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

   Cited sources being removed for ones own opinion is vandalism especially when there is no consensus on this talk page in the first place. If there is a consensus for your edit then I will happily leave it there; shall we perhaps see if others agree with this.? After all Operation Musketeer the military engagement of the Suez Crisis achieved most if not all of its objectives militarily despite the eventual political crisis. Here are just a few of the many quotes - "The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives" by Dona J. Stewart, page 133 - Though a military victory for the British and French, it developed into a political crisis.. "Nasser" by Anne Alexander .. but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory. "The A to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence" - Page 237 by Ephraim Kahana, ‎Muhammad Suwaed It might be concluded that Operation Musketeer was a military success that ended in a political failure. "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern" Page 11 by Michael Oren Operation Musketeer, the invasion's codename, was a consummate military success.
   

   Additions:Owen L. Sirrs - Nasser and the Missile Age in the Middle East (2007) - although his military had suffered reverses on the battlefield Nasser made much of is victory over France, Britain and Israel p 18-19.
   Eugene Rogan - The Arabs: A History (2012) - For Egypt the Suez Crisis was a military defeat turned into a political victory p 303-04. Shire Lord (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, you persist in your insulting accusations of vandalism. It's your choice to be disagreeable, and I'll see past it. On the substantive matter, you have to be more careful with your sources. For example, you cite the following half-sentence from Anne Alexander's "Nasser":

   "[...] but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory."

   But if you actually read Anne Alexander's chapter on the attack on Egypt, she writes about an Israeli military victory in the Sinai peninsula, but does not describe the British and French campaign in that manner. Here's the relevant passage:

   "However, neither the Israelis, who had scored a decisive victory in the desert largely because they were mobile and had the advantage of surprise, nor the British and French, were prepared to fight their way house by house through Cairo." (p. 93)

   It makes sense why Anne Alexander calls the Israeli desert campaign a victory, but doesn't use this language to describe the French-British campaign along the canal. Britain and France faced a stubborn, slow fight against citizen militias, and were forced to withdraw under international pressure before they could complete their objective of capturing the canal. What I'm trying to point out to you here is firstly, that you should read your sources more carefully, rather than searching for the first instance of the word "victory" or "success," and secondly, that the reality of the situation doesn't comport with the description "coalition victory." The info box should describe what happened more directly: "Israeli military victory in Sinai campaign; French-British military advance along the canal; withdrawal from Egyptian territory under international pressure." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   Lord Eastfarthing|Shire Lord "Cited sources being removed for ones own opinion is vandalism" - no it is not WP:VANDALISM. No need to use that word. Note that by re-stating it, you introduce and maintain a battle-attitude here. That is not the best way to reach consensus. -DePiep (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   No consensus had been made at all which is why it is being discussed here on the talk page. I am not trying to insult anyone here; by wiping out a cited source then that creates a battle attitude in the first place; after all it had been in place here for some time. As for Anne Alexander, Thucydides411 you need to read the passage more carefully; that sentence I described & I repeat the quote again with the whole sentence : and it was the old powers (meaning Britain & France) who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory. Also why focus on one source that I provided? When it clearly says military victory but suffering political humiliation, which is exactly what the infobox describes. I will be prepared to make a change in the info box to balance matters if this helps - perhaps "Coalition military success"? Shire Lord (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

   Lord Eastfarthing, I'm trying to point out to you the importance of reading your sources carefully, and not cherry-picking half-sentences that seem to validate your point, while ignoring everything else the author has to say. Anne Alexander writes an entire chapter on the invasion, and clearly describes only the Israeli part of the operation as militarily successful, while not describing the British/French component of the invasion as militarily successful. I think the description that accurately describes the events, based on Anne Alexander's chapter on the invasion, is "Israeli military victory in Sinai campaign; French-British military advance along the canal; withdrawal from Egyptian territory under international pressure." That's the wording I propose. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   You haven't quoted anything, as either a note or citation from what you have described, instead reading a whole chapter and then reasserting your opinion on it. Here is one from the same book - and it was the old powers (meaning Britain & France) who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory, Anne Alexander. It is sufficient for a citation/note in the infobox. Plus the others I quoted as above. The whole point of the infobox is short wording but you propose wording that fits more in the article itself. It needs to be short and sharp. "Israeli military victory in Sinai; Anglo French military success". The word Victory, I have taken out; how about that? Shire Lord (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   Lord Eastfarthing quoted 2 sources (Kahana& Suwaed, Oren) who support his claim. If there is no support for the opposite view, it seems that it is better to accept his proposal. Ykantor (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   Lord Eastfarthing maintained a battle attitude in this discussion without self-reflection. Thucydides411 described the context, and applied a commendable load of patience in answering in the battlefield noise. What you state is not the conclusion here. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   Battle attitude? I am trying to make a compromise with the infobox result with the cited sources as above, unless a consensus is made. Shire Lord (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

   I appreciate Thucydides411's well written context, but eventually we have to converge to wp:rs consequences. There are 2 undisputed wp:rs (Kahana& Suwaed, Oren) who support "military victory" and no support (yet?) to the other view. Hence currently the ruling view is for "military victory", unless you, Thucydides411 and DePiep come with other sources. Ykantor (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

   Anne Alexander's chapter on the conflict supports the summary I proposed above, not an unambiguous "Coalition military victory." I dealt with Anne Alexander's work in particular, as an example of how we should be reading sources carefully, rather than pulling out individual half-sentences we think support one point or another. I haven't read the other sources yet, because of the time involved in tracking them down and reading them carefully. I would like to point out, however, that Michael Oren should not be considered a neutral source, being just as much a politician as a historian. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

   I'd also add that another source, "Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim (which is widely considered one of the go-to overviews of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict), describes the Suez War very much as Anne Alexander does, speaking of an Israeli military victory in the Sinai campaign, but not describing the British/French component of the invasion as a victory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

   It is all very well adding sources but again neither a potential footnote nor inline citation has been provided. Currently and as before the infobox is correct as per WP:RS, WP:CS and WP:IC. You cannot cite an entire chapter and then use an opinion on what it says; that is not how wikipedia works. If not a consensus must be made to change that and this talk page is getting nowhere on that issue, so I propose leaving the infobox as it is with the addition of the above citations and more if needed or Coalition military success or Egyptian military defeat. Shire Lord (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

   You're advocating disregarding what the source actually says, because you can interpret a single half-sentence ripped out of context as supporting your point. That's not how Wikipedia works. The infobox incorrectly summarizes the sources. That's what matters. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

   I am not disregarding what the source says - I have yet to see any quotes that put that particular chapter to support your view, that is all I am asking. You cannot use whole paragraphs/chapters as footnotes/citations. Alexander twice mentions the fact the coalition had won a military victory regarding the crisis:
   And it was the old powers who overreached themselves inviting Israel to join the attack on attack Egypt but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory p 96.
   The world had changed since 1956, when he had pulled a political victory out of a military defeat before the astonished eyes of Britain, France and Israel p 139. Shire Lord (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   There are 2 wp:rs supporting the "military victory" even if Alexander book is not counted. There is no support for the negating view. I propose to add the "Military victory" to the article. If and when a contradictory source will be revealed, then the article may updated again. Thucydides411, Lord Eastfarthing, DePiep, will you accept this proposal? Ykantor (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed and would even consider to change result to Military success as a compromise. Shire Lord (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   I have reread this whole thread. It appears to me that the first two posts a already give a good roundup of the thread's main line. What follows is details. My responses:

   In general: after reading the lede (without thinking of this thread), it is hard to conclude "mil vict". Nasser sat in the chair before-during-after along, and the "canal control" aim was reduced to: cities, and a disfunctional (blocked) pond. That was the factual situation, and to argue from there that there was a victory would require a rewrite of the lede (of course, article's sections can not contradict the lede). Again without considering this thread, the article's image File:1956 Suez war - conquest of Sinai (lol, titled: "Anglo-French invasion, Sinai campaign") shows no control of the canal area at November 5. I could conclude that the Israeli part of the campaign was successful.

   In general, the sections of the Israeli actions are way too long. Unbalanced in size and importance compared to the French, English and U.S. sections.

   Shire Lord here mentions "a number of sources" that would support an overall mil vict. Well, the article today has 359 footnote sources, and dozens of references (works). Then, this discussion only uses three sources. Out of 359 references, only three sources draw a conclusion of mil vict? That's poor. Then, from the start Shire Lord leans on Michael Oren as a source. His work is about the 1967 war, not 1956 (that page 11, was that a introducion chapter of in the main body of the 1967 work?). Anyway, Oren is not that serious a historian. For his Israel Whitewash re the Liberty attacks, Oren was rewarded ambassadorship. I mean to say: why call that a RS? Any historian scrutinized him? And why base a main conclusion about 1956 on a 1967 book?

   This thread has show that the RS's (Oren is out anyway) both by number and by quality of argumentation do not convince. Are we really going to conclude on one source quoting incomplete lines that the war was a success? No.

   As I said, (and as Thucydides41 more eloquently did), it looks like Israel achieved its military objectives (even reaching the 10-mile line). That may be stated military achievement, but in the tripartite it is a tactical not strategic goal. The article state describe this as a main outcome — also in the infobox.

   I conclude thet the notion of "military victory for the coalition" must be removed from the infobox. By the way, is it common to detail "political result" in milhist infobox? Looks like a distraction to me, off-topic. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   And let's not forget: it makes bad reading (eh, the article is unreadible). Then to make it top-heavy from limited sourced, ouch. The lede is quite good though. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

   Yet again user opinions (wp:fpo), no wp:rs, yet again no wp:cs and wp:ic to speak of. DePiep could we leave out the acronym LOL and leave that to the forums etc? I will though use it only once, as a retort. Also as a wp:npov you will note that I do not think that the war was a success. On the contrary the war, was a crisis and, despite a military success/victory for coalition (or military defeat for Egypt), it was a political defeat for coalition (or political victory for Egypt). You will find that there are a lot more than three sources I have quoted from, and yes there are a dozen references with 359 footnotes belonging to said sources. Here is near on a dozen potential inline citations with references that backs up what the infobox says and will even leave out Oren for now since you do not approve of him -
   "The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives" by Dona J. Stewart, page 133 - Though a military victory for the British and French, it developed into a political crisis..
   "Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956-1978" by Kai Bird, what the British called Operation Musketeer Revise was a military success - but a political folly p 62
   "Reassessing Suez 1956: New Perspectives on the Crisis and its Aftermath" (ed) Simon Smith, The Suez crisis - though technically a military defeat for Nasser - enhanced the Egyptian leader's nationalist credentials p 115
   "Nasser" by Anne Alexander, .. but suffering political humiliation on the field of their military victory p 96., & The world had changed since 1956, when he had pulled a political victory out of a military defeat before the astonished eyes of Britain, France and Israel p 139.
   "US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Roots of Anti-Americanism" by Kylie Baxter, Shahram Akbarzadeh Although the assault was a military success, it was a political disaster for the allied forces p 47
   "The Columbia Guide to the Cold War" by Michael Kort, Although the resulting Suez Crisis produced yet another Egyptian military defeat, Nasser's defiance of the British and French and his clash with the Israeli's made him a hero in the Arab world. p 154
   "The A to Z of Middle Eastern Intelligence" - by Ephraim Kahana, ‎Muhammad Suwaed, It might be concluded that Operation Musketeer was a military success that ended in a political failure. p 237
   "Operation Musketeer: A Military Success Ends in Political Failure" by R. Rathbun, United States. Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Education Center, United States. Marine Corps Development and Education Command. (LOL the book title is a citation in itself)
   "The 1956 War: Collusion and Rivalry in the Middle East" ed by David Tal, The upshot was that Nasser's military defeat was transformed into a diplomatic victory p 14
   "Britain, Israel and the United States, 1955-1958: Beyond Suez" by Orna Almog, Nasser, on the other hand, had strengthened his position in the Arab world more than ever, and his military defeat only enhanced his .... etc etc p 115
   "The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square" by Steven Cook, The week-long conflict was a military defeat, but a political triumph for Nasser and Egypt. p 69
   "Power and Military Effectiveness: The Fallacy of Democratic Triumphalism Power and Military Effectiveness" by Michael Desch, Israel joined France and the United Kingdom in the Suez War in October and November 1956, inflicting a significant tactical defeat but was denied a strategic victory p 96.

   There are more if needed (like I said before). However since we are getting no further on this issue I still support the current infobox as it is, but perhaps changing it to Egyptian military defeat but political victory? However I am in favour of leaving out military victory & political victory altogether. This may be more useful in this article - > Operation Musketeer rather than here. In fact this might be beneficial to the infobox which has too much clutter anyway. What do users think of this? Shire Lord (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

   Since "we are getting no further on this issue", why won't you ask the Wikipedia:Help desk ? In my experience they would not hesitate to say that if your view is well supported, while the opposite view is not (yet?) supported, then the article should reflect your version. Although they have no formal authority, usually the sides are accepting their response. Ykantor (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

   Yes - good idea, thank you. I will wait to see if there is any further response. Shire Lord (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

   Supported by?

   The infobox now says: "Belligerents: ... Egypt, supported by US, Soviet Union". Since this is unsourced, not in the article, and the word "support" is quite a way off of being belligerent, that 'support' should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps. In what way did the US support Egypt? The Soviets did send military and economic aid to Nasser, so maybe they should stay? Shire Lord (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

   Even sending weapons does not make one a belligerent. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

   Then we should remove. Shire Lord (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

   [1] OK. done. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

   The Soviets threatened to nuke London, Paris and Tel Aviv unless the Anglo-French and Israeli forces ended their invasion of Egypt. (JackDouglag (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

   Edit Request

   In a previous edit of this article, I can only assume a return key was accidently pressed rather than a space key because this following sentence appears to have been put into the wrong paragraph -

   The Indian historian Inder Malhotra wrote about Nehru's role that: "So the Suez War ended in Britain's humiliation. Eden lost his job. Nehru achieved his objective of protecting Egypt's sovereignty and Nasser's honour".

   Obviously that sentence needs to be moved to the paragraph before which is talking about the United Nation's and India's reaction to the Suez Crisis, and specifically about the historian Inder Malhotra's take on the crisis. At present where this sentence is placed, it sits alone and completely out of context with the rest of the paragraph. After all, it is starting a paragraph that is talking about West Germany taking sides with, and giving support to, the British and French during the crisis. The paragraph is looking at how the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, felt America betrayed its European allies, over Egypt and also Hungary. The paragraph is neither about the UN or India nor is it referring to some Indian historian's take on the crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.25.207 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

   Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

   Remove Text regarding british plan to invade kuwait and qatar At time Kuwait and Qatar british protectorate 81.153.254.100 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

   Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

   Intro wrong

   Historians do not agree the crisis marked the end of Britain's role as a world power. That occurred during WW2. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

   Do you have any reliable sources to support this or is this just your opinion? It looks to me like the cited source for historians' agreement that the crisis marked the end of Britain's role as a world power is highly reliable, so you will have to provide us with a verifiable, reliable source that indicates your opposing point of view for us to consider it. Abierma3 (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

   Most historians say Britain ceased to be a world power when it declared war on Germany in 1939, and subsequently signed away its empire in the Atlantic Charter. Its dependence on American money as a result of Lend Lease meant the UK could no longer pursue an independent role in foreign policy. The Americans put pressure on Britain to give independence to its empire as soon as WW2 ended, beginning with India - its largest and most prosperous colony - in 1947. Britain's loss of power and prestige happened at least 15 years before Suez. (JackDouglag (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

   You started off your explanation with a weasel word, and you didn't provide us with any sources. You have to show some evidence from reliable sources if you want to convince anyone. Abierma3 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

   There are many different historical works which back up this. The Suez operation failed because Britain had agreed on self-determination for its colonies in the Atlantic Charter, and become financially dependent on the United States during WW2. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

   It sounds like the events you mention contributed to Britain's downfall, but the Suez Crisis was the major international blunder that "marked the end of Britain's role as a world power." If you know of sources that specify some other event marking the end of Britain as a world power, please share. Abierma3 (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   Most sources point to the Fall of Singapore as the event that marked the real end of Britain's power, as it destroyed the prestige of the British Empire and ensured that India, Pakistan etc would become independent soon after WW2 ended. By 1945 Britain's decline, and the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union, was fully apparent. (JackDouglag (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC))

   I'm not denying that what you are saying is true, but you keep using weasel words like "most historians" and "most sources." Please provide us with quotations, page numbers, etc. from specific sources that supports what you are saying. How are we supposed to verify it if you don't tell us what source you are getting this from? Abierma3 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   I will try to find as many sources. The Suez Crisis showed that Britain's apparent status as a world power from 1945 to 1956 was just illusory. (JackDouglag (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC))

   If the loss of Singapore = end of world power, then the recovery of Singapore in 1945, plus the total destruction of the Japanese Army and Navy, indicates that Britain is back. In 1945, Britain had a powerful army navy & air force in place. Only its close ally the United States had a more powerful Navy and Air Force. (only the US and Russia had a more powerful army.) In 1956 it had atomic weapons and had almost finished its Hydrogen bomb, which it tested in the next year. Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   Britain has never had any nuclear weapons. They all belong to the US, and can only be used with US permission. (JackDouglag (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

   Jack --how poorly informed can you be? you're pretty new to British history--you should read a book if you don't believe wikipedia. their nukes are listed in Nuclear weapons databook. Volume V: British, French, and Chinese nuclear weapons 14:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

   I have read multiple books on the subject. The UK has never had an independent nuclear deterrent because its missiles are made by the US and could only ever be launched with Washington's permission. Why do you think so many people on the right want to abolish Trident? It's only a status symbol so Britain can retain its permanent seat on the UN Security Council. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

   The United States entered WW2 in order to dismantle the European colonial empires. The UK's prestige was destroyed forever by the Fall of Singapore and they only regained their colonies in the Far East with US help. Britain's atomic weapons could only be used with US permission, and that remains true to this day. Britain played virtually no role whatsoever in fighting the Japanese as the Pacific campaign was almost an entirely American operation. Had the Suez Crisis occurred in 1946 the Americans would have forced the British and French to withdraw from Egypt as both countries were dependent on American money. In fact Truman would have opposed the Suez operation far more strongly than Eisenhower, as the Democrats refused to support Churchill's illegal coup in Iran. Having a large army, navy and air force meant nothing when Washington could end any military operation after WW2 by threatening to bankrupt sterling. (JackDouglag (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC))

   First off, I highly doubt your first statement, "The United States entered WW2 in order to dismantle the European colonial empires." Secondly, you are talking hypotheticals that are irrelevant. You still haven't provided us a credible source stating that the Fall of Singapore marked the end of Britain as a world power instead of the Suez Crisis, so I say we stick with the referenced statement that is already in the article. Abierma3 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   FDR made it very clear publicly during WW2 that the US intended to replace Britain as the world superpower and dismantle its empire. Britain's third-tier status was very apparent long before Suez. Attlee was forced out of India and Greece, and Churchill could not even launch his Iranian coup until Eisenhower gave him the green light. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC))

   - rather than insert in the middle of an earlier conversational thread - as others have. Let the record show Blue Danube (nuclear weapon) an independently developed nuclear weapon that could be carried by a V-bomber (Valiant) and therefore dropped on Britain's enemies. Time for someone to drop the stick. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

   Britain's nuclear weapons could only ever be used with US permission, whether in 1952 or today. Polaris/Trident was only devised so the UK could remain on the UN Security Council. President Obama gave our launch codes to the Russians - so much for an "independent" deterrent! (JackDouglag (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

   Peden quote should be removed

   Peden is not a notable historian, and he is wrong. It was World War II that significantly contributed to Britain's decline as a world power, not the Suez Crisis. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC))

   The preceding sentence states a similar viewpoint to what Peden says, and this is referenced to Historical Dictionary of Anglo-American Relations (verify this source yourself if you don't believe it). Peden not being a notable historian is your opinion. Considering that he is notable enough to have his own wikipedia page, I don't think his notability should be an issue with the reliability of the source. There are multiple sources that are cited supporting that Suez Crisis led to Britain's downfall as a world superpower, and you still haven't provided any sources indicating otherwise. Abierma3 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

   Starting WW2 is what led to Britain's downfall as a world power. The UK was just a bit player by 1945 as its bankruptcy and inability to retains its empire showed. If Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939 it would have remained a superpower for many more years. (JackDouglag (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC))

   No sources? Then your point doesn't stand. Talk pages are for working out improvements, not just talking about the subject.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

   I have found multiple sources from various history books. All the historians agree that Britain's decline as a world power happened because of the financial cost of World War II, not because of the Suez Crisis which was merely a symptom of what had already happened. I don't really understand why Eden is blamed for Suez - it was Churchill who agreed to give full independence to all of Britain's colonies in the Atlantic Charter in 1941, and Churchill signed the Suez Canal Base Agreement in 1954 which ensured all British troops would be withdrawn from the canal zone (thereby making Britain's claim to own the canal meaningless). (JackDouglag (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

   Cite your sources and page numbers so we can verify. Abierma3 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

   Sir Nicholas Henderson wrote in 1979 that the Suez Crisis only contributed to Britain's loss of power which had already happened since the end of WW2:

   http://www.economist.com/node/1331510.

   I don't know why there is any debate about this. Britain's decline happened as a direct result of WW2. Had the Suez Crisis happened in 1936 the US and the Soviet Union would not have been able to interfere. After 1941 however Britain was entirely financially dependent on the US, and any military operations were only viable if Washington agreed. Personally I'm very surprised the Americans did not stop Churchill from sending troops to Kenya in 1952 by bankrupting sterling - they certainly would have if they had had interests there. (JackDouglag (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

   the Peden quote is legit--he is making a statement about what the experts say (it they generally agree on a point). It appears in a top British scholarly journal vetted by teams of leading experts. No one has provided an opposing statement about what scholars actually hold. And yes he is a leading expert--better look at his Wikipedia article G. C. Peden Rjensen (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

   Britain's decline happened not because of the Suez Crisis, but because it had bankrupted itself in World War II and had lost its ability to act independently in foreign affairs due to becoming financially dependent on the United States. Most historians point to 1940-41 as the real moment when Britain ceased to be a superpower. If Britain had still been a world power before 1956 it would not have been forced to give independence to India and Palestine, or to abandon Greece. (JackDouglag (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

   Then give us a reputable source that says that most (or even many) historians think that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

   Churchill himself admitted it in 1960 when he said Britain had been wrong to start WW2. Anyway you are overlooking the extent to which the British people voted against continuing to be a world power in 1945 when they elected Attlee with his firm commitment to decolonization. (JackDouglag (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

   JackDouglag, here are some direct quotes from the only source you have provided so far (https://www.economist.com/node/13315108):

   • "In the immediate aftermath of the war we continued to rank as one of the great powers..."
   • "But in the mid-1950s we were still the strongest European power militarily and economically."
   • "In the immediate postwar world we were the second most important power in the Far East with all the influence that that carried. We played a major part in the 1954 Geneva conference on Indochina and in the formation of the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation the same year."
   • "The Suez debacle in 1956 was a sudden eye-opener to the decline of British power..."

   These seem to contradict your own claims that Britain was no long a world superpower beginning in 1941. Abierma3 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

   I think we have wasted enough time debating JackDouglag on his opinions of British and world history, and his offhand challenges to eminent scholars. He is not active on Wikipedia except on this page. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

   What Henderson wrote is that Suez was an eye-opener to a decline that had been going on for years. The Suez article needs to be corrected as this is what the British Empire in World War II article says: "World War II confirmed that Britain was no longer the great power it had once been, and that it had been surpassed by the United States on the world stage. Canada, Australia and New Zealand moved within the orbit of the United States. The image of imperial strength in Asia had been shattered by the Japanese attacks, and British prestige there was irreversibly damaged.[13] The price for India's entry to the war had been effectively a guarantee for independence, which came within two years of the end of the war, relieving Britain of its most populous and valuable colony. The deployment of 150,000 Africans overseas from British colonies, and the stationing of white troops in Africa itself led to revised perceptions of the Empire in Africa." It is impossible to pretend that Britain had not already declined long before 1956 as a direct result of WW2. (JackDouglag (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC))

   Intro needs rewriting

   The Suez Crisis did not play any role whatever in Britain's decline, it just showed that Britain had already declined because of WW2. Britain ceased to be a superpower when it signed the Atlantic Charter in 1941. That was why Eden could not try to regain the canal in 1956, as Churchill had agreed to give it away along with all of Britain's colonies. (JackDouglag (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

   We have already discussed this twice (Talk:Suez_Crisis#Intro_wrong and Talk:Suez_Crisis#Peden_quote_should_be_removed). No need to keep creating new sections. Abierma3 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

   The point needs mentioning because the Suez operation could not succeed as the UK had already agreed to self-determination for its colonies in 1941. Therefore there was no way anyone could object to the Suez Canal being seized by Nasser. Most historians agree Britain ceased to be a superpower when Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. (JackDouglag (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC))

   Intro is biased

   The introduction should mention that Nasser closed the Suez Canal to all Israeli shipping when he seized it on 26 July 1956. This needs to be prominently mentioned at the beginning of the article, in order to explain why Israel was involved. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

   Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. You have provided none. As a reminder: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. (talk page guidelines) Abierma3 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

   The Suez Canal was closed to all Israeli ships on 26 July 1956. Otherwise Israel would not have been involved. (JackDouglag (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC))

   Results section needs changing

   Almost all historians agree the UK ceased to be a superpower after World War I, and was no longer a world power after Churchill signed away the British Empire in the Atlantic Charter. The Suez Crisis had nothing to do with Britain's decline, which had already happened long before. (JackDouglag (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

   Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. You have provided none. As a reminder: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. (talk page guidelines) Abierma3 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

   Britain was clearly no longer a great power by the 1930s as appeasement showed. The UK could no longer be a world power after March 1941 because it became financially dependent on the United States with Lend Lease, which meant the US could stop any military operation by threatening to bankrupt sterling. In August 1941 Churchill agreed to give the Suez Canal to Egypt and to give independence to the entire British Empire. (JackDouglag (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

   To call the Suez Crisis the end of Britain's role as a superpower is laughable and demonstrably incorrect. You cannot overlook Lend Lease, the Atlantic Charter, the fall of Hong Kong, the Fall of Singapore, bankruptcy, Indian independence, the withdrawal from Greece etc as if they never happened. The UK no longer mattered after 1941 as power transferred to the United States and the Soviet Union. Small wonder Churchill said Britain should never have started World War II. (JackDouglag (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC))

   What matters is what the sources say, so far you have brought none, or even directed us to ones already used in the article which support your position.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

   @JackDouglag: I have reverted your recent edits on this talk page. If you failed to gain consensus on your desired changes in the first section, continuing to start multiple sections on the same issue is just a waste of the time and efforts of editors who are responding to you instead of improving Wikipedia in other ways. This talk page is not a forum, and you have been warned twice about being in violation of talk page guidelines. Until you provide reliable sources in an effort to improve the article, your posts here will continue to be reverted. Abierma3 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

   Not Britain's loss of superpower status

   The Suez Crisis was not the end of Britain's role as a superpower because this had happened much earlier, especially as a result of WW2. Brigadier Enoch Powell said Britain's superpower status was definitely over by the end of WW2, which is why Britain had to give away India in 1947 - thus ensuring that all the other colonies would gain independence as well. (JackDouglag (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

   JackDouglag Does not read the citations that he erases and does not provide any citations of his own-- his personal opinions have been dissected at length & obtained no support from the editors of Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   The citations were wrong and the UK was not a superpower after it destroyed itself by starting the Second World War. How could it be a superpower when the US could destroy sterling at any time, and Churchill had promised to give the Suez Canal to Egypt in 1941? This article should not give the untrue claim that Suez was the end of Britain's role as a superpower - it was Churchill who destroyed the UK in WW2, not Eden. (JackDouglag (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

   You don't consider the possibility that Britain had recovered its strength by 1955....look at the world map--lots of red in 1955. nuclear weapons and seapower too, as well as the strongest economy in Europe. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   Britain never recovered after WW2. It was bankrupted, had helped half of Europe be overrun, had lost India which ensured all the rest of its empire was gone, had agreed to give independence to all of its colonies in 1941, and its nuclear weapons were controlled by the US. By the way, Germany had already surpassed the UK by 1955 and France followed by the end of the decade. Most British industries were entirely dependent on Marshall Aid from America - Churchill, Eden and Macmillan put off taking the difficult decisions on closing worthless industries that were left to Wilson and Callaghan. (JackDouglag (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

   The argument is that Britain recovered by 1956, it was not bankrupt, the Marshall plan had long been over. India was the only part of the empire that was lost, and all the other colonies were doing well. The US had zero control over British nuclear weapons (last week you said Britain never had any nukes). Germany had a lower GDP in 1955, and France was much lower. Shall we look at sea power? #2 in world. Empire? #1. Trade? #2 economy per capita (for large countries) #2--far far ahead of USSR. You need to look at the 1950s and not be trapped in WW2. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   Britain never recovered after WW2, it entered irreversible decline and that was very apparent by the early 1950s. India, Burma, Ceylon, Palestine, Jordan, Ireland had all been lost after 1945 and plans for the independence of the Crown Colonies (Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore) were drawn up in 1953. It was clear that Kenya was lost. The UK had agreed to give away the entire Empire in August 1941. Britain has never had any nukes of its own, only US nukes. You seriously think Washington would allow any country to launch a nuclear bomb, even Israel??? German and French industries did much better than British industries after 1945. The Empire was gone, the Royal Navy was tiny compared to its pre-war size, and Britain had ceded all of its trade rights to the US. All the Suez Crisis did was show that Britain's apparent recovery from 1945-1955 was just an illusion, as the Americans controlled the currency and could bankrupt it at any time. (JackDouglag (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

   UK had its own nukes and still does...NOT under US control. that's a key element of being a superpower, you know. In 1956 US was financially much stronger, there's no doubt, but that's a different issue. the colonies like India were liabilities & UK did better without them Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   The UK has never had its own nukes, check the 1958 agreement. They are US nukes and can only be used with US permission. Anyway that is irrelevant, as no country could ever use nuclear weapons today because of MAD. Israel has many nuclear weapons, but it has never been a superpower. The colonies were not liabilities and the UK became bankrupt without them. All the Suez Crisis showed was that the United States and the Soviet Union had been the only superpowers since 1945. That the UK was not a superpower after World War II is easily demonstrated by the fact that it slavishly followed the Americans in absolutely everything, barring a brief period of continued cooperation with the Soviets in 1945-46. (JackDouglag (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

   1RR - no room for edit wars

   This article is under a 1RR limit - see the header at top of the page. Though the part of the article in dispute does not relate to the Arab or Israeli position, the restriction stands. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

   WW2 was when Britain ceased to be a superpower

   I have just read "Yanks and Limeys" by Niall Barr, which says the UK ceased to be a superpower in 1940-41 as a direct result of World War II. The results section of this article should be corrected accordingly. (JackDouglag (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC))

   yes they certainly were losers in 1940 and about to be conquered! but they came back militarily much stronger in 1956 than they were in 1940--Let's not be trapped in 1940 -- actually the Brits got out of the trap. Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

   There was never any chance of a German invasion of the UK because Hitler never wanted war in the West. After 1941 the UK was no longer a superpower because the US controlled its currency, forcing it to abandon its independent foreign policy. (JackDouglag (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC))