Suez Crisis Part 2 of 2
video description
Date: 2022-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
HistoryFan476ad
To be honest I think in the long Run it likely cost the USA more in terms of losing advantages or strength in the Cold War. Because Egypt became a soviet ally anyway and most of the middle east and Arab world. Britain and France two key allies became less trusting of the USA and less willing to back them up. Plus weakening two allies likely did not help the balance of power between NATO and Warsaw pact. Plus it made US allies doubt it's commitment to their alliance or if they are even on their side really.
Britain later did not offer aid during Vietnam war, and Britain had won it's won Vietnam in Indonesia against communist rebels who acted like the Vietcong. So that would have been very helpful. America did make up for it though to a degree with their offers of help during the Falkland war. But still it did make Britain less willing to support the USA all the time.
It did permeant damage French-American relations throughout the rest of the cold war. The French went and made their own nukes rather than rely on the US arsenal for protection, Later France pulled out of NATO and refused to aid the US in many future events. It also made France no longer trust the Americans at all.
This conflict also gave Nasar A overinflated ego and estimation of Egypt's realistic combat ability or chances in a war, and as seen in the six day war it would come back to bit him hard. Then drive Egypt to go further into the arms of the soviets.
The soviets got to look like heroes to the third world and Arab nations, they got to look like protectors of their freedoms even willing to go nuclear to save them from Imperialism, and also gave the soviets the idea that nuclear threat and escalation is a crisis winner and should be used more in the future, which gets us to Cuban missile crisis.
To be honest while stopping the invasion might of been morally right, it still did do some damage in the long run to the US effort to win the cold war. Maybe a more peaceful solution could have been made by those involved.
reply
To be honest I think in the long Run it likely cost the USA more in terms of losing advantages or strength in the Cold War. Because Egypt became a soviet ally anyway and most of the middle east and Arab world. Britain and France two key allies became less trusting of the USA and less willing to back them up. Plus weakening two allies likely did not help the balance of power between NATO and Warsaw pact. Plus it made US allies doubt it's commitment to their alliance or if they are even on their side really.
Britain later did not offer aid during Vietnam war, and Britain had won it's won Vietnam in Indonesia against communist rebels who acted like the Vietcong. So that would have been very helpful. America did make up for it though to a degree with their offers of help during the Falkland war. But still it did make Britain less willing to support the USA all the time.
It did permeant damage French-American relations throughout the rest of the cold war. The French went and made their own nukes rather than rely on the US arsenal for protection, Later France pulled out of NATO and refused to aid the US in many future events. It also made France no longer trust the Americans at all.
This conflict also gave Nasar A overinflated ego and estimation of Egypt's realistic combat ability or chances in a war, and as seen in the six day war it would come back to bit him hard. Then drive Egypt to go further into the arms of the soviets.
The soviets got to look like heroes to the third world and Arab nations, they got to look like protectors of their freedoms even willing to go nuclear to save them from Imperialism, and also gave the soviets the idea that nuclear threat and escalation is a crisis winner and should be used more in the future, which gets us to Cuban missile crisis.
To be honest while stopping the invasion might of been morally right, it still did do some damage in the long run to the US effort to win the cold war. Maybe a more peaceful solution could have been made by those involved.
reply
education
I liked how the Soviets tried to Help Egypt and India against aggressors. I think those two conflicts are the only times I sided with USSR/CCCP actions.
Also R. I. P Vietnam, if only the French werent stubborn in keeping colonial rule. Sadly the USA didnt recognize Vietnam independence even though OSS/CIA officers were standing next to Ho Chi Minh when he gave the speech of independence of Vietnam. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. How history could have been different if the USA backed that nationalist man that wanted his country to be independent.
reply
I liked how the Soviets tried to Help Egypt and India against aggressors. I think those two conflicts are the only times I sided with USSR/CCCP actions.
Also R. I. P Vietnam, if only the French werent stubborn in keeping colonial rule. Sadly the USA didnt recognize Vietnam independence even though OSS/CIA officers were standing next to Ho Chi Minh when he gave the speech of independence of Vietnam. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. How history could have been different if the USA backed that nationalist man that wanted his country to be independent.
reply
robert
General Eisenhowers main problem was not so much that Britain and France made war against Egypt, but that they'd made war without consulting us first. We expected the French to act like that but not Britain who was a founding member of NATO. That theyd also convinced the Israelis to go behind our back increased our fury. Israel depended on us completely so Britain interfering with one of our dependants was disrespectful in the extreme. Had they asked us first we might have allowed it. We might even have helped had Britain wisely used Israel to convince us rather than go over our heads. That kind of insolence left us little choice.
reply
General Eisenhowers main problem was not so much that Britain and France made war against Egypt, but that they'd made war without consulting us first. We expected the French to act like that but not Britain who was a founding member of NATO. That theyd also convinced the Israelis to go behind our back increased our fury. Israel depended on us completely so Britain interfering with one of our dependants was disrespectful in the extreme. Had they asked us first we might have allowed it. We might even have helped had Britain wisely used Israel to convince us rather than go over our heads. That kind of insolence left us little choice.
reply
barron8006
It shows the extent of lobbying power in USA gov system.
Britain, then a world, influential power, was cut down and told it could no longer press its national interests on the world stage by the USA for a lame capitalist vs. communist PR stunt, while Israel, with a dominant AIPAC influence in congress, got a slap on the wrist.
even more bald in that the British were securing their canal (they made and owned it) after Naser lied and nationalized it, the former having safeguarded world trade, while Israel's participation was just a naked racial/religious power grab of territory.
reply
It shows the extent of lobbying power in USA gov system.
Britain, then a world, influential power, was cut down and told it could no longer press its national interests on the world stage by the USA for a lame capitalist vs. communist PR stunt, while Israel, with a dominant AIPAC influence in congress, got a slap on the wrist.
even more bald in that the British were securing their canal (they made and owned it) after Naser lied and nationalized it, the former having safeguarded world trade, while Israel's participation was just a naked racial/religious power grab of territory.
reply
Chuck
Odd little gap in the footage of Eisenhower's address at 8: 20. Full quote was As it is the manifest right of any of these nations to take such decisions and actions, it is likewise our right--if our judgment so dictates--to dissent. We believe these actions to have been taken in error. For we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes.
reply
Odd little gap in the footage of Eisenhower's address at 8: 20. Full quote was As it is the manifest right of any of these nations to take such decisions and actions, it is likewise our right--if our judgment so dictates--to dissent. We believe these actions to have been taken in error. For we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes.
reply
Venmis
Could the recent crisis in Afghanistan be a similar moment for US hegemony? It's not considered too important in the US, but it basically confirms to US allies that Trump was not a fluke. The US did this without consulting its allies. America is abandoning Europe, it only cares about the Americas & the Pacific. I have no idea how the UK and Europe will react to this in the future.
reply
Could the recent crisis in Afghanistan be a similar moment for US hegemony? It's not considered too important in the US, but it basically confirms to US allies that Trump was not a fluke. The US did this without consulting its allies. America is abandoning Europe, it only cares about the Americas & the Pacific. I have no idea how the UK and Europe will react to this in the future.
reply
Bu$$yBuster
I fr thought egypt was way more aggressive about it all, i thought the Egyptians invaded the Sinai for the canal and then invaded Israel but they really just made something thats was basically already theirs more owned by them and Britain was like u wot mate? lmao
reply
I fr thought egypt was way more aggressive about it all, i thought the Egyptians invaded the Sinai for the canal and then invaded Israel but they really just made something thats was basically already theirs more owned by them and Britain was like u wot mate? lmao
reply
Vaest
Though, they had no real plan on what to do when Nasser was gone. Ah, typical Western powers.
invade, claiming you're bringing democracy and then leave the same chaos we see whenever
they bring their preciiiiiiiouuuuus democracy (Libya, Iraq, etc etc)
reply
Though, they had no real plan on what to do when Nasser was gone. Ah, typical Western powers.
invade, claiming you're bringing democracy and then leave the same chaos we see whenever
they bring their preciiiiiiiouuuuus democracy (Libya, Iraq, etc etc)
reply
Danny
great documentary, the British carrier in the med was HMS Eagle, my father Bill Thomson was helmsman of the carrier at the time, side note he was British all forces boxing champion winning his championship fight on the flight deck of the Eagle.
reply
great documentary, the British carrier in the med was HMS Eagle, my father Bill Thomson was helmsman of the carrier at the time, side note he was British all forces boxing champion winning his championship fight on the flight deck of the Eagle.
reply
Sraka
Lets be honest, the British and French were the bad guys here. US was actually a bit neutral but only because of long term strategy, fearing most Arabs would swing towards USSR. So, dont be fooled thinking US stayed out due to moral reasons.
reply
Lets be honest, the British and French were the bad guys here. US was actually a bit neutral but only because of long term strategy, fearing most Arabs would swing towards USSR. So, dont be fooled thinking US stayed out due to moral reasons.
reply
achedrick1
Naval blockades are considered acts of war. Egypt also did the same thing in 67. Between that and the antisemitism was kinda necessary. The invasion have happened without the encouragement of Britain and France though.
reply
Naval blockades are considered acts of war. Egypt also did the same thing in 67. Between that and the antisemitism was kinda necessary. The invasion have happened without the encouragement of Britain and France though.
reply
Lord
This was fascinating. A few questions: Why didnt Egypt allow Britain to use the Suez Canal? How did the Egyptian leader die at only 52 years old? What was Israels motive for joining Britain and France in this mission?
reply
This was fascinating. A few questions: Why didnt Egypt allow Britain to use the Suez Canal? How did the Egyptian leader die at only 52 years old? What was Israels motive for joining Britain and France in this mission?
reply
ThomasTubeHD
Imperialism could have been the third side in the Cold War, If it wasnt for America being influential in Western European affairs, but at least they now support democracy instead of what they used to do
reply
Imperialism could have been the third side in the Cold War, If it wasnt for America being influential in Western European affairs, but at least they now support democracy instead of what they used to do
reply
Nutty
I hate the US and USSR because of this, get their nose in everything and ruin everything, Afghanistan, Vietnam, our Empires etc.
Though it appears that like the USSR the US's time to fall is beginning.
reply
I hate the US and USSR because of this, get their nose in everything and ruin everything, Afghanistan, Vietnam, our Empires etc.
Though it appears that like the USSR the US's time to fall is beginning.
reply
education
Thanks for the videos, as I Brit I was unaware of this history. My wife is from Suez, I feel angry about what happened and frustrated how most of the western world seems to be unaware of the past.
reply
Thanks for the videos, as I Brit I was unaware of this history. My wife is from Suez, I feel angry about what happened and frustrated how most of the western world seems to be unaware of the past.
reply
Tarek
Pretty objective point of view on world politics. Good job.
That war between east and west domination continues. All in between are pawns used from either side in a big chess game.
reply
Pretty objective point of view on world politics. Good job.
That war between east and west domination continues. All in between are pawns used from either side in a big chess game.
reply
Alexander
Britain was horrifically mismanaged in the 20th century. From the worlds sole superpower to a bankrupt shithole in 60 years. It should be studied to understand what went wrong.
reply
Britain was horrifically mismanaged in the 20th century. From the worlds sole superpower to a bankrupt shithole in 60 years. It should be studied to understand what went wrong.
reply
Maggy
My parents are from Port Said. They were very young when this war took place and their whole families had to migrate to Sohag, Egypt and live there until the war was over.
reply
My parents are from Port Said. They were very young when this war took place and their whole families had to migrate to Sohag, Egypt and live there until the war was over.
reply
IllusionistsBane
A military victory, but an even bigger strategic and political defeat. Just like Vietnam and all those engagements in the MENA region since 9/11. I think.
reply
A military victory, but an even bigger strategic and political defeat. Just like Vietnam and all those engagements in the MENA region since 9/11. I think.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
6:41
