Suez, 1956

[Conchis]

I'm hoping those who were around at the time can help me out here....

I wasn't alive in 1956. If you didn't experience the Suez crisis in real time, I think you'll always struggle to understand it.

My understanding is this: Suez provided proof of Britain's diminished state in the world and that it could no longer engage in heavy-handed Palmerstonian tactics without serious consequences.

Eisenhower's condemnation of the venture provided proof that Britain was now America's poodle - and couldn't take any kind of major military action without an 'okay' from its overlord power.


What I don't understand is why people were so shocked by these events. Surely it had been clear, long before the start of WW2, that Britain was no longer a powerful country? And surely it had been clear, as soon as WW2 finished, that Britain was dependent on American money and American goodwill? Slashing the NHS to help pay for the Korean War sort of gave that game away....

So: why did Suez lead to such a bout of national soul-searching and introspection (because that's what it seems to have done)? And why is Anthony Eden (whose premiership was hopelessly brief) still condemned for it all these years later and labelled as 'Britain's worst PM' (the cretinous dolt who occupied that office before the present incumbent surely deserves that title?)?

I only ask, because I really don't understand....

[Petrushka]

I'm hoping those who were around at the time can help me out here....

I wasn't alive in 1956. If you didn't experience the Suez crisis in real time, I think you'll always struggle to understand it.

My understanding is this: Suez provided proof of Britain's diminished state in the world and that it could no longer engage in heavy-handed Palmerstonian tactics without serious consequences.

Eisenhower's condemnation of the venture provided proof that Britain was now America's poodle - and couldn't take any kind of major military action without an 'okay' from its overlord power.


What I don't understand is why people were so shocked by these events. Surely it had been clear, long before the start of WW2, that Britain was no longer a powerful country? And surely it had been clear, as soon as WW2 finished, that Britain was dependent on American money and American goodwill? Slashing the NHS to help pay for the Korean War sort of gave that game away....

So: why did Suez lead to such a bout of national soul-searching and introspection (because that's what it seems to have done)? And why is Anthony Eden (whose premiership was hopelessly brief) still condemned for it all these years later and labelled as 'Britain's worst PM' (the cretinous dolt who occupied that office before the present incumbent surely deserves that title?)?

I only ask, because I really don't understand....

I was only two in 1956 so naturally have no memory of it but there was an excellent BBC2 series aired at the time of the 50th anniversary which explained all you need to know. Hopefully on youTube?

Edit: here we are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkeDOHb0scc All three parts are there.

[Conchis]

I was only two in 1956 so naturally have no memory of it but there was an excellent BBC2 series aired at the time of the 50th anniversary which explained all you need to know. Hopefully on youTube?

Edit: here we are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkeDOHb0scc

Ah, yes. Thanks very much. :)

[P. G. Tipps]

I'm hoping those who were around at the time can help me out here....

I wasn't alive in 1956. If you didn't experience the Suez crisis in real time, I think you'll always struggle to understand it.

My understanding is this: Suez provided proof of Britain's diminished state in the world and that it could no longer engage in heavy-handed Palmerstonian tactics without serious consequences.

Eisenhower's condemnation of the venture provided proof that Britain was now America's poodle - and couldn't take any kind of major military action without an 'okay' from its overlord power.


What I don't understand is why people were so shocked by these events. Surely it had been clear, long before the start of WW2, that Britain was no longer a powerful country? And surely it had been clear, as soon as WW2 finished, that Britain was dependent on American money and American goodwill? Slashing the NHS to help pay for the Korean War sort of gave that game away....

So: why did Suez lead to such a bout of national soul-searching and introspection (because that's what it seems to have done)? And why is Anthony Eden (whose premiership was hopelessly brief) still condemned for it all these years later and labelled as 'Britain's worst PM' (the cretinous dolt who occupied that office before the present incumbent surely deserves that title?)?

I only ask, because I really don't understand....

I was already nearly 100 at the time ...

Firstly, how I agree with the full content of that second-last paragraph!

Chamberlain also suffered a similar derision and contempt, imv, though I see in recent years there has been a tendency in the media to reassess his tenure much more favourably ... after all, that little piece of white paper was more of a temporary victory in giving the UK a chance to re-arm and eventually confront the Nazis. And what else could the man possibly have done in the horrendous circumstances at the time? Furthermore, nobody wanted war in the UK, so he was treated like a hero when he returned from his meeting with Herr Hitler..

Ditto Eden. The Egyptian dictator Nasser 'nationalised' the privately-owned Suez canal and Britain and France, expecting US support, thought they could and would easily grab it back. Instead the US sided with the Soviet Union both superpowers somewhat hypocritically railing against European 'colonialism'. So the European powers had to withdraw. I remember then that all world shipping had to go via the Cape of Good Hope for many years afterwards as Nasser had closed the canal.

The event destroyed Eden's health and completely broke the poor man. and he resigned. You are right that Suez was the eventual turning-point in demonstrating to the rest of the world the relative decline of the European powers. The French quickly learned that lesson .. the British, seemingly, still haven't to this day!

It appears there always has to be a 'fall-guy' when things go badly wrong. Undoubtedly some politicians deserve the scorn but both Chamberlain and Eden were relatively decent men who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There have been a heck of a lot UK politicians much more stupid and incompetent than Sir Anthony Eden (and Chamberlain) and some are undoubtedly around us today, in my most humble of opinions ...

[Richard Tarleton]

The French quickly learned that lesson .. the British, seemingly, still haven't to this day!

This is the one bit of your post I'd query, Mr Tipps - can you elaborate? The French still had a bitter colonial war or two to come, and still dispatch the Foreign Legion at the drop of a kepi to former colonies in Africa - whereas the UK seemed to segue into a more amiable (give or take Rhodesia, S Africa) post-clonial relationship with its former colonies. Or are you referring to our insistence on punching above our weight on the world stage?

I was 7 at the time so had a pretty good grasp of international affairs.

Your comments on Chamberlain reflect the line which I think is taken in Robert Harris's latest novel, "Munich", still on my in-pile.

[teamsaint]

A sensible awareness of our place in the world, or an attempt at such, is important.
Some people, some very high up people not least in the military, may hang on in their mind to the remnants of a vast empire, but it is also important to remember that this is still the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, which gives us both opportunities and obligations.
Nothing is fixed. We need to keep on learning.

[Lat-Literal]

I'm hoping those who were around at the time can help me out here....

I wasn't alive in 1956. If you didn't experience the Suez crisis in real time, I think you'll always struggle to understand it.

My understanding is this: Suez provided proof of Britain's diminished state in the world and that it could no longer engage in heavy-handed Palmerstonian tactics without serious consequences.

Eisenhower's condemnation of the venture provided proof that Britain was now America's poodle - and couldn't take any kind of major military action without an 'okay' from its overlord power.


What I don't understand is why people were so shocked by these events. Surely it had been clear, long before the start of WW2, that Britain was no longer a powerful country? And surely it had been clear, as soon as WW2 finished, that Britain was dependent on American money and American goodwill? Slashing the NHS to help pay for the Korean War sort of gave that game away....

So: why did Suez lead to such a bout of national soul-searching and introspection (because that's what it seems to have done)? And why is Anthony Eden (whose premiership was hopelessly brief) still condemned for it all these years later and labelled as 'Britain's worst PM' (the cretinous dolt who occupied that office before the present incumbent surely deserves that title?)?

I only ask, because I really don't understand....

I wasn't there having been born in 1962. However, there is a broader picture. Following the Coronation which had been the reason for a significant increase in television ownership, the 1955 General Election had been the first real televised election. Consequently, there was probably a heightened public awareness of the detail in politics - at least compared with the previous ten years. The expectations of Eden were quite high - (historically he had been popular : neither an appeaser or a warmonger; Britain under the Conservatives was approaching its lowest ever post war unemployment rate; and he was telegenic and even arguably good looking which always tends to help, especially in contrast to Attlee who in his seventies looked very tired : this was an early version of the fresh JFK defeating-by-television a haggard looking Nixon in the US in 1960 and indeed Wilson doing so well against Douglas-Home who was very uneasy with the medium in 1964). And when the expectations are high there is further to fall.

How high? Certainly not stratospheric - the tone of the election campaign was dull - but enough for Eden's Conservatives to achieve the greatest increase in overall majority on which any Government had been re-elected in almost a century. Much of that was down to public irritation with all the bickering in the Labour Party between the Gaitskillites and the Bevanites. But if you look at the by-election results from February 1956 onwards, what is clear from the approximately 10% swings against the Government even in the seats it had held is that the backlash came pretty early after the general election and it predated the main part of the Suez Crisis by several months. Why? I would guess because Gaitskill had replaced Attlee as Labour leader in December 1955 so the opposition seemed more cohesive, albeit only for a short while.

This was not, I would have thought, a general public that had a strong ethical belief in the principle of others' self-determination. Few were degree educated; a decade of rationing had taken its toll; it was too early for any firm establishment of the property owning democracy which ironically had first been mooted by Eden even if it was Macmillan who ran with it; not long after the war was over, India - "the jewel in the Crown" - had been "just handed over" as many would have seen it; and there was probably in many quarters a simplistic view that if you win a world war you should be at least as strong or stronger when anything else then does come as a shock. Churchill, of course, discovered that first as an individual in 1945 when he was unceremoniously booted out. Arguably up until Suez, many British people believed that what they were experiencing was a long but temporary blip. The future wasn't Empire as such but, hey, we still have the Commonwealth. That was the thought. What Suez did was bring to light to the British public the realities of the new world order. The United States and the Soviet Union were so dominant they could contain and then change British foreign policy.

A part of the rejection of Eden - not that it was via general election - was a rejection of that message so that earlier views could be retained. If the televised interviews with the public on the streets on the morning after the 1966 election reveal a surprisingly large number hoped that Mr Wilson would take us into the Common Market, the equally surprising obverse is that as many as a third of people at the time of the 1975 referendum were still of the "Suez never happened" view that Britain was a strong country with a lot of territory abroad. Why should it need to be in the EEC? In the mid 1950s, the European model would not have been uppermost in the public's minds or even in most folk's awareness. But something of the axis on which the events of 1956 were played out would have come across to them in the "vibe". Macmillan who would secure victory for the Conservatives in 1959 was a European. Churchill was an Atlanticist and yet not not a European! Eden was more old school and not European at all. Wanting to return as leader after he stepped down, he thought his greatest opportunity of doing so was via a bit of reinvention and appealing to the right wingers. But they weren't having it any more than what is always a conservative with a small c general public. With Suez he had let the cat out of the bag and let the old school and its past glories down.

[Ferretfancy]

I had just completed my national service at the end of 1965, and the fact was that the government could recall you up to two years after you were demobbed, so it was a nervous time for me as I had served in the Suez Canal Zone. Remember that the Hungarian uprising happened in 1956 as well.

It's very difficult for us today to sense the public mood just then, but people were beginning to feel a bit more comfort in life as the effects of austerity began to recede. There was a stronger sense of the integrity of politicians: We are more cynical now. There was a firm assumption that, compared to other countries, corruption was unknown , hence the actions of our leaders in covering up what was really going on came as a great shock. When the Observer came out strongly attacking the whole Suez disaster, my older brother would never have it in the house again.

When I was in the Canal Zone in 1955, my army colleagues called all egyptians wogs. Similarly in Cyprus they were Cyps, and in Malta malts. We despised everybody, but in the long term achieved little.

Attitudes towards the EU anybody ?

[ardcarp]

David Cannadine gave quite a useful (and not altogether complimentay) talk about Anthony Eden in his Prime Ministers' Props serire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07pgwg1

I was a youngish lad at the time of the Suez crisis, and while I was not aware of the potentially hazardous nature of our involvement (or not) with Nasser, I was very much aware of my parents' anxiety about it...my father having served as a Naval Officer in the War, and not wishing to see Britain at war again.

[Lat-Literal]

I had just completed my national service at the end of 1965, and the fact was that the government could recall you up to two years after you were demobbed, so it was a nervous time for me as I had served in the Suez Canal Zone. Remember that the Hungarian uprising happened in 1956 as well.

It's very difficult for us today to sense the public mood just then, but people were beginning to feel a bit more comfort in life as the effects of austerity began to recede. There was a stronger sense of the integrity of politicians: We are more cynical now. There was a firm assumption that, compared to other countries, corruption was unknown , hence the actions of our leaders in covering up what was really going on came as a great shock. When the Observer came out strongly attacking the whole Suez disaster, my older brother would never have it in the house again.

When I was in the Canal Zone in 1955, my army colleagues called all egyptians wogs. Similarly in Cyprus they were Cyps, and in Malta malts. We despised everybody, but in the long term achieved little.

Attitudes towards the EU anybody ?

David Cannadine gave quite a useful (and not altogether complimentay) talk about Anthony Eden in his Prime Ministers' Props serire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07pgwg1

I was a youngish lad at the time of the Suez crisis, and while I was not aware of the potentially hazardous nature of our involvement (or not) with Nasser, I was very much aware of my parents' anxiety about it...my father having served as a Naval Officer in the War, and not wishing to see Britain at war again.

The UK undertook two nuclear tests on an Australian island in May-June 1956.

I just wonder if that was widely reported and, if it was, whether it was felt as a reassuring show of strength or unnerving news about what the next war would entail?

[vinteuil]

It's very difficult for us today to sense the public mood just then, but people were beginning to feel a bit more comfort in life as the effects of austerity began to recede. There was a stronger sense of the integrity of politicians: We are more cynical now. There was a firm assumption that, compared to other countries, corruption was unknown , hence the actions of our leaders in covering up what was really going on came as a great shock. When the Observer came out strongly attacking the whole Suez disaster, my older brother would never have it in the house again.

"It was a crisis that had shown many things: Britain's inability to act independently of her American ally; the futility of clinging on to illusions of Empire; the ability of those in power to practise deceit, with the extent of the collusion not definitively emerging until well into the 1960s; and an undeniable waning of deference, symbolised by the Trafalgar Square demonstration."

David Kynaston, 'Family Britain 1951-1957', Bloomsbury,2009 'A Pretty Mess' pp 693-694.


.

[P. G. Tipps]

This is the one bit of your post I'd query, Mr Tipps - can you elaborate? The French still had a bitter colonial war or two to come, and still dispatch the Foreign Legion at the drop of a kepi to former colonies in Africa - whereas the UK seemed to segue into a more amiable (give or take Rhodesia, S Africa) post-clonial relationship with its former colonies. Or are you referring to our insistence on punching above our weight on the world stage?

Yes, your last sentence is closer to the mark, I think, RT.

However, the British problem (as some like myself see it) is not so much 'punching above our weight' ... indeed that might be considered a good and thoroughly admirable thing if only from a UK point-of-view... but rather believing we are much weightier than we actually are!

Clearly there are still politicians in the UK, most worryingly in the current governing Party, who appear to be under that thoroughly dangerous and nationally-damaging misapprehension!

[Conchis]

Thanks for your contributions, everyone! :)

Was there any anti-american feeling immediately post-invasion? Once Eisenhower had basically told the British to clear out of the zone, it was hard to put any other gloss on the fact that Britain was now a second-rate power.

All tidied up quickly after Eden's departure, though: come 1958, Eisenhower was happy to help Harold Macmillan out with a PPB.

[Lat-Literal]

A few bits and pieces:

"With the extent of the collusion not definitively emerging until well into the 1960s" - I think that is quite important. "Heartbreak Hotel" was released around the same time but it wouldn't be until the 1960s that "a waning of deference" took hold - see perhaps CND and the Aldermaston marches. It was, of course, Wilson who in the late 1960s was the first of many PMs who were no longer trusted (by left and right)* but before that there was the Profumo Affair.

(*Much as I admired Barbara Castle, "In Place of Strife" was a low point for many - decades later Miliband Senior would say that he lost faith after 1966 and only half-joked that he must have been a terrible father for both his sons to join the Labour Party - but it was counter-balanced by us not becoming embroiled in Vietnam. Thus, the full revolt came later than in the US. What really did for Wilson - on balance, an often effective PM with a difficult party of many factions - was 70s patronage - Marcia Falkender, Gannex raincoats et al)

"Punching above our weight" - I get this point re wars but from my admittedly narrow experience of the UN in the 1990s there is a respect for what is seen as old style British values like an orderly managerial approach and even fair play. The British were often wanted as Chairmen. Ditto in EU.

Anti-Americanism - That may well have started earlier. There was resentment at the late entry of America in WW2; the ways of their troops when based in the UK; and very probably the terms of the post war loan, finally paid off in 2004. It would have been worse had the public known the initial brush-off to Maynard Keynes which effectively killed him. That was before Churchill either successfully used his good connections or went cap-in-hand depending on viewpoint.

The Worst Ten Post-War PMs in Order:

1. Cameron 2. Brown 3. Blair 4. Major 5. Callaghan 6. Thatcher 7. Eden 8. Heath 9. Douglas-Home 10. May (subject to change) or Churchill (after 1951).

In my humble opinion.

[P. G. Tipps]

A The Worst Ten Post-War PMs in Order:

1. Cameron 2. Brown 3. Blair 4. Major 5. Callaghan 6. Thatcher 7. Eden 8. Heath 9. Douglas-Home 10. May (subject to change) or Churchill (after 1951).

In my humble opinion.

Depends what one means by 'worst'.

Douglas-Home was probably the most principled and honest PM of them all but Wilson (imho the very worst PM as far as character is concerned ) made a mockery of the poor man's looks and his aristocratic background and that hit home with a 'Swinging Sixties' electorate.

Cameron is the 'worst' in my book because he was completely self-serving and thoroughly reckless irrespective of possible grave damage to the country. He was all so typical of many senior managers in UK business today, I'm afraid.

In fact even the current PM is much more of a 'manager' than a leader ... do you see anyone in any Party at present with the qualities to LEAD a strong government?

Sadly, I don't ... and at least Sir Anthony Eden LED, rightly or wrongly!