Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 2

Background/Invasion and Occupation of Egypt 1882
Currently this links to "Battle of Tel-el-Kebir", an article which forms part of the series "1882 Anglo-Egyptian War" and is plainly not designed to stand on its own. Perhaps this link should be modified to go to "1882 Anglo-Egyptian War"? I will do so if no one objects. Scutigera (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Bias in the 'Motivation of the involved states' section:

'The United States worked hard through diplomatic channels...' - the phrase 'worked hard' is unquantifiable, and makes a relative judgement. It is not a neutral statement and should be reworded.

'Prior to the operation, London deliberately neglected to consult the Americans' - there is no citation given for this claim, therefore appears to be the authors' opinion(s) only. A citation must be given.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.83.5 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

i'd add that the line mentioning Ben-Gurion's thought process assumes knowledge of context, and possibly an assumption that everyone sympathizes with/sees it as a given that Israel needs to "hit" Egypt. Mbuki (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Short Shrift & Glorification in "Invasion" :

a good summary for the invasion including coverage for most of the actors with the exception of Egypt (unless it's about casualty ratios) and to a lesser extent, France. the whole article is also festooned with images of Israeli troops looking dutiful, counterbalanced with a pic of a British jet and Egyptian losses. all while the text comes off as UK-centric. Mbuki (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Loaded Language, Injected Relevance, Contradiction, Repetition in "Aftermath" :

how many times does one actually need to read about Eisenhower's purported regret? repeated under the Britain and Israel subsections. contradictory narrative of Wilson denying military assistance re Vietnam War due to US reticence in Suez, and later stated "no effect on relations". loaded (smug) language used in intro and "Egypt" subsection, which in turn reads like a requiem for the Jewish community in Egypt complete with links to other Jewish-interest pages also dealing with victimhood (borderline irrelevant; reference directs to what appears to be a highly, highly biased & interested group). rather than say, maybe civilian casualties? damage to infrastructure and recovery? effect on relations in the region for years to come? you know. things about Egypt. the country that was invaded and bombed?

all in all, i would say the article as a whole succeeds, by short shrift on several levels, in nearly de-humanizing Egypt(ians), relegating it to some vague cardboard scenery led by some guy named Nasser who may or may not be crazy. most everyone else is a victim thanks to the ineptitude of the US. unacceptable. Mbuki (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very surprised the article doesn't mention the fact that Dr Henry Kissinger has said America's betrayal of its Anglo-French allies during the Suez Crisis was by far the worst mistake it ever made. (92.7.9.176 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

British strength
British strength was 80,000 troops.

Sources: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes_suez-crisis-1956.htm http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SUEZ+CRISIS%3B+80,000+British+soldiers+crammed+into+camps+to+defend+the...-a0188201779 http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/norman/coldwarhotwars/suezcrisis/indexen.html http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP15CH1PA3LE.html http://books.google.com/books?id=NPQWZwpcx_4C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=suez+crisis+80000&source=bl&ots=xIBS6a5bec&sig=yW9QjZpcwDkhk-Sn6Uf8zUTQwFU&hl=en&ei=pp1dTqLhFs228QPY0dW2Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.146.161 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All those sources only say that the British had 80 000 men stationed there in the early 50's--that is, before the crisis. Reverting the number back to 45 000.Qwertzy (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

typo/neatness?
it says under the background heading: "– as the highway not of empire, but of oil.... By 1955, petroleum" just wondering, should it be "...." or just "."? Biggles1000 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Third World" and "non-aligned"
This is a relatively minor point, but in my opinion it would help the article be more up to date in terms of its tone.

The article uses double quotation marks for both non-aligned and third world. These ideas might have been new at the time of the crisis, but are well understood and accepted today. The Suez crisis happened during the cold war and with the imperialist/communist confrontation there clearly was a space occupied by nations which were neither. Suggestion: remove the double quotation marks. 10:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahman (talk • contribs)

British Strength, battleships?
There were no British Battleships in service during the crisis, the last one HMS Vanguard was decommissioned in 1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.47.199.27 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She was palced in reserve and served as Royal Navy Reserve Fleet until 1960, but she did not serve at Suez.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason for war
It is important that the introduction should mention the fact that "nationalising" (seizing) the Canal was in direct violation of the agreement Colonel Nasser had signed with the UK and French governments on 19th October 1954. Sir Anthony Eden said himself that maintaining the sanctity of international agreements was the primary motivation for the military response. (92.7.25.210 (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC))

Removed statement
I have removed the following statement: "However, modern historians contend that the majority of public opinion at the time was on Eden's side. ". My problem is that the statement is backed only by a link to the BBC website promoting a TV drama about the Suez crisis, and moreover the statement "modern historians" does not name the actual historians. That is all rather vague and nebulous. If there is in fact a historical consensus on the state of British public opinion in 1956, then it should be very easily to find the works by the unnamed "modern historians". A website promoting a TV drama is a borderline reliable source for a history article (it would be OK for an article about the TV show), and a statement like that really ought to be backed up by references to monographs and/or articles by historians. This debate is all rather silly anyhow. My point is not to claim that the majority of people in Britain opposed the Suez War, but rather that there was significant domestic opposition to the Suez War, which counterbalances the picture that this article otherwise paints of a Britain solidly united behind the Suez War. For some strange reason, my efforts to improve this article by showing a broader and more fuller picture of the state of British public opinion is meeting quite a bit of opposition from various IPs. There should also be something about the state of public opinion in Egypt, Israel, France, the United States, etc, etc, but right now I don't any sources to make any statements on that. --A.S. Brown (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a link to a BBC website in the reference given. I see an interesting account by a war correspondent (with a short mention of the new drama as a hook) in a regional paper. Having said my bit about the EDP, I come to the more important point, that the words used in the article are "But some historians now say that, probably, a majority of Brits did agree with Mr Eden " which is suitably qualified and not as dogmatic as it was presented in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right. There is no denying there was massive support for Eden in the UK. (92.10.138.92 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC))
 * With all due respect, I was mistaken on that point (one should be editing after going without 24 hours of sleep). Having said that much, I still don't think that the vague phrase about most historians agreeing that Eden had public opinion on his side coming from an article about a TV show about the Suez Crisis quite makes for proving that public opinion was all on Eden's side. But be that as it may, I see no point engaing in a major fight about such a minor issue, so I will let it be. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

close paraphrasing
The lede of this article is an extremely close paraphrasing of the Time article that it cites. Here is the wikipedia text:
 * Less than a day after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to Egypt and Israel, and then began to bomb Cairo. In a short time, and despite Israeli and British denials, considerable evidence showed that the two attacks were planned in collusion, with France as the instigator, Britain as a belated partner, and Israel as the willing trigger.

And here is the source:
 * "Within 24 hours after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France joined in an ultimatum to Egypt and Israel—and then began to bomb Cairo. Israel's Foreign Ministry talked of "the unexpected intervention of Britain and France." Britain's Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd protested: "There was no prior agreement between us." Despite their words, there was plenty of evidence to show that the two attacks were planned in collusion ("orchestration" was the French word for it). In this conspiracy, France was the instigator, Britain a belated partner, and Israel the willing trigger."

This needs to be rewritten in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policies. GabrielF (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits by 92.7.13.102
I removed a large chunk of text recently added by this anonymous user who has been problematic at British Empire, repeatedly coming in and attempting to inject some wording which doesn't chime with what can be verified in reliable sources. In the case of this article, the changes were not small, they all appear to be from one text, and by removing them I hope the additions can be scrutinized by knowledgeable people before being added back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That was already done by Rjensen. (92.7.14.190 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC))


 * The IP's changes are not neutrally written, and should stay out. That, or be greatly reduced and written neutrally. The reliance on one source is not appropriate to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything that was written entirely reflected what was in the book. (92.7.6.232 (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Do not make more than one reversion per day or you will be blocked. This article is under 1RR, that is, one reversion restriction, because it falls under the contentious group of Israel/Palestine topics.
 * The conflict we are having with the IP reminds me of the freshman student who reads one book and considers it to be the one answer. It is only after reading two or more books that objectivity is discovered. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The book summarises many previous books on the Crisis. And the Crisis had nothing to do with the Palestine issue. (92.7.6.232 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC))


 * I meant Arab/Israeli conflict. See the giant note at the top of this talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed Binksternet - we are having exactly the same problem with this anon IP editor at British Empire - (s)he turns up with one book, and keeps repeatedly changing/reverting the text based on that one source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of Anglo-Egyptian Treaty
It is absolutely imperative the introduction mentions the fact that the nationalisation was in direct violation of the agreement Colonel Nasser had signed with the governments of the United Kingdom and France on 19 October 1954. This was why the UK and France invaded Egypt. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Maurice Challe
I removed from the lead section a sentence about Maurice Challe. Here's the deleted bit:
 * It is believed that the secret military plan was originally devised by General Maurice Challe. Williams, Charles Harold Macmillan (2009) p. 253-254

First, WP:LEAD tells us not to put stuff into the lead section without having more detailed discussion in the article body. If Maurice Challe is to be mentioned in the lead sectin he should discussed in detail in the article body.

Second, the sentence is likely WP:Undue weight given to Challe. The wimpy phrase "it is believed" does not tell us who believes Challe was the sole originator of the plan. The book's author, Charles Williams, is not the famous Charles Williams who died a few decades ago, so I cannot tell what level of expertise to give our reference. * Other books on the subject of the Suez Crisis say that Challe and French Minister of Labor Albert Gazier met with Anthony Eden on 14 October 1956 at Chequers to tell Eden about the secret Franco-Israeli negotiations regarding a proposed invasion of Egypt. This meeting was the catalyst for Eden's involvement, and of course British involvement. Other reliable sources do not necessarily finger Challe as the sole originator. Subsequent meetings concluding on 24 October were held in Sèvres, an outer district of Paris, between the British and French foreign secretaries—Selwyn Lloyd and Christian Pineau—and a number of Israeli leaders including David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres. In all this negotiation to hammer out the details, the first plan was greatly modified and adapted. I don't think it is proper weight to say that Maurice Challe is solely responsible. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The book says the military plan presented on 14th October for serious collusion with Israel was "apparently dreamed up by Challe". Harold Macmillan had already suggested collusion with Israel as early as 3rd August, but he was a politician and not a serving soldier. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * That's not strong enough for putting Challe in the lead section. The book is not a good reference. Other books are far better, placing Challe at various meetings and assigning to him various levels of responsibility. The Charles Williams book simply is not good enough in relation to Challe's role. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Striking out a misleading and incorrect sentence of mine. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Arab Volunteers
I have removed the following: "Jules Jammal was an Arab Christian military officer in the Syrian Navy. He volunteered in the name of Arab nationalism to launch a suicide bomb attack against western forces during the war. On October 29, 1956, Jammal carried out a suicide attack against the French liner Jeanne D'Arc, ramming an explosive-filled boat into the ship.  ". My reasons for doing are first and foremost, I have read several books on the Suez Crisis and have never seen any reference to the highly dramatic incident where a French liner is sunk in a suicide attack. That claim is referenced to a web-site, but I can't find any book that makes a reference anywhere to the incident where a French liner is sunk. This is very strange because a Liner is a awfully big ship, and it seems extremely odd that the books I have consulted don't mention the incident where the liner was sunk in a suicide attack. What makes that claim especially strange is the date: October 29, which is one day before Anglo-French forces issued the ultimatum that led to military action against Egypt, and two days before the action began. Thus there could not have been any ship full of French troops off Port Said on October 29th. I think that this section should be added back in when one find a book as opposed to a web-site mentions this incident.--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good removal. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your wecolme! --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Image
What happened to the image? Isnt there any other images that could replace it? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1956_Suez_war FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Financial pressure
I believe the article should mention that the story about the US putting financial pressure on the UK is just a myth. The US only had sterling reserves of £30 million, which was not enough to cause a currency crisis as the UK had gold and dollar reserves of $2.2 billion. The real reason for the ceasefire is because the Cabinet lost its nerve in the face of heavy international criticism and decided to pull out. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * That's nice. You have lots of sources to support this view? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Charles Williams' excellent 2009 biography of Harold Macmillan goes into it in some detail on pages 264 to 272. There never was any move to sell the United States's sterling bond holdings, and even if there had it wouldn't have made any difference. Having lost their nerve after only 48 hours the Cabinet decided to claim they had achieved their objectives and withdraw, blaming the Americans for supposedly forcing them to back down. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * We know you think it's excellent, as you are going around a multitude of articles and adding large chunks of text based solely on it. It may be an excellent read.  However, Williams holds but one of many views.  Please read WP:NPOV, in particular the section on "Due and Undue Weight".   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * user 92.7.0.36 has been seriously misreading the Williams book, (it's a good scholarly book--the problem is with 92.7.0.36). Williams p 268 clearly says the US put the UK in a major financial crisis and there would be no relief unless it pulled out of Sinai. Williams says "By 12 November panic was finally beginning  to set in." (p 268) and "the news on sterling was bad and getting worse every day" (p 270). The Brits lost badly and needed American $$ desperately, as all historians agree.  92.7.0.36 has not read the historians except for Williams and he gets Williams all wrong. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower stated in his published diaries that it was his worst decision as president and suggested that it had seriously harmed the UK/US relationship. Dwight D. Eisenhower DDE Series Box 9, May 14th 1953.82.31.236.245 (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Also see: Anglo-American relations in the twentieth century: of friendship, conflict ...By Alan P. Dobson. Twobells (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * gthe claim that "Eisenhower stated in his published diaries that it was his worst decision" is false--I just looked at the published diaries. What he said was "The Middle East is a terrible mess. I think that France and Britain have made a terrible mistake." (Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower in War and Peace (2012) p 700 -- the latest study.

I just pulled the book used as a reference here (Harold MacMillian by Charles William) and user 92.7.0.36 does not seem to be totally wrong. I think the main problem is the way the wiki article is worded which implies that the United States sold or devalued the Sterling during this time period, which is not the case. Please see page's 262-265 for this source. Seperately there is the issue of financial strain on the British economy. These are two seperate things and the article does not seem to indicate which is true and which is conjecture. The MacMillion book is clear that there is no evidence that the United States made, in any form, a financial attack or indication of a financial attack on Great Britian. This is important to note. The book does show that the United States may not have been cooperative and that the British economy was sufferering... but not due to any negative activities by the United States. The difference here is very important. Evringham (talk)(by user Evringham, 11June2012) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2012
Perhaps there are grammatical inaccuracies and a missing word (where i have inserted asterix below) in the quote at reference point [262].

"The Soviet Union might be ready for to undertake any wild adventure. They are as scared and furious as Hitler was in his last days. There's ******* more dangerous than a dictatorship in that frame of mind."[262]

86.4.142.215 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your sharp eye! I have inserted the word "nothing" from the book source, to correct the quote. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

British-French formal plan to govern the Canal
I seem to remember that the British and French actually set up a formal mechanism to govern the Canal as part of their war plans. Please confirm and write a section if possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.86.152 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Payments to shareholders
The article states "Nasser ... announced ... that stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to the day's closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange." But there's no mention of whether they ever got paid. In the circumstances, it seems unlikely; but it would be interesting to know. Maproom (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes the payments were made according to Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)