Suez Crisis in the Crown
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2022
- Suez Canal was the property of the Egyptian government, but European shareholders, mostly British and French, owned the concessionary company which operated it until July 1956, when President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised it-an event which led to the Suez Crisis of October-November 1956.
The United Kingdom and France joined the Israelis on 5 November, sought to regain control of the Suez Canal. Shortly after the invasion began, the three countries came under heavy political pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as from the United Nations, eventually prompting their withdrawal from Egypt.
The actor portraying Nasser doesn’t get enough credit - he’s fantastic and very charismatic !
Militarily, this was a text book operation. It showed in a post-war world we still had it. But politically we didn’t. This really was the final nail in the coffin for the British Empire. Eden did a huge amount of damage with Suez.
but the currency got ruined
The US did, wilfully. They wamted to show that they were top dog, dame the allies, and damn Egypt, which Nassar wanted in the soviet sphere.
atleast port said was holding and uk couldn't counquer it city of port said was doing heavy damage to Britain
@perperson199 you can't really expect the US to condone an ILLEGAL invasion that was such a blatantly desperate attempt of preserving Britain's colonial remnants in Egypt, can you?
The Suez campaign was a major British mistake. They could have pushed for outright sovereignty over the canal (like the US did with Panama). They never did.
Leaving it subject to Egyptian Sovereignty meant this was never going to be accepted as a Falkland Islands situation. The UK didn't have the financial capacity to absorb the inevitable retaliation.
In hindsight, what they probably should have done is just devalue the pound, stay put and waited for the American anger to die down.
Before this I had always viewed Eden as kind of a political moron, someone who didn't realize the age he lived in and the new political realities. But this show really made me sympathize with him. He lives in the shadow of Churchill and, with his mind and judgement clouded by drugs, sees Nasser as a Middle Eastern Hitler, another fascist who must be faced down by the British Empire. His decision to seize the Suez Canal doesn't appear stupid but rather tragic. Eden's final lines with the Queen are similarly tragic.
Queen: Very few people get a chance to go down in history.
Eden: Or make history by going down.
The guy playing Eden does a great job of playing a proud but insecure and ultimately inadequate man.
But the writer should revise the scene of Suez Canal's nationalisation because it is totally different from the reality
@@abdelrahmanmashhour9205 Lmao the Crusader and the WW2 looking uniform for the Brits lol.
As Churchill described him: "a modest man, with much to be modest about".
@@christopherharmon2433 That was his description of Attlee.
Legally the Suez canal always belonged to Egypt. The Anglo-French company operated the canal and absorbed the profits from toll. Egypt just nationalized the canal company around 1950s. However to average public (from both sides), it sounded that France/Britain owned the Suez canal like its own territory.
Egypt was asking for trouble through its genocidal attitude towards Israel
Britain and France took advantage of that to further their own interests:
1) keeping the suez canal in British hands
2) kicking out Nasser
3) Putting a stop to Egypt as a source of funds and arms for the Algerian s fighting French rule
Israel was patient and (with tacit US support) kicked the butts of Nasser and his Arab allies hard in 1967
@@Nmax isreal flooded egpyt with a million refugees. they didtn want genocided, they wanted them to take them back and house them
war 1973 Egypt kicked Israel hard in butt
without no support only from arabs
@@omarziad7548 we will just ignore the massive soviet support the soviet union gave the arab nations
My only regret about the Crown is that Jeremy wasn't on long enough.
Such a handsome man,and that mustache stole my heart from the start ❤
Eden bungled everything, he ruined himself with the Suez Crisis.
this incident was the final nail on the coffin of the British Empire and the rise of the American Empire
And the African empire of africanisms biriyongo cha
LOL what empire? An empire of wooden spears and mud huts?@@baspagrey1545
I didn't think I'd enjoy this series ..but you know what it was absolutely fantastic especially the historical side.
I refuse to believe the crusader tank was still in british service at the time. I hope it was just used as a stock prop because it wasn't very good when it was released in early WW2 & they had much better tanks after the war - the centurion, especially.
I don't get why they didn't portray Nasser with a little more swagger and charisma. It would've drove home the point that Eden was in over his head and had no grasp of how to handle the crisis.
I wouldn't say that this is the beginning of the end of the British Empire. This event was the end of two thing: The End of the British Empire and the end of Britain being a major player in the world and United States of America becoming the dominate world power.
This was just the open-handed fall of Empire, it had been long approaching.
USA was already the top world power starting in 1945
@@AW-zk5qb Yes, that may be somewhat true. In 1945 The United States wasn't at the top yet since England was still top at the time. But it wouldn't be until the Suez Crisis that cause England realized that they couldn't dictate policy anymore and that the United States took over and became the Dominate World Power.
Egypt was asking for trouble through its genocidal attitude towards Israel
Britain and France took advantage of that to further their own interests:
1) keeping the suez canal in British hands
2) kicking out Nasser
3) Putting a stop to Egypt as a source of funds and arms for the Algerian s fighting French rule
Israel was patient and (with tacit US support) kicked the butts of Nasser and his Arab allies hard in 1967
The Washington naval treaty was the start of American domination.
Nuremberg principle:
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
It took the british and french barely a decade to commit the same crimes they hanged the nazis for at Nuremberg. The treaty of Sevres was just another version of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, replacing Germany with Israel and the Soviets with the british/french empires. And of course egypt got the role of Poland in that one.
The Nazis could not have been hanged in violation of those articles as they had not been draughted at the time. They were hanged for "crimes against humanity" -- which were invented ad-hoc.
It should be obvious as they are quoted by you as the "Nuremberg principles" that they came into being some time after defeating Germany in 1945.
It needs to be emphasised that you yourself quote them as 'principles': they are unenforceable. They are not crimes, they are principles. You cannot be tried and condemned on a principle any more than a wish or an opinion!
Any country can attack any other country at any time, it is the law of the jungle, that is the real law and you need to just deal with it. The USA cynically used the crisis to manipulate events to its advantage and now Russia has succeeded with the strategy in Ukraine. This time the Arab world supports Russia as Ukraine is not Arabic. If France, Israel, and Britain succeeded then you would probably writing about how admirable, moral, and just the actions were, as rubes love a winner.
Our motto was, and seems to continue to be, rules for thee but not for me.
Rip Jamel abdualnaser. I just read a bbc article talking about UK and France intention not to give it to the eygyption even after the end of the agreement.
Wow, Greg Wise as Mountbatten sounds a lot like Charles Dance.
later Charles Dance played his elder role.
The Beginning of the End of the British Empire.
All thanks to the US screwing the British and French over.
Indeed
Not entirely accurate, It had begun the process of destabilisation when the first world war had broken out. The Second World War all but guaranteed it's eventual demise while the Suez Crises confirmed this.
Soon, Murica will face the same.
Probably for the best
“Our reputation for decency and integrity for foreign policy” did he really believed that?
He really did. The British Empire was a mixed bag of good and bad. We today only hear the bad thing, but back then the people of Britain only heard about the good things.
@@mattwho81 The script was written by liberals who worship international law and multilateralism.
the wokes will want us to think it was only bad@@mattwho81
So where is the international order and legitimacy of the UK and French simply taking territory from Egypt, clearly territorial integrity and Egyptian sovereignty has been violated!
It was a struggle of the old colonial world (France and Britain) against the new free world (USA and USSR). The free world has won. The Soviet Union also supported the communist revolution in Latin America, Asia, and Africa in order to destroy the colonial empires from within.
As I look at Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, I begin to see the Bunker of Albania and the Adriatic despot flipping a coin.
@@jamiearmstrong3487 Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Albania were never colonies of France and England. I meant the countries of Africa and Asia.
Nasser was the lion of Egypt
Anglo-French: We are still Empires and we will put a stop to this!
U.S and Soviets: No, no, no, no way. We don't think so old guys! That's not how it works!
Soviets didn’t last very long and America is not what it was
@@InsanepieThe point is that, sooner or later, all empires eventually fall
The British Empire was long gone, but Suez was the final nail in the coffin. It was the last time Britain could pretend it could operate on the world stage without America’s tacit approval.
Until the Falklands war That is, the us wanted to avoid our task for being sent at all cost. The truth is the us wants to be seen supporting the winner and once we got a beech head the us started supporting the uk.
@@lukemcgahern2357 a nice idea… but the Americans were lending us all kinds of logistical support from day one. The Vulcan raid was flown on America fuel from an American base on ascension isle. They even leaned on the French to delay sales of Exocet missiles to Argentina.
Just because we don’t call it an empire doesn’t mean it’s gone
The Americans were aware about Suez in advance and kept quiet until shooting had started. They were certainly keen to reduce European influence in the Middle East, that having been their policy elsewhere also, most flagrantly in 1945 in South East Asia. Turned out hoping to replace this influence was rather counter productive.
not really the US was able to leverage the situation to break up the Bristish and French empires (with the help of soviets) and reduce Britain and Europe to American dependent actors
This is not true. While the US knew that France and Britain would take action against Egypt and Nassar, they never knew of, or supported, an outright invasion.
In fact, when Eisenhower learned of the invasion, he was furious with Eden and Mollet. It took public attention away from the Hungarian anti-Soviet Revolution and perfectly fit into the Soviet narrative that the West was composed of greedy, racist, imperialist regimes.
It was actually one of the few times in the Cold War where the US and Soviets agreed with each other (in condemnation of the invasion).
@@matthewdavid6134 Which, in fairness, was a questionable objective.
I still kind of wish that the UK had taken a more France-like approach after Suez, seeing that the US can't be relied upon as an ally, rather than the approach we took to simply accept the US as world leader.
Europe could and should have moved much closer to greater unification, through which Europe should still have been able, and be able, to exert influence equalling that of the US.
@@abcdefg4761 Why the UK had been a world leader and it both abused and squandered it, France had also been and like the UK they had abused and squandered it. They needed to learn the Empire game was over, and that invading other countries to extract resources and concessions was at an end. The modern EU was a result of that lesson, that empires are over. I like the modern EU having a greater presence on the world stage, but the old Europe and France needed to be defeated in order to facilitate that change.
@@abcdefg4761 Why the UK had been a world leader and it both abused and squandered it, France had also been and like the UK they had abused and squandered it. They needed to learn the Empire game was over, and that invading other countries to extract resources and concessions was at an end. The modern EU was a result of that lesson, that empires are over. I like the modern EU having a greater presence on the world stage, but the old Europe and France needed to be defeated in order to facilitate that change.
An excellent episode
And Jeremy Northam( Anthony Eden)...is AMAZING!!!❤
I learn today that there's 2 crisis of Suez canal.
One by the Egyptian taking back their canal from British and decades later a container ship blocking the entire water way few months ago.
They weren’t “taking it back” the British owned it, had bought the land alongside the French.
@@Blitz-ww8kh When liberals understand anything right - let me know. They misunderstand things on purpose - because they're just brats.
No they were and we returned it back
The Sevre Protocol
Also and now Known as
The Severe Protocol😂😂😂
Funny how in the same year the world jsut accepted What the Soviets were doing to the Hungarians. Another notch in the tale of We can do terrible things to other countries but when western nations do the same it's much worse.
One for the hot sun above,
Two for the Empire we love,
Three for the fires that burn down below…
Poor Anthony, he gave his life to his country... The Great War, The Second World War, Korea, his own brothers dead, and his son buried overseas, and himself terribly wounded.
Choking how the real speech of Nasser was différent from the show!
Okay Yall Ik It’s Hard, but like what the soundtrack, I need to plssss
Strange how the re-acquiring of the canal was inaccurately portrayed as a military operation when in reality the Egyptians just bought back the shares of the Suez Canal Company. It's almost like they're trying to justify European colonialism.
The canal was the property of the Egyptian government, but European shareholders, mostly British and French, owned the concessionary company which operated it until July 1956, when President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised it-an event which led to the Suez Crisis of October-November 1956.
The United Kingdom and France joined the Israelis on 5 November, sought to regain control of the Suez Canal. Shortly after the invasion began, the three countries came under heavy political pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as from the United Nations, eventually prompting their withdrawal from Egypt.
Was that a Crusader tank? Were they still using Crusader tanks in 1956?
I watched a documentary in the Egyptian TV many yeas ago about the Suez crisis, the Egyptian police officers said that they faced a centurion tank.
@@TheAmrthe2nd
Well that is definitely not a centurion on screen there. I guess the producer couldn't get a one.
Thank you! I noticed it aswell. I’m a history buff and the fact they used a cramped old tank in 1956 is weird especially considering that they could’ve used a centurion. There’s many that could be borrowed for filming yet they use that old relic 😅
Peaceful protests (must be split in small group because of covid) will be dealt using peace, violent protests will be dealt using the army and the police.
Wasn't this unconstitutional? I thought the Sovereign was to be the final call when it comes to the military, as commander and chief. Now I know why Elizabeth never visited Israel. I can believe the UK is okay with the PM blatantly ignoring the constitution on authorization of power
What matters is who controls and profits from a asset in the real world. Wishfull thinking at it’s worst is to think that « machiavellism» is a thing of the past. When reality is that the game of power never changes. War is just politics and diplomacy with other means. Culture changes, technology changes, the empires come and go. The name of the players and their policy comes and goes. But the game ( the game of power) at it’s core don’t change. Human nature stays the same. The creation of new hirarchys ( of rulers and ruled), And the inevitable conflicts this creates will continue to the end of time. The narcissists and machiavellians of this world will create divisions between individuals, groups, nations. Often because of 0,25% cultural differences on the surface ( Russians and Ukrainians). When reality is that there are different groups of oligarcs fighting for power over the plebs.
The lesson is Don’t be fooled by the populists, demagogs of this world. And if there is a real need for War, it should be based on real liberation of the people ( freedom from legal apartheid, and freedom for property rights, freedom of trade, freedom of speech, freedom from class tyranny from any ruling class may they be lords or mob rule, democratic rights). If it’s not possible to get all of these, then the legal rights ( no aparthheid, aristocratic tyranny), property rights should be first priority. A new nation can’t rule itself in a healthy manner if there is no healthy grounds for the middle class to grow. If not then it will most likely be firtile grounds for a new tyranny
Give it back you rascals!!
The United States was absolutely correct in its actions .
The Soviets would have launched military action in the middle east plus the United States needed to placate Nasser to keep wooing Egypt
The Soviets were quite busy in Hungary at the time. American actions were driven by optics of a colonial intervention being launched in the middle of the US publicly denouncing the Soviet intervention in Hungary and Eisenhower being blindsided during his re-election campaign. Nixon said in an interview in the 1960s that Eisenhower's biggest regret from his presidency was overreacting to Anglo-French actions during the Suez Crisis after having been drawn into Iran by British colonial machinations.
@@scottpetty4568 Interesting. president Eisenhower was a very sensible president
I don't think they were. They did the exact same thing with the Panama Canal to control this strategically invaluable waterway.
In case of the Suez Canal they just let a soviet puppet that was already beaten regain control and he and his predecessor used the Canal as an economic weapon from this point forward to heavily influence Europes policies towards Israel. From 1967-1975 he closed the Canal, driving prices for raw material and energy sky high and together with the OPEC oil embargo further fueling the inflation crisis that hit the West during the 70s and early 80s.
The Americans were 100% correct in this situation.
Egyptians are thr good side
Without British and French financing and engineers, the Suez Canal would never have existed and there'd be nothing for the Egyptians to seize.
100k Egyptians killed during the canal process,build by Egyptian on an Egyptian soil
@@body2811 yes, construction work can sometimes be dangerous, both here and abroad. Doesn't change the fact, the Egyptians alone were incapable of building the Suez Canal. If they were, then they would have. Try using your brain once in a while. 😀😃😄😁😆😅🤣😂
@bbaker4117 well at the end we have it oh yeah still our artifacts in the british meusum, we want it back ,wait british museum without anything british 🤣🤣
@@body2811 come and get them
@@body2811 most artefacts in the British museum are British but the woke communists wont tell you that
Two children (britain and france) throwing a hissy fit until the adults (US and USSR) step in and tell them to be quiet
The colonial legacy of the crown.
'The Crown' should reflect reality. Monarchy shouldn't be used as real-life soap opera, nor just as material to fill space in the media. Elizabeth II's death has seen much publicity, not much thought about why she matters, and why the UK has a monarchy.
The achievement of the British monarchy should become clear in comparison with the histories of other countries. In the 19th & 20th centuries the U.S.A, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain and Greece suffered in various ways civil wars, political storms, and dictatorships. This shows what can go wrong in the absence of a head of state which is above politics, and which opposes illegal dictatorship. If there are many reasons England, Wales, and Scotland have had no civil war since Culloden in 1746, having a constitutional monarchy to unify all the people is an important reason. In the UK, 'peace' in formal speech is "The King's Peace".
Of course King Charles III's first marriage was a tragic mistake; Prince Philip could be tactless; he & Elizabeth II made mistakes as parents. Whatever mistakes the royal family have made, let us be grateful for the unity the monarchy gives the UK & the world. By stabilizing Britain & the commonwealth (e.g. Canada & Australia), it promotes peace in the world. The sea around it didn't protect the U.S.A. against civil war in the 1860s, and the UK could have suffered civil war over slavery in the 19th century; likewise over world war, loss of empire, economic failure, or race in the 20th. There will always be violence and political problems in the world, and billions of people who know or understand nothing of the British monarchy and the stability it brings. Since the 1700s, billions of people have lived under the British crown without civil war, lynching, dictatorship in their lives. God save King Charles III, and his successors.
Meh.
Go defend monarchy/fascism (they have many points in common) inside UK.
For many people outside it, the brexit is the best show UK has offered in years, even more than Dr Who.
Brexit + Charles III = ireland reunfication + Scotland secession + Wales "troubles"
You conveniently left out the fact that Ireland fought against the British (it was part of the United Kingdom at the time) and earned its independence.
Then the UK Government treated catholics horrendously in Northern Ireland only until the Good Friday Agreement.
The British Empire also treated many of its colonies poorly and it’s why many wanted independence.
You also have Scotland who want independence. So I doubt a monarchy is the best way to have a government.
@Conor Walsh
especially since all empires are paid & built by subjugation & blood
@@sanhcman666 Celtic nationalism is a Russian intelligence operation.
The British, French, and Israelis had no right to attack Egypt or try to take the Suez Canal. This failure began the end of the British Empire.
The natural order of things. All things must come to an end.
They had every right, Egypt illegally took land that the uk and france owned and had bought.
@@Blitz-ww8khIn Egyptian Land? So if I buy land in the UK, me and my descendants could live there regardless of their citizenship and claim that land for my country (India) . Peak colonialism.
@@tausifchowdhury8180
You could do with your land in the UK what you please, as long as you respect the law of the country it's in it.
France and UK respected the laws of Egypt, but Egypt didn't cared by that and just wanted all the fruits from an infrastructure French and British people financed with their money.
After such action, Egypt did got all the money from the Suez Canal, but they lost the confidence of the world. Foreign Investment in Egypt remains very low, as people didn't forgot what they did to the French and UK.
Today Egypt is a poor and unstable country, despite being very promising in the 50s.
Only elite Egyptian got the wealth from the Suez Canal. The Egyptian people are suffering for this action.
@@Blitz-ww8kh nope. British and French imperialism came to an end and the world is better for it
As an American, I won’t lie I think the US made the wrong decision not to support the UK and France. Nasser was always going to lean towards the Soviets and letting him take the canal was a bad idea…
Nah it was definitely the right decision cuz otherwise the entire Arab world would've aligned with the Soviets meaning the majority of oil production would've been controlled by the Soviets and their allies and it could've started a bigger war. If anything the decision made by the US is what helped destroy the Soviet Union cuz the Arab states joined hands with the US and lowered oil prices to the point where it helped destroy the Soviet union's economy in the late 80's and early 90's.
This man caused lot of damage to Middle East with his Arabism destroying Iraq first republic in 1963 and Lebanon civil but Why he war rose in the first place ….. it is BECAUSE OF ISREAL WHICH US SUPPORT SINCE 50s
That wasn't support to Nasser, it was simply to show the UK who is the strong boy in the street, because UK and France acted without consulting the US, beside that was to absorb Moscow anger, don't forget the real show was in Hungary at the time, suez was merely a side show
@@TheAmrthe2nd No the US wanted to placate Nasser hoping that he would sway to the US rather than the Soviets, and Nasser played Eisenhower like a fiddle. All the US achieved is weakening its two greatest allies, and as a result the British and French Empire's collapse was hastened due to fuel shortages.
The US, Israel, UK, and France had NO right to attack Egypt or try to take the Suez illegally.
Egypt was asking for trouble through its genocidal attitude towards Israel
Britain and France took advantage of that to further their own interests:
1) keeping the suez canal in British hands
2) kicking out Nasser
3) Putting a stop to Egypt as a source of funds and arms for the Algerian s fighting French rule
Israel was patient and (with tacit US support) kicked the butts of Nasser and his Arab allies hard in 1967
and got defeated by Jordan and plastine in battle of karmah 1968 and got defeated in war 1973 and war 2000 and 2006 and got defeated by Egypt in war hattin 1187 when uk France and Austria with some groups of jews fought Egypt and got kicked there butts by Salah al Aden ayub
@@omarziad7548 well it is good now that the Arabs have peace with each other and with Israel.
Egypt, Iraq, Syria Turkey, Saudi Arabia all still have all their own lands and have peace with neighbor Israel
Funny, Hitler said the same thing about Poland before he made a treaty with Stalin to split up the country and invade it....remind me again what the treaty of Sevres was about? Oh yes, invading Egypt and creating an international crisis on purpose under false influence to justify the anglo british invasion. Reminds me of the Soviets saying they "marched into Poland to protect ther belorussians and ukranians from the evil nazis".......
Took the british barely 10 years to violate the nuremberg principles...at least hte germans got hanged for it while the british criminals just got to retire.
Well Im sure its incorrect to say that Britan was no longer judged as a super power in your title- Of course Britan was a super power and Infact it remained, it just began sucking up to the Americans, which was their one big mistake as we could of had the middle east and a vast emipre controlling that canal, and the Americans would of been able to prevent the entire arbabic world falling into the hands of the Soviets.
But they stuck their nose in because a particular president was running for election and didnt want to upset his supporters.
Shit .... I think the world was better off with imperialism...
Long Live Palestine
Dawg, the Egyptians don’t even want the Palestinians 😂
government by clique never ends well
0:34 he wanted to deal with "fascists" but he totally fucked up😂