The Suez Crisis of 1956 - Professor Vernon Bogdanor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 ноя 2015
- The Suez Crisis marks the end of Britain’s era of global dominance. Professor Bogdanor explains its significance: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
In 1956, Egypts President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company. In response, Britain, together with France and Israel, attacked Egypt. The Suez War was the only major military engagement in the 20th century which was opposed by the official opposition. It was opposed also by the United States and the United Nations. Britain and France were compelled to withdraw from Egypt. Suez damaged the reputation of the Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. He had been the last Prime Minister to act as if Britain was still a world power; and the first Prime Minister to have to face the reality that she was not.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Great lecture (again). If only this kind of incisive analysis of rivals' varying motives were part of the public discourse of current international crises like Syria & the Ukraine.
As always, entertaining, erudite, and informative to a fault. The good professor does not disappoint.
At c. 1:13:00 and after, the speaker several times says "Europe" when he means the E.E.C., which is not the same thing at all. The E.E.C. at the time of de Gaulle's veto was only 6 countries, only a small proportion of the whole continent.
Coming to these very late, but they're relatively concise for how large a topic they cover.
An extremely interesting and very informative analysis of Britain's role in the Suez crisis.
Brilliant Analysis and very interesting concluding comments.
Superb lecture, thank you. I look forward to the others in this series.
I really enjoy these lectures. I've learned quite a bit.
The best lecturer in the series. - Supermac! - I think the UN is useful as a place where contacts can be made between hostile powers who do not have formal relations. "World opinion" is an overrated concept, "world government" a bad one.
true, plus the biggest problem with the united nations is that the winning powers of ww2 can veto any motion agreed upon by the entirety of the rest of the world just because they have other interests. it's an illusion of consensus and propriety when push comes to shove the security council powers will do what they like anyway, the rest of the worlds consensus is only useful propaganda building if it happens to align with super power interests.
Food for thought. Very interesting.
42:10 “Ike will lie doggo” quote for the ages there
8:18 When the Americans tell the British that they, the Americans, took the view that they, the British, should leave, because otherwise they, the British again, would give the impression that the West is still colonialist, is when the Americans finally mastered the art of British understatement.
1:16:37 True, *those* wars would not have happened. Your earlier point about Nasser-led guerrilla war against the Anglo-French occupiers is what would have happened.
Sir Bogdanor has specialized in being The Ultimate English Upperclass Dignitary
He’s unrivalled. We are fortunate for his gifts.
Some Americans still wonder why Britain did not support them in Viet Nam.
Well, that's what happens if you want to rule the world.
There's always somebody else on the same path, that needs to be shoved, manipulated, charmed, or stabbed in the back to get to be...ahem...'king of the mountain'...
I have Australian friends who served in country.
@@WildBillCox13 Australians help their friends that's why.
I don't ,we had them beat militarily,our politicians beat us as well as our own people at home..
1951GL not ours and not yours ether
a reminder the perilous journey during low tech timelines
The first lesson in History studies - it's interpretive.
This professor has presented a view that excludes at least a couple of important facts. That Egypt was essentially going to virtually starve without funding from the West for the Aswan Dam and therefore sought aid from wherever else it could, and the important point that Communism is anathema to a religious society.
Listening to this professor reminded me of the revisionism that has plagued History departments since I studied it in the 90's. The language he uses, the false connections he implies (US and British convergence), the blindness to verifiable historical facts (Nasser found Communism quite antithetical)- this all suggests a historian on the fringe.
I had a high opinion of Professor Bogdanor - and Gresham - but this reminds me of the square peg/round hole forced narrative I've heard elsewhere by historians.
It took him 1' 18min to realise that the British empire was finished and they had to leave.... and leave from everywere. People didn't fight fascism to be ruled by another foreign power !!
The speaker has given the facts from UK perspectives. Actually British people were heated by Egyptians on the other hand the Egyptian were seeing British as invader to thier country. British's interest was to drain Egyptian resources.
For that the Egyptians struggled for thier freedom but Britian coukd not understand other's eight.
The end result was making an end to the British Empire.
Dr. Khaled Atea why are you surprised that a lecturer giving a series of lectures on post-war British political crises covers events from a UK point of view?
13:12 arab imperialist? how delusional can this guy get? someone nationalizing their own lands is somehow an " imperialist " right?
If another nation owned the things taken over it, well why would it be wrong to call it an act of imperialisme?
You should ask how delusional can you get. You don't have the intellect to understand the issues at hand. So I'll end it right here.
plus even if it was true, which I am not willing to say it wasn't true, Israel also had plans then and probably still now to carve up more territory they saw as theirs, Jordan in particular. there was a lot of imperialism going on, just a lot of people trying to claim they were just " thinking about the international order" nobody has even had a bigger empire than Britain but yet it gets sold as " well we were exporting our good way of life and technology to those poor unfortunate souls whether they liked it or not,and just because at the heart of our empire is a democracy we get to claim it has good intentions. the romans said the same shit, the greeks said the same, the french the same, and now the americans
4:26 isreal was literally armed by uk,their militas got their equipment from britian,what are you talking about?
o7 01660801400101101 still do
I disagree that Eisenhower was a strong president. Dulles was an inveterate anti-Semite, and the State Department has long been a nest of anti-American sentiment in the eyes of conservatives, who are fond of saying there is no America desk at the State Department. The wild charges of communist influence were essentially true, as ultimately revealed in Soviet documents. Eisenhower lined up with the Soviets against US allies and would soon stand for the Soviet intervention in Hungary. Eisenhower won by a landslide, but in 1957 US prestige suffered a further blow with the launch of Sputnik. 1958 was a disastrous off year for Republicans, as 2020 will be as a presidential year. US fortunes have slid downhill in the intervening decades, but it all started with Eisenhower, and by 1971 US hegemony will be over. Now we know that the winning enemy would not be the Soviets but rather the PLA, whose influence will grow further under the weakness of Biden.
this guy basically calls what the british and french did in 1956 " not imperialist" lmao what? not mentioning the fact he keeps spouting " egyptian nationalists " as if the nationalists were the only ones against British imperialism in egypt,it's insane how biased he is.
This professor present the Conservative British point of view of imperialism and colonies the channel is Egyptian and will always be ,he should not mix the history up he is one of those arrogant British old Guard that never forgive Nasser that he end the British Impair.
Any Nationalist like Nasser consider dictator , Nasser done more for Egypt than any PM for Britten , Eden is nothing but a liar and Tony Blair too .
I would like to Know why he do not talk about the lone Egypt give to Britten during world war 2 until now never paid back .
False what he said about Egypt was prepare for war against Israel in 1956 Egypt was not ready for such war Egypt need money for development
Medhat Hendi- Thank you for your comments, very interesting. As ever, never any such person as an unbiased HISTORIAN...I googled the Professor. 🤣
Who BUILT the Suez Canal?
@@surfstrat59 The workers! Up the workers!
@@surfstrat59 Egyptian workers under the supervision of a French engineer. So what is your point ?
could be a great lecture, but starts out with belligerence to truth. the crisis didn't begin with nationalization of canal. it began with UK imperialism.
Very well said.
If it weren't for imperialism there would not have been a canal to nationalize!
@@cretansuperbos2121 don't let facts get in the way of opinions! It's 2019!
This lecture is pathetic
Why is it pathetic?