Skip to content

Results:

1 - 10 of 43

Documents

December 3, 1956

Middle East (Situation): Debated in the Commons Chamber, Monday, 3 December 1956

In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970) nationalized the Suez Canal Company, surprising the world. The government of France, in whose capital of Paris the company was headquartered, and the British government, the company’s plurality shareholder, sought to reverse nationalization in court, but failed—even though they clad their case in the language not of imperial self-interest but, rather, of international public interest. The time in which such language was somewhat acceptable, even at home, was passing, and the Suez Crisis played a big part in this final act.

At the same time, the two governments early on after the canal nationalization decided to remove Nasser by force, for re-compensation was not their central concern. France believed Nasser was enabling the FLN, which in 1954 had started Algeria’s War for Independence, and Britain wanted some say in the canal, which had for decades been its worldwide empire’s “swing-door,” as a member of parliament, Anthony Eden (1897-1977), called it in 1929. In August 1956 France began discussing a joint operation with Israel, which wanted Nasser gone, too, and the Red Sea opened for Israel-bound ships. In early October the two were joined by Britain. On the 29th, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. On the 30th, France and Britain gave Israel and Egypt a 12-hour ultimatum to cease hostilities, or they would intervene—and Anglo-French forces bombed Egyptian forces from the 31st and on November 5-6 occupied the canal’s northern tip. Although a power play, “Operation Musketeer,” like the court case, could not be an open imperial move anymore, then, and did not present itself to the world as such. No matter: especially in colonies and postcolonial countries, people were outraged.

More problematically for France and Britain, Washington was incredulous. This Middle Eastern affair triggered the worst crisis of the 1950s between America’s rising international empire and Europe’s descending empires, and indeed clarified and accelerated that descent. President Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) fumed that Prime Ministers Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet (1905-1977) had disregarded his administration’s opposition to military action. Worse, they had deceived him about their intentions. And worst, their attack on Egypt undermined the supreme US tenet: Soviet containment. The Americans were by association tainted by their NATO allies’ imperialist move while the Soviets looked good—on November 5 they offered Egypt troops and threatened to nuke London, Paris, and Tel Aviv—and that although they had just repressed an uprising in Hungary.

On the very day of the ultimatum, October 30, Eisenhower washed his hands of that move on live US television, and the US mission at the UN organized a cease-fire resolution vote in the Security Council. France and Britain vetoed it. Although sharing its European allies’ emotions about Nasser, the US administration withheld critical oil and monetary supplies from them to bring them to heel and withdraw from Egypt—after which, it promised, they would be warmly welcomed back. It ceased most bilateral communications and froze almost all everyday social interactions with its two allies, even cancelling a scheduled visit by Eden. And it badgered its allies at the UN, supporting an Afro-Asian resolution that on November 24 called Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw forthwith. On December 3, the British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd took the floor in the House of Commons.

April 1962

Prime Minister's Visit to Washington, April 1962, Defensive Brief No. 1, 'Sino-Soviet Relations'

A defensive brief written for Harold Macmillan’s April 1962 talks with John F. Kennedy that outlines the similarities and differences between British and US approaches towards the Sino-Soviet split.

March 8, 1969

Memorandum for the President from Henry A. Kissinger, 'Next Steps on the Middle East'

Kissinger details a plan to hold separate talks with the Soviet Union, France, and Great Britain with the aim of bringing them closer to the US position and press them to share responsibility for success.

September 23, 1944

The President’s and the Prime Minister’s Message to Marshal Stalin regarding the Quebec Decisions

Stalin, Kerr, and Harriman discuss plans for fighting in the Far East and the Pacific.

September 23, 1944

Establishment of a Tripartite Military Committee in Moscow

Harriman, Kerr, and Stalin discuss the development of a tripartite military committee.

September 23, 1944

Bomb Installations at Debice

Clark Kerr thanks Stalin for cooperating with Anglo-American experts that recently inspected rocket installations in Debica, Poland.
Note that the document refers to the city of Debice, Poland, which is in Northwestern Poland, near the German border. This city is not known to have or been near any rocket installations and it is therefore assumed by the processor that Debica was the correct city due to its proximity to Blizna and that it was called Debice in error.

September 23, 1944

Stalin, Harriman and Kerr Discuss a Future Meeting

Ambassadors Harriman and Kerr discuss the possibility of a future "big three" meeting with Stalin.

September 23, 1944

Stalin’s Conversation with Ambassadors Harriman and Kerr

Ambassadors Harriman and Kerr discuss Stalin's surprise about the Warsaw Uprising, the Russian's engaging with the Japanese after Germany's defeat, and the next Big Three Meeting.

September 23, 1944

Paraphrase of Navy Cable

Harriman adds to a former cable that Stalin thinks the proposed British landing in Greece is a good plan.

June 28, 1944

PARAPHRASE of telegram sent from Harriman to Roosevelt

Stalin and Harriman discuss the Normandy Invasion, military matters, and ally relations.

Pagination