El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
There are serious questions to be raised as to the neutrality of this article viz a vis the British. You're right. It does seem a tad unfavorable to the Brits. [edit] AftermathAfter retiring from office Eisenhower came to see the Suez Crisis as perhaps his biggest foreign policy mistake. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world. Really? I can't find a reference for this. thx1138 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find that either. I'm going to remove it as there's no reference for it. If one can be found, that person can feel free to replace it with a link. Fatla00 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] Article Biasde 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) [edit] ain't part of cold war?why not? since khrushchev threatened to attack us with nuclear bombs. Shame On You 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) This article is very biased - do not use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] uk in its glory -even in its fall- as everoperation musketeer/mousquetaire reads like the british were commanding or infiltrated among the french units. actually the british and french had two different targets and zones. i've watched a documentary telling the RAF raids missed their targets... while the french mirage IV didn't, maybe because the french were still in war since 1946 in indochina, following in algeria. the documentary told the us president put the pressure on Eden, threatening to devaluate the pound sterling, the public opinion was against war in england too. the french were already in war in algeria by that time, so it did minor change (the communists were against as ever) compared to the situation in uk. due to the us pressure, Eden had to withdraw his troops, but he didn't warned his allies france and israel! the french troops advance was blocked at some point by the british positions. this perfidious move from both the uk and us changed the look of the french on the cold war allies (see the help in indochina). hence the french atomic bomb, quit from NATO and fuck off for irak in 2002. i mean this article reads from the uk pov as ever. the documentary i've seen spoke as the French-English operation... Eden came the second day only at Sèvres, Israel and France had already have a discussion without the british. according to the documentary Eden was clearly against the invasion from the beginning even though his hatred for Nasser. the french were already in war so it was different. israel was close to france, france was close to britain, but there was a tension between britain and israel by that time. i mean maybe the british role is overrated and its sudden retreat (thanks to uncle sam) without warning underrated. it had strong backeffects however. the doc said it was because of suez that britain lose its colonial empire and submitted itself to the us until today. suez explains de gaulle's position against both the uk and us. doc said nuclear targets where everywhere on the map, it included the two of them. it was a major diplomatic crisis indeed. from the french pov it had a strong impact on the french commnding officers since the military operation was a succes but politicians wasted everything turning a military victory into a defeat. it happened before in indochina, the us felt the same in vietnam. and it happened after in algeria hence the generals upheaval (see the 1961 coup or putsch as you like). finally the french governement acted against the army in algeria toon hence the cease fire and retreat, and the OAS renegade organization. feels strange how the us don't use the experience of the french and finally experience the same failure. indochina became vietnam, and algeria is the same as irak. by 1958 the french had pacificated the revolution, but it lasted with terrorism, and finally civilian opposition and pressure see what's happenning in irak, it's all the same. it will end the same. [tv doc: L'affaire de Suez, le pacte secret - 2006 now available on emule] Shame On You 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] missing infos on nasser's violation of treaty of 1954!according to french news, nasser was supposed to not nationalize the canal built by the french until 1968 as agreed by a treaty involving egypt and britain too. LES ACTUALITES FRANCAISES, AF - 01/08/1956 the archive news video shows a meeting at downing street between Lloyd (foreign affairs secretary), Murphy (an american politician) and Pineau (foreign affairs minister). comment says in 1954 by signing the evacuation of the canal by the british, the regime of the canal was garantee until 1968. so what nasser did was a violation of the egyptian-british treaty of 1954. Shame On You 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] lacks infoslacks infos on
Shame On You 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] videosdamn i have too much archive videos now. i will move some in the operation musketer article and others in the operation amilcar.
is it me or it looks like a colonial expedition? :) they thought it would be ok and nobody would notice them... LOL Shame On You 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] timeline notesthe french landed in port fouad on november 6th, invasion was called "egypt expedition" (expédition d'Egypte), 2eRPC airborne unit embarked Nord-2501 on november 5, 10eDP (10ème Division Parachutiste) embarked ships from Algiers on october 22 1956. source: defense archives www.ecpad.fr, keyword "suez" Shame On You 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC) The Suez canal was not opened in 2009. Someone needs to find the correct year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.106.105 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] free world gentlemen invaders...it should be noted in the article isn'it? french news said egypt civilians were warned about dangerous zones to evacuate long before the dropping operations - hence some egyptian troops had run away. also before the agnlo-french retreat and the end of of the egypt expedition, the french gave food (army supply) to the civilians. pic dec.19 1956 + detailed note (report #947) Shame On You 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] operation telescope 4 nov + operation musketeer 5-6 nov details1st: 1st wave of airborne enters in action, 2nd Anglo-british fleet (named "Task Force") delivers marine infantry through landing craft, while LVT Alligator bring LST (Landing ship tank) on the Port Fouad beach. departure from cyprus nov.4: 2eRPC briefing/operation telescope launch full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #887 operation musketeer nov.5: port said south full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #886
operation musketeer nov.6: port fouad full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #868 Shame On You 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] units from algiers & french government's goaloct.22: departure of Gen. Massu's 10e DP from algiers - full report w/pics + report #663 Shame On You 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] end of Anglo-French opsbritish's unilateral cease fire on 6th november, completion of anglo-french forces withdrew on december 22nd 1956. report #947 (nice introduction to the crisis' background) Shame On You 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) french withdrewal, dec.1-30 1956: pt.1+ report #946 french withdrewal dec.22 1956 full report w/pics+report #1012 Shame On You 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] A point of clarificationI feel the following point needs clarification, for me at least. The British stake in the canal was purchased from the Egyptians as the article says, but it says nothing of the British stake in the canal after nationalisation. What I am trying to understand is, were the British out of pocket (without the canal as an asset or money as payment) after the nationalisation or were they reimbursed financially? Did the nationalisation then amount to stealing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.19.9 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Disputed[edit] Key figure completely excludedHow come that one of the key figures, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, is not mentioned one single time in the article? - Historian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.125.46 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC). In this UN text [1] the Secretary-General is mentioned over 100 times! This article: "The United Nations Peacekeeping Force was Lester Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept "peacekeeping"." Contradiction in UNEF: "in large measure as a result of efforts by secretary general Dag Hammarskjöld and a proposal from Canadian minister of external affairs Lester Pearson." United Nations [2]: "This historic development was made possible mainly through the vision, resourcefulness and determination of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and Mr. Lester Pearson, who was at the time Secretary for External Affairs of Canada." This article is not accurate. - Historian 213.132.125.46 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What happened after..?I'm rather curious how Egypt used the canal after the war. It says they opened it up in 1957, but to whom? Did they keep the embargo on Israel, how about the rest of Europe? [edit] Egyptian casualties650 KIAs are casualties only in fighting with British/French troops. This figure comes from The Suez Crisis of 1956 article, which deals only with British operations. On Sinai front Egyptians had about 1000 additional KIAs (can't provide link right now). 195.248.189.182 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Section on events leading to the crisisI have placed a POV template on this section. Some of the problems:
[edit] Don't understand this:"...Egyptian liberty to close the canal implied Israel's right to traverse the Suez Canal..." surely the word should be contravened? IceDragon64 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [edit] End of hostilities question"The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view" As I understand it, british troops didn't make it further then about 20 miles down the length of the canal (see, e.g., http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/20_21_century/3037501.html?page=3&c=y, and others - some sources seem to say no more then 10 miles). I don't see how that can be called "highly successful" in any way. Israel's operation in the Sinai to destroy the Egyption army there might be called successful, but that's about it. Is there something I'm missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.212.74 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC) The British and French military operations were a total success, they overcame all opposition quickly. They had to stop 20 miles in due to the political situation. There is no doubt, militarily or academically, that the French and British would have reached all their objectives with minimum loss of life and minimum delay, had they had 'free reign'. However, the political issues brought it to a halt. It should also be remembered that the French and British plan was not to take over Egypt, or even occupy the entire canal from end to end. Their intention was to seize major locations and points of significance along the canal, to deprive the Egyptians of overall control. Quite clearly, they couldn't land a force of 50,000 or 100,000 men in a few days - in fact they would never have possessed the resources to do this at all. It was not really like the Iraq War of 2003-, which aimed to 'liberate'(!) and command the entire country. Lastly, it should be remembered that the British and French armed forces were working under difficult conditions (from their point of view). They were not allowed to bomb built-up areas or shell civilian concentrations from the sea. This hampered the attack operation. The British/French attacks were successful from military point of view, because they met their objectives, until they were called off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Overcoverage of British perspectiveThis conflict is presented far too much from the British - and to a lesser extent Western - POV, especially in the "Events precipitating the crisis" section. I have therefore added a tag to that effect. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Página espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
