On the night of October 29-30, 1956, Israel, by prior agreement with Great Britain and France, attacked Egypt.

Soon, London and Paris openly intervened in the conflict, under the guise of the need to ensure the safety of navigation on the Suez Canal.

The Anglo-French-Israeli intervention was successful from a military point of view, but diplomatic pressure from the Soviet Union and the United States did not allow its participants to reap the benefits of their victories.

After the Suez Crisis, Britain and France actually lost their status as great powers, historians say.

The origins of the conflict

The Suez Canal was opened in 1869.

It was led by the General Company of the Suez Canal, a significant part of which belonged to the rulers of Egypt.

However, in 1875, the Egyptian stake was bought out by the British, and five years later, the Egyptians ceded the rights to 15% of the profits from the channel to a French bank.

Thus, the "General Company of the Suez Canal" became an Anglo-French enterprise, over which Egypt had no influence.

According to historians, although Egypt was not a British colony and only for a short time was under the protectorate of Great Britain, the influence of London on its political and economic life was very great.

Since the end of the 19th century, a British military base has been located on the Suez Canal.

In 1922, London officially recognized Egypt as an independent state, and the rulers of Egypt accepted the royal title, but the British retained influence on the country's foreign policy and troops on its territory.

In 1952, the July Revolution took place in Egypt, prepared by the secret military organization Free Officers.

The country has officially become a republic.

Formally, Mohammed Naguib was considered the leader of the revolution, but in fact, Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Nasser led the change of power, who in 1954 became the head of government, and two years later took over as President of Egypt.

Even before the revolution, Egypt had a bad relationship with Israel, created in 1948. Territorial disputes arose between states. After coming to power, Nasser decided to create a strong modern army in the country. However, the Western powers treated the new Egyptian authorities with distrust and did not sell weapons to the official Cairo in the volumes that he needed. Therefore, Egypt began rapprochement with the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies. Against this background, the United States and Great Britain rejected Nasser's requests to take part in the construction of the Aswan hydroelectric complex, with which the Egyptian leader linked the development of industry and agriculture in the country.

In response to the actions of the Western powers, as well as with the aim of attracting additional funds to the budget, Nasser decided in 1956 to nationalize the General Company of the Suez Canal.

To the gallery page

“It was a heavy blow to the interests of the Western countries, which actively used the channel to transport goods from East to West and from West to East.

Especially powerful flow was transported oil and oil products, the goods without which the Western powers ... could not live a day.

All attempts to "reason" the Egyptian government have led nowhere.

Then some Western countries decided to take extreme measures, "- wrote in his memoirs ex-chairman of the KGB of the USSR Vladimir Kryuchkov.

According to historians, Western countries have decided to force the conflict by military means.

In a conversation with RT, associate professor at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexei Fenenko said that the loss of control over the Suez Canal was perceived by London and Paris as a prerequisite for the loss of their distant colonies due to logistical difficulties. As for the United States, Washington decided at first not to interfere in the situation around the Suez Canal, since the election campaign was in full swing in the country, and the conflict could hit Dwight Eisenhower's rating. Therefore, Great Britain and France decided to oppose Nasser without looking back at Washington. At the same time, official Paris had another reason to seek a change of power in Egypt.

"The new Egyptian regime actively helped the Algerians who rebelled against France, and Paris sought to preserve its colonial possessions in North Africa," Sergei Balmasov, an expert at the Institute of the Middle East, said in an interview with RT.

  • Participants in the 1952 Egyptian Revolution.

  • © Bibliotheca Alexandrina

In the early autumn of 1956, an international anti-Egyptian coalition was formed, which included Great Britain, France and Israel.

According to Aleksey Fenenko, according to the jointly worked out plans, Israel was supposed to attack Egypt, and the British and French - to intervene in the conflict under the pretext of ensuring the safety of international navigation on the Suez Canal.

The formal reason for Israel's attack on Egypt should be accusations against official Cairo of supporting terrorism in Israeli territories.

However, according to historians, in fact, the Israeli authorities wanted in this way to resolve territorial disputes with a neighbor.

“The calculation was that as a result of the military defeat, Arab nationalists would be removed from power.

Israel hoped to move the border away from the main centers of the country, ”stressed Sergei Balmasov.

Suez war

On the night of October 29-30, 1956, Israeli forces attacked Egyptian positions in the Sinai Peninsula.

A few hours later, Britain and France sent formal ultimatums to both sides of the conflict demanding an end to hostilities and withdrawing their troops from the Suez Canal in order to ensure the safety of international shipping.

At the same time, the Egyptians were separately required to provide the Anglo-French contingent with key positions in Port Said, Ismailia and Suez.

Israel formally accepted the ultimatum, but did not stop the hostilities, successfully moving deeper into the Sinai Peninsula.

Official Cairo rejected the demands of London and Paris, after which the Anglo-French bombing of Egyptian territory began.

At the same time, as experts note, the conflict in the Middle East developed against the background of anti-Soviet protests in Hungary. The members of the anti-Egyptian coalition hoped that the USSR would be busy solving the Hungarian problem and would not be able to intervene in the Suez crisis. However, this became a gross miscalculation.

Official Moscow did not disregard the events in Egypt, and the US authorities were unhappy with the fact that the Suez problem distracted the attention of the international community from the events in Hungary, which could be used for anti-Soviet propaganda purposes, experts emphasize. In addition, they note that in the context of the development of the internal political situation, it was more profitable for the White House to play the role of a peacemaker, and London and Paris put Washington in an uncomfortable position as a partner in the NATO bloc. Therefore, the USSR and the United States turned out to be situational allies in the Egyptian question, condemning the actions of Great Britain, France and Israel. On November 2, the UN General Assembly demanded that all parties to the conflict stop hostilities.

However, despite the demands of the UN, on November 5, 1956, an Anglo-French assault force landed in the Port Said area, which took control of navigation on the Suez Canal.

By that time, the Israelis controlled almost the entire Sinai Peninsula.

“In military terms, Egypt during the Suez crisis was in the role of a vanquished, but events in the international arena changed the further course of events,” said Sergei Balmasov.

According to Alexei Fenenko, the Soviet Union threatened the members of the anti-Egyptian coalition with military intervention in the conflict, and the United States made it clear that Britain, France and Israel could not count on Washington's support.

"The position of the USSR and the United States had a powerful deterrent effect, Egypt only needs to take advantage of this," said Alexander Vavilov, professor of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Doctor of Historical Sciences, in a conversation with RT.

  • Damaged tank and vehicles, Sinai, 1956.

  • © Wikimedia Commons

Great Britain soon ceased fighting.

France and Israel followed suit.

In December, the Anglo-French troops left Port Said, and in March 1957, Israeli units left the territory of Egypt.

According to experts, Great Britain, France and Israel spent significant financial resources on the military campaign, but did not achieve a serious political and economic effect.

Nasser was able to retain power and control over the Suez Canal.

“Yes, from a military point of view, Egypt lost, but this defeat turned into a victory,” said Sergei Balmasov.

According to Alexander Vavilov, the initiators of the crisis were let down by the unwillingness to reckon with the changes taking place in the international arena.

  • Fighting in Egypt during the 1956 Suez Crisis.

  • © Wikimedia Commons

“England and France acted according to the colonial algorithm and proceeded from the fact that they could do anything if they won.

This procedure existed for many years, but at that moment it began to change, ”the expert emphasized.

According to Alexei Fenenko, the Suez crisis was a milestone for the system of international relations that had developed at that time in the world.

“After these events, the British and French colonial empires collapsed, and Britain and France themselves lost their status as great powers.

There are only two superpowers left in the world: the USSR and the USA.

The Cold War in the form in which we are traditionally accustomed to perceive it, with two key participants, began, by and large, precisely at this time.

Therefore, the Suez crisis became a turning point in the world post-war history, ”concluded Alexey Fenenko.