Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Big words

A lot of talk. The result must be that the war failed. Israel and France failed to occupy the eastern bank of the Suez Canal, and were satisfied with occupying Port Fouad, and Israel occupied Sinai as a result of the Egyptian withdrawal, and Britain failed to occupy the canal region, such as the Suez and Ismailia governorates, and it failed to suppress the Egyptian resistance in Port Said + the losses of the coalition were greater than that. Britain lost 96 soldiers according to the book of the British-French Zionist conspiracy, France lost 46, and Israel lost nearly 300 soldiers, while the Egyptian losses were 3250, and the coalition lost some warplanes Hamed2139 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That is why we say Egypt won politically, the Anglo-French forces has to withdraw, but not due to being drafted milliterilySlatersteven (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusion over blockade of the Tiran

There are now two sources in the lede with different dates for when the blockade of the Tiran began. One says 1948, the second says 1950. I now have a third source (Varble, D. (2014). The Suez Crisis 1956. Guide to... Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-1014-4. This barrier, in place since 1953, denied Israel access to the Red Sea.) which says 1953. Can anyone help sort out this mess? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

See Israeli passage through the Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran, which I am building out with some good sources to clarify this. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is it really relevant to include the direct opinions of Gaddis and Herman in the "Aftermath" section as opposed to some more neutral source of commentary explaining that point of view?

StSeanSpicer (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

"not such">"no such" in 3rd last line of the "Battle of Jebel Heitan, paratroop brigade under attack" section. Wikiuser552 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nythar (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

All historians agree that Great Britain ceased to be a great power?

That's what you'd think if you believed the lede, which says 'Historians conclude the crisis "signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers"'. Obviously not all historians think that. At best you might say "Some historians" or "At least one historian..."

The statement is at the very least controversial. Even today the UK is in the top 5 for Soft Power ranking and top 6 for GDP (List of countries by GDP (nominal)). Bacon Man (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations to add for someone with editing privileges

I suggest the following website as a citation for the fact that the british government bought shares for £4 million, under History of the Suez Canal : https://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/English/About/SuezCanal/Pages/CanalHistory.aspx

I also suggest any online inflation calculator as a reference for the modern price comparison such as this one: https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/1875?amount=4000000 GaseousButter (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Dogger Bank Incident didn’t close the Suez Canal

This description of the digger Bank incident as having closed the Suez Canal to the Russian fleet contradicts the page discussing the Dogger Bank incident and the page describing the Battle of Tsushima. Both of those argue that the shallower draft vessels sailed through the Suez and the deeper draft vessels sailed around the cape, for reasons implied as relating to safety of navigation. HHobry (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Considering the incredibly detailed invasion section of this article takes of a huge portion of this article, I was wondering if most of it should be moved to it's own sub-article? Maybe it can be called Timeline of the Suez Crisis, or something similar to that. XTheBedrockX (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Saw no objections to this, so I moved all the Invasion info to Timeline of the Suez Crisis. XTheBedrockX (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the opinion of Arthur L. Herman given such prominence?

He is not particularly well known or influential apart providing talking points for neo-confederate and far right politicians. He is hardly on expert on the matter. Drlloyd11 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

I suggest it is not a great idea to have the opinion of "Arthur L. Herman" to be given such prominence in this article. He is just a garden variety think tank/talking head for hire and not a recognized expert in the Middle East. This quote seems more aimed to the United Nation than the topic at hand and a distraction from the topic and more about his own opinions. Drlloyd11 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Did the Russian fleet use the Suez canal or not?

This article says the British denied the Russians the use of the Suez canal after the Dogger Bank incident.

The linked article on the Dogger Bank incident says that some ships used the canal while others avoided it due to their draft. 212.159.112.119 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Fedayeen attacks leading up to the war

The article fails to mention the regular fedayeen attacks leading up to the 1956. This is an important part of the history of the war, and provides necessary context. can someone please add details? Here is a government source for the relationship between fedayeen attacks and the suez war [1]https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v18/d356#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201950's%2C%20the,after%20the%201956%20Sinai%20campaign. Oyveyvey (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Two Sources in Disagreement over Dogger Bank Incident's Aftermath

The main page (here) claims "The British denied the Russian Baltic Fleet use of the canal after the Dogger Bank incident and forced it to steam around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa . . ." yet when the highlighted Dogger Bank link is clicked, *it* claims

"Concerns that the draught of the newer battleships, which had proven to be considerably greater than designed, would prevent their passage through the Suez Canal caused the fleet to separate after leaving Tangiers on 3 November 1904. The newer battleships and a few cruisers proceeded around the Cape of Good Hope under command of Admiral Rozhestvensky while the older battleships and lighter cruisers made their way through the Suez Canal under the command of Admiral Dmitry Gustavovich von Fölkersahm. They planned to rendezvous in Madagascar, and both sections of the fleet successfully completed this part of the journey."

It appears to me that one source says the British closed the Suez to the Russian fleet, whilst the other says a section of the same fleet transited the Canal.

Unless I am missing something crucial here (always a possibility), the two pages are in disagreement. 128.186.18.227 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

1956 Suez Crisis (Second Arab-Israeli War): Israel, France, and Britain withdrew their forces from the canal, and Egypt regained control of the canal. Therefore it is an egyptian victory with a patial israeli victory. Ali36800p (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HouseBlaster^talk 23:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

here are some reliable sources that support the change i want to be made:

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/97179.htm

https://www.britannica.com/event/Suez-Crisis

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important

https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/27/examining-the-1956-suez-crisis/

https://academic.oup.com/book/10548/chapter-abstract/158495146?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false Ali36800p (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• The edit request does not indicate what is to be edited (changed) and what it is to be changed to. An edit request should be made in the form change X to Y. If you intend a change to the infobox, then this is not going to happen. Per MOS:MIL, what might be entered against this parameter is very specifically limited and anything like egyptian victory with a patial israeli victory is right out. At present, the result tells us to see the Aftermath section. That is how the guidance tells us to deal with more complex results such as herein. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  instead of see aftermath section, why cant we just put egyptian victory for the result? Ali36800p (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's better simply to return as it was before since it accurately and precisely described the actual outcome.--Oloddin (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

thats literally why i'm requesting to edit, because thats not the case Ali36800p (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

First source "It was a military defeat for Egypt", so I am unsure that we need to change what is cleary a very completx situation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is a complex situation; therefore see aftermath is the best option here per MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

literally just search up who won the suez crisis, its not that hard Ali36800p (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

just search who won the suez crisis, not sure what source you are using Ali36800p (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

At the start of the article, in the second paragraph, change

"[...] Britain and France landed paratroopers along the Suez Canal. Before the Egyptian forces were defeated, they had blocked the canal to all shipping by sinking 40 ships in the canal."

to

"[...] Britain and France landed paratroopers along the Suez Canal. The Egyptian forces, before being defeated, blocked the canal to all shipping by sinking 40 ships in the canal."

This is to improve comprehension of the text, since the "they" pronoun in the original phrase could both refer to Egypt or to Britain an France Jeansidharta (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2023

In the section "1956 American peace initiative" these sentences "In case of Israeli acceptance to the Palestinian right of return and to Egypt annexing the southern half of Israel, Egypt would not accept a peace settlement. The United States or the United Nations would have to present the Israeli acceptance to all Arabs as a basis for peace settlements." is not clear. To improve comprehension of the text, I would suggest changing these sentences to: "In the event of Israeli acceptance to the Palestinian right of return and to Egypt annexing the southern half of Israel, Egypt would not act alone in accepting the terms of a peace settlement: The United States or the United Nations would have to present the Israeli acceptance to such terms to all Arabs as a prerequisite for a peace settlement."

CAVEAT: I have no access to the source ([105]) and no independent knowledge of the conditions posited by Egypt during the negotiations at the time. I'm interpreting the meaning of the original text shown above such that Nasser wanted the US or the UN to box in Israel in respect of such concessions, and thus gain an implicit guarantee and/or responsibility by the US or UN for Israel's compliance with such settlement terms, rather than just taking Israel's word for it and - in the event Israel were to try renege later - look weak in the eyes of his Arab peers for not having maneuvered the US or the UN into a position where they either act to enforce the agreed settlement terms on behalf of Egypt, or fail to do so, and in that case would lose all residual credibility with the Arab world as impartial actors. A win-win stuation for Nasser.

Alas, I don't know whether I'm putting the right words into Isaac Alteras' mouth, and whether this view accurately reflects Nasser's motivation for requiring US or UN endorsement, or whether I'm completely off on a tangent. In any case, the two sentences in their current state are unclear and ambiguous. Dietervonstein (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the size of the Egyptian Army

From Andrew McGregor - A Military History of Modern Egypt (2006) pg 251

"The army of five divisions (90,000 men) was still organized along British lines and deployed mainly in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, with the remainder dedicated to the defense of the Suez Canal."

I think this 90k number is a more reliable source for the size of the Egyptian army, rather than jewishvirtuallibrary's 300K. I know McGregor (2006) is a general history on the Egyptian military, but it's still a good modern source.

From Egyptian Army#:~:text=Tsouras writes that the mobilised,Canal Zone (one division):

Tsouras writes that the mobilised strength of the army in October 1956 was 100,000, in 18 brigades (of which 10 were infantry, 2 armoured, 1 armoured training, and 1 medium machine-gun). The main manoeuvre formations were concentrated in the Sinai (30,000 in two divisions) or in the Canal Zone (one division).

...

By November 1957, the CIA wrote that the Egyptian ground forces were estimated to have a strength of 70,000 in combat units, and a total strength of 100,000. While there were three infantry divisions & one armoured division headquarters, they only performed administrative duties. The largest Egyptian combat units were the seven infantry brigades and four armoured groups Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Eden resignation

This article describes Wilson resigning as a direct consequence of the crisis. However, the official reason at the time was given as ill health and he was very unhealthy at the time. I don't know if this is the correct way to flag this but I thought it was quite an important detail. 2A00:23C6:D0A5:1401:A825:B8A:9D9F:2E8B (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The British didn't stop Russia from entering the Suez Canal

"The British denied the Russian Baltic Fleet use of the canal after the Dogger Bank incident and forced it to steam around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa, giving the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces time to consolidate their position in East Asia."

That doesn't appear to be true since Russia was permitted to divide their fleet and send some of their fleet through the canal. Instead, larger ships didn't pass through the canal over fear that there wasn't enough clearance to not strike the bottom. The article needs to be revised. 47.145.97.124 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Soruce? 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

Section 8.5 (Aftermath - France) -

Change "The Suez crisis thus help to set the stage for the military disillusionment with the Fourth Republic, which was to lead to the collapse of the republic in 1958."

to

"The Suez crisis thus helped to set the stage for the military disillusionment with the Fourth Republic, which was to lead to the collapse of the republic in 1958." Skylinehead (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Update source 117

Source 117 should be updated to include:
|author-link=Peter Goodwin
|date=2017
|orig-date=2005
Like so: JackTheSecond (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Change that the British bought the 44% shares in the Suez company for 4 million pounds (401 million pounds in 2021 money) to (£579 million pounds in 2024) ProfessorEthan (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This number is calculated automatically by a template which uses the latest available inflation index. The number will update automatically when data for more recent years becomes available. Jamedeus (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait, is there an extra "not" in this passage?

We've got A second round of secret diplomacy by Anderson in February 1956 was equally unsuccessful. Nasser sometimes suggested during his talks with Anderson that he was interested in peace with Israel if only the Americans would supply him with unlimited quantities of military and economic aid. In case of Israeli acceptance to the Palestinian right of return and to Egypt annexing the southern half of Israel, Egypt would not accept a peace settlement.

1. Is that "not" supposed to be there in the last sentence? Doesn't make sense. What are we trying to say here?
2. Unlimited? Did he really ask that? Or just something like "massive"?

Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

1869 - "financed by the French and Egyptian governments?"

According to the article, the construction of the Suez Canal was "financed by the French and Egyptian government". The Canal was open in 1869, and Egypt gained its independent 1922. Hence, there was no "Egyptian government" that could fund the construction of the canal in the mid-18th-centry. I'm proposing to change that to "financed by France". Rroy2006 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Egypt was nominally independent in 1869. Actually it might have been technically an Ottoman province, but in real life it had its own government that could issue bonds I believe. Herostratus (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Convention of Constantinople section

This article inaccurately claims that access to the Suez Canal was denied to the Russian navy. In fact the Russian navy voluntarily split its force, some transiting around Africa and some taking the canal. See Carradice, Battle of Tsushima, 67-70 and Richard Connaughton's Rising Sun and Tumbling Bear: Russia's War with Japan, 306-310 Dpfields (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)