I know that during the Suez Canal Crisis, the United States was upset that Britain, France, and Israel had hatched a complicated scheme to take the canal without consulting Washington. But why was that actually worth threatening to crash the British economy and kick them out of NATO over? From the American perspective, isn't it better for Britain and France to still retain some control around the world, especially in key areas like the Suez Canal?

>>14945363 (OP)

because if the soviet union got involved, they it would cause another world war to happen since NATO would have to participate

>>14945363 (OP)

It's a valid question. Eisenhower publicly admitted Suez was probably his administration's greatest foreign policy failure and Washington was keen to ease fears in Whitehall and reassure them of the alliance. 



The central reason the US intervened was because of a very idealistic world view that people like Nasser could eventually be American allies. The sudden explosion of post-colonial states in the 1950s meant the US and USSR were jostling to win support of anti-colonial leaders. Nasser was a particularly important figure in this regard, he was the spiritual leader of Pan-Arabism and Arab anti-colonialism, and the belief was that he'd be a valuable US ally and could potentially be the swinging force of the Entire MENA region to the US' side in the Cold War. This is largely the reason why the US had a cool, distant relationship with Israel until the mid-80's. 



To the Americans, it seemed a pretty obvious choice. Let the British and French turn the entire Middle East against the Western world, or damage Anglo-French egos and make the US appear a staunch defender of Post-Colonial states' rights.



At the time, they didn't have the benefit of hindsight in knowing these states would be failed dictatorships by the early 70s, and thought a lot of states like Egypt would be on a level similar to Europe in a few decades. 



The gamble failed, and France turned inwards to Europe. Thankfully, West Germany acted as a balancing force in the European community to keep the link to Washington and stop them becoming a third power bloc. The Anglo-American relationship was damaged, and a large number of Labour and Conservative MPs looked to turn inwards to Europe. The fact so many British Conservative MPs however still wanted Britain to be a global power, and felt the American link was key to that, meant De Gaulle blocked entry, and for the next 20 years the UK awkwardly balanced between Europe and America.



Ultimately everyone lost.

The colonial powers were more of a nuisance to USA than a benefit. The USSR profiled itself as a world liberator because it sided with newly established Arab nationalism and with anti-colonial movements spreading across the world. All of these new nations would inherently align themselves with the USSR upon independence. If America supported the xolonial powers struggle for world domination, it would solidify USSR support world wide. USA wanted to build up a new power block of independent nations that would align with the USA instead of trying to preserve the old ways for the benefit of European powers. Nothing could stop de-colonialism once it was set in full motion.



The USA was already the most powerful force on the planet, they didn't need to subject themselves or cater to autistic European powers sperging nostalgic power trips that would only antagonize the world against USA. They wanted friends across the globe, not enemies.



Based effortposter

good post
