That should read "anywhere else in the world". Eisenhower's disastrous intervention in the 1956 Suez Canal operation ensured (1) Nasser's survival, (2) the French abandonment of its colonies to radical anti-West elements, (3) no British help in Vietnam and (4) the rise of radical anti-American regimes around the world, as European countries rushed to get the heck out of their overseas possessions. State Department leftists have repeatedly sold American interests down the river while claiming to stand up for them.
Excellent analysis. If we had stayed out of the Suez crisis in 1956, and focused on helping the Hungarians regain their freedom, the world would have been vastly changed in a few weeks and the Cold War might have ended much earlier, and no Vietnam in the way that it was handled.
Thank you.
I’d also point out that point 1 you stated would also have meant no PLO, as Nasser set that up in 1964. Palestine/Arab terrorism may have been different.
“Eisenhower’s disastrous intervention in the 1956 Suez Canal operation ensured (1) Nasser’s survival, (2) the French abandonment of its colonies to radical anti-West elements, (3) no British help in Vietnam and (4) the rise of radical anti-American regimes around the world, as European countries rushed to get the heck out of their overseas possessions.”
The French fought to keep Indochina, and lost when our promises came up empty (they had no intention of holding it after WWII, but were told by the US that communism had to be contained), and they fought to keep Algeria (with no help) until it became clear that it was an endless war in a land that would never be “France” (they tried to populate it with enough French settlers to make it a “province” of France, but only ended up with about 10% of the population - similar to Portugal’s attempts in Angola & Mozabique)).