Posted on 07/10/2006 7:45:08 PM PDT by Nextrush
"The sun never sets on the British Empire" was a cliche that rang true 100 years ago, but as the 20th Century unfolded Britain's power and influence declined.
By 1945 an emotionally and economically drained nation picked up the pieces after World War II by electing the Labor Party to power.
This was the first time that the Labor Party exercised real power and ruled on the basis of its socialist ideals.
In foreign affairs, the Labor Party led the way in the process of decolonizing and getting Britain out of places where British rule was violently opposed like India and Palestine.
The process of decolonization would accelerate in the 1950's and 60's even as the Conservative Party returned to power.
Conservatives who believed in empire found themselves in the minority of their own party.
British power and influence extended though the Middle East from Egypt to Jordan and Iraq. The independent government of Iraq nurtured by British rule after World War I was a prime example. Its Prime Minister, Nuri Al-Said, was considered a senior Arab statesman.
British military bases were everywhere from Libya to Oman.
Britain also had influence in Egypt with its joint ownership of the Suez Canal with France and the friendship of King Farouk.
Then the Nasser coup changed the equation for British power in the 1950's. Egyptian propaganda incited military officers in other Arab countries to overthrow pro-British governments.
The first visible sign of incitement was the deportation of British citizen John Glubb, commander of Jordan's legendary Arab Legion, in 1955.
Nasser's propaganda agitated for the expulsion of "colonial powers" from Egypt but he first acted in small steps.
Britain's Conservative government negotiated with Nasser to pull its troops out of Egypt in a process that was completed June 18, 1956. But still the anti-British propaganda flowed out of Egypt in spades.
After Soviet arms began to prop up his regieme, Nasser began to pressure Britain and France over the future of the Suez Canal.
Early in 1956 Nasser spoke of "Egyptianization" of foreign owned companies in Egypt. He didn't want to scare foreign investment out of Egypt so his speeches spoke in terms of more Egyptians being hired as pilots for ships passing through the canal or more Egyptians staff being hired for other companies, etc.
Still, Nasser spoke plainly that "The Suez Canal will eventually become Egyptian property, Britain is trying to prevent this from happening."
The British Conservative Party returned to power in 1951 with Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, but by 1955 his health required his retirement.
Now the new Prime Minister was longtime Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden who himself was not in the best of health.
Eden saw Nasser as an increasingly dangerous dictator on the one hand and on the other wanted peace very badly reflecting war weariness and the fear of what might happen in a future war. ("Nuclear weapons-the bomb")
At a June 1956 meeting of British Commonwealth nations, Eden said "war means mutual destruction; therefore we must avoid it. It is our duty to keep clear of confrontations in areas where major conflict might result. There is no room left for provocation."
But Nasser's belligerent attitude and the desire of many Conservatives for a stand to protect British interests would also weigh heavily on Eden in the weeks to come.
http://free republic.com/focus/f-news/1660004/posts
The Brits were severely drained by two extremely bloody wars over the course of thirty years, and the onset of the post-colonial period hard on the heels of the conclusion of the second war.
Operation Musketeer!!
It may seem another country to today's Prince William, David Beckham or anti-American Gerard Baker/George Galloway/Robert Fisk generation, but it was just as recent as our father's generation that Britain had an Empire and a Superpower that was amply described by Rudyard Kipling. And at the peak of their power the British did not hesitate to project their power and they had (and have) no regrets over their naked imperialism.
We were suffering from Imperial over reach, too much of the Empire was built on shifting sands.
I think the decolonisation could of been handled a lot better.
In each case we should of recognized that we would not be able to maintain a occupying role for ever and should of worked towards building a strong native middle class in each of the nations who would then take over when we left.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
..................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.