Cold WarFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFor other uses, seeCold War (disambiguation).

Photograph of theBerlin Walltaken from the West side. The Wall was built in 1961 to prevent East Germans from fleeing and to stop an economically disastrous drain of workers. It was an iconic symbol of the Cold War and its fall in 1989 marked the approaching end of the war.Part ofa serieson theHistory of theCold War

Origins of the Cold War

World War II(Hiroshima and Nagasaki)War conferencesEastern BlocWestern BlocIron Curtain

Cold War (194753)

Cold War (195362)

Cold War (196279)

Cold War (197985)

Cold War (198591)

Frozen conflicts

TimelineConflictsHistoriography

TheCold Warwas a state of political and military tension after World War II between powers in theWestern Bloc(theUnited States, itsNATOallies and others such asJapan) and powers in theEastern Bloc(theSoviet Unionand its allies in theWarsaw Pact).Historians have not fully agreed on the dates, but 19471991 is common. It was "cold" because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, although there were major regional wars inKorea,VietnamandAfghanistanthat the two sides supported. The Cold War split the temporary wartime alliance againstNazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as twosuperpowerswith profound economic and political differences: the former being a single-partyMarxistLeniniststate, and the latter being a capitalist state with generally free elections. A self-proclaimed neutral bloc arose with theNon-Aligned Movementfounded by Egypt, India, andYugoslavia; this faction rejected association with either the US-led West or the Soviet-led East. The two superpowers never engaged directly in full-scale armed combat but they each armed heavily in preparation of an all-out nuclear World War III. Each side had anuclear deterrentthat deterred an attack by the other side, on the basis that such an attack would lead to total destruction of the attacker: the doctrine ofmutually assured destructionor MAD. Aside from thedevelopment of the two sides' nuclear arsenals, and deployment of conventional military forces, the struggle for dominance was expressed viaproxy warsaround the globe,psychological warfare, propaganda andespionage, and technological competitions such as theSpace Race.The first phase of the Cold War began in the first two years after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The USSR consolidated its control over the states of theEastern Blocwhile the United States began a strategy of globalcontainmentto challenge Soviet power, extending military and financial aid to the countries of Western Europe (for example, supporting the anti-Communist side in theGreek Civil War) and creating the NATO alliance. TheBerlin Blockade(194849) was the first major crisis of the Cold War.With victory of the Communist side in theChinese Civil Warand the outbreak of theKorean War(195053), the conflict expanded. The USSR and USA competed for influence in Latin America anddecolonizingstates of Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Meanwhile theHungarian Revolution of 1956was stopped by the Soviets. The expansion and escalation sparked more crises, such as theSuez Crisis(1956), theBerlin Crisis of 1961, theCuban missile crisisof 1962. Following this last crisisa new phase beganthat saw theSino-Soviet splitcomplicate relations within the Communist sphere while US allies, particularly France, demonstrated greater independence of action. The USSR crushed the 1968Prague Springliberalization program inCzechoslovakiaand theVietnam War(19551975) ended with a defeat of the US-backedRepublic of South Vietnam, prompting further adjustments.By the 1970s both sides had become interested in accommodations to create a more stable and predictable international system, inaugurating a period ofdtentethat sawStrategic Arms Limitation Talksand the USopening relations with the People's Republic of Chinaas a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union. Dtente collapsed at the end of the decade with theSoviet war in Afghanistanbeginning in 1979.The early 1980swere another period of elevated tension, with the Soviet downing ofKorean Air Lines Flight 007(1983), and the"Able Archer" NATO military exercises(1983). The United States increaseddiplomatic, military, and economic pressureson the Soviet Union, at a time when the communist state was already suffering fromeconomic stagnation. In the mid-1980s, the new Soviet leaderMikhail Gorbachevintroduced the liberalizing reforms ofperestroika("reorganization", 1987) andglasnost("openness", ca. 1985) and ended Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Pressures for national independence grew stronger inEastern Europe, especiallyPoland. Gorbachev meanwhile refused to use Soviet troops to bolster the faltering Warsaw Pact regimes as had occurred in the past. The result in 1989 wasa wave of revolutionsthat peacefully (with the exception of theRomanian Revolution) overthrew all of the Communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. TheCommunist Party of the Soviet Unionitself lost control and was banned following anabortive coup attemptin August 1991. This in turn led tothe formal dissolution of the USSRin December 1991 and the collapse of Communist regimes in other countries such asMongolia,CambodiaandSouth Yemen. The United States remained as the world's only superpower.The Cold War and its events have left a significant legacy, and it is often referred to inpopular culture, especially in media featuring themes ofespionage(such as the internationally successfulJames Bondfilm series) and the threat ofnuclear warfare.

What was the Cold War?TheCold Waris the name given to the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and theUSSRafterWorld War Two. TheCold Warwas to dominate international affairs for decades and many major crises occurred - theCuban Missile Crisis,Vietnam,Hungaryand theBerlin Wallbeing just some. For many, the growth in weapons ofmass destructionwas the most worrying issue.

A clash of very different beliefs and ideology - capitalism versus communism - each held with almost religious conviction, formed the basis of an international power struggle with both sides vying for dominance, exploiting every opportunity for expansion anywhere in the world.Note that USSR in 1945 was Russia post-1917 and included all the various countries that now exist individually (Ukraine, Georgia etc) but after the war they were part of this huge country up until the collapse of the Soviet Union (the other name for the USSR).Logic would dictate that as the USA and the USSR fought as allies duringWorld War Two, their relationship after the war would be firm and friendly. This never happened and any appearance that these two powers were friendly during the war is illusory.Before the war, America had depicted the Soviet Union as almost the devil-incarnate. TheSoviet Unionhad depicted America likewise so their friendship during the war was simply the result of having a mutual enemy -Nazi Germany. In fact, one of Americas leading generals, Patton, stated that he felt that the Allied army should unite with what was left of the Wehrmacht in 1945, utilise the military genius that existed within it (such as the V2s etc.) and fight the oncoming Soviet Red Army. Churchill himself was furious that Eisenhower, as supreme head of Allied command, had agreed that the Red Army should be allowed to get toBerlinfirst ahead of the Allied army. His anger was shared by Montgomery, Britains senior military figure.So the extreme distrust that existed during the war, was certainly present before the end of the war..and this was between Allies. The Soviet leader,Joseph Stalin, was also distrustful of the Americans after Truman only told him of a new terrifying weapon that he was going to use against the Japanese. The first Stalin knew of what this weapon could do was when reports on Hiroshima got back to Moscow.So this was the scene after the war ended in 1945. Both sides distrusted the other. One had a vast army in the field (the Soviet Union with its Red Army supremely lead by Zhukov) while the other, the Americans had the most powerful weapon in the world, the A-bomb and the Soviets had no way on knowing how many America had.So what exactly was theCold War?In diplomatic terms there are three types of war.Hot War :this is actual warfare. All talks have failed and the armies are fighting.Warm War :this is where talks are still going on and there would always be a chance of a peaceful outcome but armies, navies etc. are being fully mobilised and war plans are being put into operation ready for the command to fight.Cold War :this term is used to describe the relationship between America and the Soviet Union 1945 to 1980. Neither side ever fought the other - the consequences would be too appalling - but they did fight for their beliefs usingclient stateswho fought for their beliefs on their behalf e.g.South Vietnamwas anticommunist and was supplied by America during the war while North Vietnam was pro-Communist and fought the south (and the Americans) using weapons from communist Russia or communist China. InAfghanistan, the Americans supplied the rebel Afghans after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 while they never physically involved themselves thus avoiding a direct clash with the Soviet Union.The one time this process nearly broke down was theCuban Missile Crisis.So why were these two super powers so distrustful of each other?AmericaSoviet Union

Free electionsNo elections or fixed

DemocraticAutocratic / Dictatorship

CapitalistCommunist

Survival of the fittestEverybody helps everybody

Richest world powerPoor economic base

Personal freedomSociety controlled by the NKVD (secret police)

Freedom of the mediaTotal censorship

This lack of mutually understanding an alien culture, would lead the world down a very dangerous path - it led to the development of weapons of awesome destructive capability and the creation of some intriguing policies such as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.Causes of the Cold War in 1945* American fear of communist attack* Trumans dislike ofStalin* USSRs fear of the American's atomic bomb* USSRs dislike of capitalism* USSRs actions in theSoviet zone of Germany* Americas refusal to share nuclear secrets* USSRs expansion west into Eastern Europe + broken election promises* USSRs fear of American attack* USSRs need for a secure western border* USSRs aim of spreading world communismThis feeling of suspicion lead to mutual distrust and this did a great deal to deepen theCold War

The causes of the Suez Canal War of 1956In 1956 the Suez Canal was nationalised byGamal AbdelNasser. The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 effectively ended the political career ofSir Anthony Edenbut it served to greatly advance the already very high standing Nasser had in the Arab world. However, what were the causes of the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis?Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the Twentieth Century. This gave Britain joint control over the Suez Canal along with the French which had been described as the jugular vein of the Empire. The Suez Canal cut a vast number of miles off a sea journey from Europe to Asian markets and vice-versa and made a journey around the volatile Cape of Good Hope unnecessary. However, the British presence in Egypt was not welcome by many Egyptians as they were made to feel second class citizens in their own country.TheMiddle Eastwas a key area within theCold Warcontext and within the Middle East the Suez Canal was seen as vital. By 1951 the British had 80,000 troops stationed along the Suez Canal making it the largest military base in the world. To many in Britain the Suez Canal was a sign of Britains overseas power to many Egyptians it was an emblem of an empire that harkened back to former times that many believed should have gone whenWorld War Twoended. Egyptians needed permission from the British to even go near to the canal and resistance to the British occupation of Egypt quickly grew.ColonelNasserwanted to take advantage of this situation. First he was aware that many Egyptians were deeply unhappy with the British being in Egypt. Second, he was also aware that corruption was rife in senior positions within Egypt and this was most epitomised by the life style of King Farouk. Nasser founded the Free Officers. Members of it wanted the overthrow of old Egypt to be followed by the removal of all British influence in Egypt.By 1952, attacks on British troops in Egypt got worse. Between 1951 and 1952, thirty had been killed and over sixty had been wounded. The Egyptian police, who were meant to be supporting troops in maintaining law and order, were feeding information to the resistance movement of British troop whereabouts etc. This made life extremely difficult for the British Army in Egypt and in 1952 Operation Eagle was introduced. This was a full crackdown on the Egyptian police. However, it only took one incident to spark off a full-scale rebellion and this happened at Ismailia.The Third Infantry Brigade surrounded the police headquarters at Ismailia and called on the men inside it to surrender. After brief talks, the police within the building refused to do so and made it plain that they were prepared to fight. The British brought in Centurion tanks and other armoured vehicles and attacked. The police headquarters was taken over. There were some British casualties but fifty Egyptian police were killed and many more were wounded. Over 800 men were arrested and taken into custody. A local man photographed what he saw and the photos, when published, only served to inflame an already very tense situation.What happened at Ismailia angered many throughout the whole of Egypt. The men in the police headquarters were armed withWorld War TwoLee Enfield rifleswhile the British used tanks to smash their way into the building. The next day after the British attack, Black Saturday, there were riots throughout Egypt. The Union Flag was burned and foreign shops were destroyed. In Cairo expatriate accommodation was attacked as was the iconic Shepherds Hotel a base for British expatriates. At the exclusive Turf Club in Cairo, expatriate members were beaten to death and the club was destroyed. In all over 700 buildings were destroyed and 9 British and 26 other Westerners were killed. It is generally accepted that this outbreak of violence was not planned but was a spontaneous outpouring of anger by people who had been treated as second class citizens within their own country. Few Egyptians could afford luxuries that existed at places like the Shepherds Hotel or the Turf Club. Those who could were invariably associated with the corrupt government of King Farouk.Anthony Edenwanted 40,000 troops moved into Egypt within 24 hours to restore order and to protect the British there. The army made it plain to Eden that this was simply not possible from a logistical point of view. While it was a clear sign that Eden had little understanding of issues such as logistics, the issue was left with army chiefs being told that they were leaving British citizens unprotected.What happened at Ismailia and what followed, gave Nasser and the Free Officers exactly the right opportunity to over throw Farouk. The king was peacefully removed from his palace, taken to Alexandria where he boarded his yacht and left Egypt to a 21-gun salute. Nasser immediately set up the Revolutionary Command Council. Though Nasser did not head the Council, it was obvious that the most potent force in it was Nasser.This all happened against a background when the British government was having major financial troubles at home. The cost of the military commitment to Egypt was huge and one that the Treasury could have done without. Eden took the decision to start negotiations with the Revolutionary Command Council to withdraw British troops from the Suez Canal. The so-called Suez Group in the Conservative Party was furious when his plan was announced. Led by Julian Amery, the Suez Group argued that a withdrawal would be the end of the Empire and that it would reward violence against British troops. Regardless of their objections, Eden went ahead with the negotiations.However, the speed of the negotiations was not quick enough for Egyptian nationalists. Attacks on British troops continued but a new dynamic was added with attacks on the families of troops occurring. With 27,000 British citizens in Egypt, this was a new and worrying development. The resistance leaders used the talks to their advantage. When the British seemed to be stalling the attacks got worse; when the British appeared to be more conciliatory, they slackened off. In 1954 an agreement was reached that stated that British troops would leave Egypt within twenty months of the signing of the agreement. The signing of this agreement ended the attacks on British troops.Nasser and Eden met for the first and last time in February 1955. Eden arrived in Cairo with two objectives. The first was for Egypt to stop its anti-British radio broadcasts and the second was to get Egypt to join the recently formed Baghdad Pact an anti-communist pro-western alliance ofMiddle Eaststates that Egypt had not joined. He failed on both counts. Even the dinner put on for Nasser at the British Embassy was a failure as Nasser arrived in military uniform to be greeted by Eden in full evening dress Nasser was unaware that the dinner was to be formal and he concluded that it had been done to show him up in public. There is no evidence that this was the case it just seems to have been a genuine misunderstanding. But within the context of what was going on then, to those Egyptians who had access to the information via the radio channel Voice of Egypt, it was a deliberate attempt to humiliate Nasser.One week after the meeting between Eden and Nasser, Israel raided Egyptian territory in Gaza killing over thirty people. This raid exposed Egypts military weakness and Nasser attempted to buy weapons abroad. His attempt to buy weapons from Britain failed and the Americans were also unwilling to accommodate him. Therefore, Egypt turned to the Soviet Bloc. To the Russians, this expansion of influence in the Mediterranean and Middle East was a major coup.To modernise Egypt, Nasser wanted to build a dam at Aswan to harness the awesome power of the River Nile. Clearly Egypt did not have the money to fund this. $200 million came from the World Bank while, in an effort to re-establish some influence in the area, both Britain and America agreed to financially support the project.However, Eden did not trust Nasser. In a public broadcast he had stated that Nasser is not a man to be trusted to keep an agreement. MI6 provided Eden, now Prime Minister, with reports that Nasser was becoming more pro-Moscow. There was little evidence for this despite the Soviet Union providing Egypt with weapons both seemed to be using the other for its own purposes. However the MI6 reports only served to anger Eden who did not want to gain an Atlee reputation for appeasement.When British troops finally left Egypt, it ended seventy four years of occupation. Nasser became president of Egypt and his status in the Arab world could not have been higher. However, without any reference to Britain, America suddenly announced that it was no longer going to financially support the Aswan Dam project. Britain followed the Americans example. Nasser announced that such treatment of Egypt was an insult and a humiliation. To Nasser the dam would be a symbol of Arab pride and he was determined to go ahead with its building. The Russians provided the necessary engineering knowledge, while the Suez Canal would provide the necessary finance.In 1956, Nasser announced to his inner council that he was going to nationalise the Suez Canal on behalf of the Egyptian people. In Operation Dignity and Glory the offices of the Suez Canal Company were taken over. It was a bloodless affair that was joyously received in Egypt when news of what had occurred was announced. Ironically, government lawyers for the Conservative government 1951-1953 had foreseen this and had assessed whether it was a legal move. They decided that under international law it was legal to nationalise the Suez Canal as long as they suitably compensated share holders and allowed ships of all nationalities through the canal. When Eden was shown the report at his first meeting after Dignity and Glory, staff there claimed he shouted This is no f***ing good and threw the report across the room.What followed werediplomatic talks- some secret - that all led to theinvasionof Port Said in November 1956.

MLA Citation/Reference"The causes of the Suez Canal War of 1956".HistoryLearningSite.co.uk.2006. Web.The diplomatic background to the Suez Crisis of 1956Nasserhaving nationalised the Suez Canal waited to see what would happen. Nasser confidently predicted that Britain would not use military force to reclaim the Suez Canal and that diplomacy would not work. Therefore he concluded that his gamble over the Suez Canal had worked.On August 8th,1956Anthony Edenwent on television to explain his policy towards Egypt. He told the British public that Our quarrel is not with Egypt, still less with the Arab world. It is with Colonel Nasser. He is not a man who can be trusted to keep an agreement. During the speech, Eden compared Nasser to the recent Fascist leaders of Europe a comparison that did not go down well in the Arabic world.In August 1956, 20,000 reservists were called up in Britain. Men were sent to Malta and Cyprus as the two obvious forward military bases. Britain drew up, in secret, plans to re-capture the Suez Canal and to force through a change of regime in Egypt. Edens main advisor at the Foreign Office on Egyptian issues was Adam Watson. He got the clear impression that Eden believed that the Egyptian people would welcome a strong but benevolent British government in Egypt a throwback to the days of the British Empire at its peak.The United States of America made it clear that it was against any form of military action and Dwight Eisenhower made this clear in communications with Eden. The American Secretary of State at the time was John Foster Dulles. It was Dulles who had frequent contact with Eden and his messages to the Prime Minister were ambivalent and far from clear. If Eden believed that America was not against military action as a result of his meetings with Dulles, this may well have encouraged him to not only think about it but also to actively follow it up.Eden got the full backing of France for action against Egypt, especially from the French Foreign Minister Christian Pireau. Nasser had helped Algerian rebels against the ruling French government in Algiers and this Pireau could not tolerate. Nasser backed up his stance when he publicly stated It is our duty to help our Arab brothers.A third nation covertly made its feeling plan on the topic of Egypt Israel. Officials from France and Israel met in secret to discuss what could be done against Egypt. Israel was greatly concerned by Egypts military power that was becoming greater as a result of Czech military imports. On July 27th, France had openly asked Israel if they were considering attacking Egypt in what would be a pre-emptive strike attack before being attacked. Shimon Peres told the French that an Israeli attack could take place within two weeks of the 27thbut that modern weapons were needed. In response to this, France secretly exported to Israel modern weaponry. Because of a trade embargo on military equipment to the Middle East, the landing of this equipment took place at night Moshe Dayanwas there to observe the landings near Haifa.As a result of his concern for what was going on in theMiddleEast, Eisenhower ordered U2 spy planes to fly over the Israel/Egypt area to give US Intelligence more of a clear picture as to what military equipment both sides had. The results greatly angered Eisenhower. The photos showed that Israel had been equipped with sixty French Mystere fighter planes whereas the French government had told Eisenhower that they had only handed over to Israel twelve Mysteres. Eisenhower saw the planes as changing the balance of power in the region and that such a move could provoke a response.On October 13th, Eden addressed the Conservative Party conference at Llandudno. Eden clearly stated that he did not rule out the use of military force. However, he also knew that he had to do something decisive as little had been seemingly done since thenationalisationof the Suez Canal in July.On October 14th, Eden met the French Deputy Chief of Staff at Chequers. It was at this meeting that there was the first mention of a possible military input by the Israelis. The French plan was to get Israel to attack Egypt across the Sinai Desert. As Israel moved nearer to the Suez Canal, Britain and France would call on both forces to withdraw ten miles both sides of the Suez Canal (Egypt to the west and Israel to the east) and both nations would send in troops to ensure the safety of this vital international waterway. On October 16thEden told the French that the plan had his support. Secrecy was paramount and America was not told.The three nations involved met at a remote villa at Sevres near Paris.Ben Gurion, Shimon Peres andMoshe Dayanmade the secret journey from Israel to the villa while the British representative there was the Foreign Secretary, Selwyn Lloyd. The meeting did not go well. Gurion wanted Britain to promise to intervene in the region 72 hours earlier than Britain had planned to do so. Lloyd refused to give such an assurance and Ben Guiron was all for leaving the meeting. He was stopped when Shimon Peres told him that their plane had developed mechanical problems and that they would have to stay at the villa to ensure that their presence there remained secret. As a result, the talk continued.On October 23rd, Pineau flew to London to see Eden to sort out the problems. On the following day, Eden sent Patrick Dean to Paris. Dean was the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and his task was to ensure that any Israeli attack actually seemed as if it was going to threaten the Suez Canal. Therefore, in the eyes of the world, Britain and France would be justified in sending in troops. Dean signed a document that confirmed all the details. He brought a copy back to Eden who was horrified that anything had been put in writing as this, Eden believed, jeopardised the whole secrecy of the mission.On October 28th, Israel launched a secret strike on Egypt so secret that for years the Egyptians had no idea as to what had happened. Israeli intelligence had found out via a spy when and where an aeroplane carrying senior Egyptian military commanders would be flying. It was shot down killing all on board. Many in Egypt believed it to have been a tragic accident.At the same time, twelve French fighter jets flew from Cyprus to Israel. Dayan was concerned about the aerial strength of the Egyptian air force and the French fighters were a guarantee against this. The fighter planes were given Israeli markings and the French pilots given the appropriate documentation.On October 29th, 395 Israeli paratroopers were dropped in the Sinai Desert about twenty miles from the Suez Canal. Eden had expected a larger force and the attack even puzzled Nasser who was informed that the Israelis seemed to be going from one sand hill to another with no obvious strategic cohesion to what they were doing.On October 30th, Eden informed theHouse of Commonsand the Queen of what had happened in the Sinai. The Israeli and Egyptian ambassadors were summoned and told to inform their respective governments that both forces should withdraw ten miles either side of the Suez Canal to ensure that the canal was not damaged.Nasserrejected this and it was this that gave Britain and France the excuse to start an attack.TheUnited Nationscalled on all sides not to use violence in the attempts to solve the problem. Britain used its right of veto in the Security Council to reject this.Britain started its attack when RAF bombers attacked the international airport in Cairo. Eisenhower was furious and he made his anger known in public when he said We believe these actions to be taken in error. However, his comments did not stop the bombings. On November 1st, more British aerial bombings destroyed many Mig 15 fighters on the ground.In Britain, Eden faced embarrassment from one of his own MPs William Yates. He had found out about the secret plan to attack Egypt. However, Yates had no details about it if he had, Eden could have been in far more political trouble than he was as it would have been obvious that Britain and France were trying to precipitate a situation in which they could attack as opposed to avoiding one.Theattackon Egypt was scheduled for November 5th.

MLA Citation/Reference"The diplomatic background to the Suez Crisis of 1956".HistoryLearningSite.co.uk.2006. Web.The diplomatic background to the Suez Crisis of 1956Nasserhaving nationalised the Suez Canal waited to see what would happen. Nasser confidently predicted that Britain would not use military force to reclaim the Suez Canal and that diplomacy would not work. Therefore he concluded that his gamble over the Suez Canal had worked.On August 8th,1956Anthony Edenwent on television to explain his policy towards Egypt. He told the British public that Our quarrel is not with Egypt, still less with the Arab world. It is with Colonel Nasser. He is not a man who can be trusted to keep an agreement. During the speech, Eden compared Nasser to the recent Fascist leaders of Europe a comparison that did not go down well in the Arabic world.In August 1956, 20,000 reservists were called up in Britain. Men were sent to Malta and Cyprus as the two obvious forward military bases. Britain drew up, in secret, plans to re-capture the Suez Canal and to force through a change of regime in Egypt. Edens main advisor at the Foreign Office on Egyptian issues was Adam Watson. He got the clear impression that Eden believed that the Egyptian people would welcome a strong but benevolent British government in Egypt a throwback to the days of the British Empire at its peak.The United States of America made it clear that it was against any form of military action and Dwight Eisenhower made this clear in communications with Eden. The American Secretary of State at the time was John Foster Dulles. It was Dulles who had frequent contact with Eden and his messages to the Prime Minister were ambivalent and far from clear. If Eden believed that America was not against military action as a result of his meetings with Dulles, this may well have encouraged him to not only think about it but also to actively follow it up.Eden got the full backing of France for action against Egypt, especially from the French Foreign Minister Christian Pireau. Nasser had helped Algerian rebels against the ruling French government in Algiers and this Pireau could not tolerate. Nasser backed up his stance when he publicly stated It is our duty to help our Arab brothers.A third nation covertly made its feeling plan on the topic of Egypt Israel. Officials from France and Israel met in secret to discuss what could be done against Egypt. Israel was greatly concerned by Egypts military power that was becoming greater as a result of Czech military imports. On July 27th, France had openly asked Israel if they were considering attacking Egypt in what would be a pre-emptive strike attack before being attacked. Shimon Peres told the French that an Israeli attack could take place within two weeks of the 27thbut that modern weapons were needed. In response to this, France secretly exported to Israel modern weaponry. Because of a trade embargo on military equipment to the Middle East, the landing of this equipment took place at night Moshe Dayanwas there to observe the landings near Haifa.As a result of his concern for what was going on in theMiddleEast, Eisenhower ordered U2 spy planes to fly over the Israel/Egypt area to give US Intelligence more of a clear picture as to what military equipment both sides had. The results greatly angered Eisenhower. The photos showed that Israel had been equipped with sixty French Mystere fighter planes whereas the French government had told Eisenhower that they had only handed over to Israel twelve Mysteres. Eisenhower saw the planes as changing the balance of power in the region and that such a move could provoke a response.On October 13th, Eden addressed the Conservative Party conference at Llandudno. Eden clearly stated that he did not rule out the use of military force. However, he also knew that he had to do something decisive as little had been seemingly done since thenationalisationof the Suez Canal in July.On October 14th, Eden met the French Deputy Chief of Staff at Chequers. It was at this meeting that there was the first mention of a possible military input by the Israelis. The French plan was to get Israel to attack Egypt across the Sinai Desert. As Israel moved nearer to the Suez Canal, Britain and France would call on both forces to withdraw ten miles both sides of the Suez Canal (Egypt to the west and Israel to the east) and both nations would send in troops to ensure the safety of this vital international waterway. On October 16thEden told the French that the plan had his support. Secrecy was paramount and America was not told.The three nations involved met at a remote villa at Sevres near Paris.Ben Gurion, Shimon Peres andMoshe Dayanmade the secret journey from Israel to the villa while the British representative there was the Foreign Secretary, Selwyn Lloyd. The meeting did not go well. Gurion wanted Britain to promise to intervene in the region 72 hours earlier than Britain had planned to do so. Lloyd refused to give such an assurance and Ben Guiron was all for leaving the meeting. He was stopped when Shimon Peres told him that their plane had developed mechanical problems and that they would have to stay at the villa to ensure that their presence there remained secret. As a result, the talk continued.On October 23rd, Pineau flew to London to see Eden to sort out the problems. On the following day, Eden sent Patrick Dean to Paris. Dean was the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and his task was to ensure that any Israeli attack actually seemed as if it was going to threaten the Suez Canal. Therefore, in the eyes of the world, Britain and France would be justified in sending in troops. Dean signed a document that confirmed all the details. He brought a copy back to Eden who was horrified that anything had been put in writing as this, Eden believed, jeopardised the whole secrecy of the mission.On October 28th, Israel launched a secret strike on Egypt so secret that for years the Egyptians had no idea as to what had happened. Israeli intelligence had found out via a spy when and where an aeroplane carrying senior Egyptian military commanders would be flying. It was shot down killing all on board. Many in Egypt believed it to have been a tragic accident.At the same time, twelve French fighter jets flew from Cyprus to Israel. Dayan was concerned about the aerial strength of the Egyptian air force and the French fighters were a guarantee against this. The fighter planes were given Israeli markings and the French pilots given the appropriate documentation.On October 29th, 395 Israeli paratroopers were dropped in the Sinai Desert about twenty miles from the Suez Canal. Eden had expected a larger force and the attack even puzzled Nasser who was informed that the Israelis seemed to be going from one sand hill to another with no obvious strategic cohesion to what they were doing.On October 30th, Eden informed theHouse of Commonsand the Queen of what had happened in the Sinai. The Israeli and Egyptian ambassadors were summoned and told to inform their respective governments that both forces should withdraw ten miles either side of the Suez Canal to ensure that the canal was not damaged.Nasserrejected this and it was this that gave Britain and France the excuse to start an attack.TheUnited Nationscalled on all sides not to use violence in the attempts to solve the problem. Britain used its right of veto in the Security Council to reject this.Britain started its attack when RAF bombers attacked the international airport in Cairo. Eisenhower was furious and he made his anger known in public when he said We believe these actions to be taken in error. However, his comments did not stop the bombings. On November 1st, more British aerial bombings destroyed many Mig 15 fighters on the ground.In Britain, Eden faced embarrassment from one of his own MPs William Yates. He had found out about the secret plan to attack Egypt. However, Yates had no details about it if he had, Eden could have been in far more political trouble than he was as it would have been obvious that Britain and France were trying to precipitate a situation in which they could attack as opposed to avoiding one.Theattackon Egypt was scheduled for November 5th.

MLA Citation/Reference"The diplomatic background to the Suez Crisis of 1956".HistoryLearningSite.co.uk.2006. Web.Dwight Eisenhower and SuezAmerica and Great Britain shared differing views on how the1956 SuezCrisisshould be handled, as a letter written in September by President Dwight Eisenhower to Prime MinisterAnthony Edenmade very clear.We have a grave problem confronting us in Nassers reckless adventure with the canal, and I do not differ from you in your estimate of his intentions and purposes. The place where we apparently do not agree is on the probable effects in the Arab world of the various possible reactions by the Western World. You seem to believe that any long, drawn out controversy will inevitably make Nasser an Arab hero. This, I think, is a picture too dark. I believe we can expect the Arabs to rally firmly to Nassers support if there should be a resort to force without thoroughly exploring and exhausting every possible peaceful means of settling the issue. Nasser thrives on drama. If we let some of the drama go out of the situation and concentrate upon deflating him through slower but sure processes (such as economic pressures, Arab rivalries, a new pipeline to Turkey, more oil for Europe from Venezuela. I assure you we are not blind to the fact that eventually there may be no escape from the use of force. But to resort to military action when the world believes there are other means available would set in motion forces that could lead to the most distressing results.Why did Eisenhower take this view especially in view of the fact that Great Britain was probably Americas closest ally in NATO? Various theories have been forwarded for Eisenhowers approach. One was that America acquired relatively little oil through the Suez Canal (about 15% of their national requirement in 1956) and the economic importance to America of the nationalisation of the canal was minimal. US investments in the Suez Canal Company was also negligible. Another theory is that Eisenhower wanted to be seen as a man who could broker peace at an international level in regions that could be described fragile in terms of peace. 1956 was election year in America. One of the more accepted views is that Eisenhower feared a huge backlash amongst the Arab nations if Egypt suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the British, French and Israelis as seemed likely. Would this push Egypt more and more towards Moscow? Would other Arab nations then follow? It was well known that the USSR wanted a permanent warm water naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, which her Black Seas fleet could use. Would Nassers rejection of the West lead to a much greater Soviet influence in this important diplomatic zone? Eisenhowers fears came true. Soviet money financed the dam at Aswan and the Egyptian military received Soviet equipment.

MLA Citation/Reference"Dwight Eisenhower and Suez".HistoryLearningSite.co.uk.2010. Web.The Suez Crisis of 1956Events in Egypt, thenationalisationof the Suez Canal and the increasing heroic status ofNasser, made conflict looked inevitable.On November 3rd1956,Anthony Edenprepared to address the nation. By now it was clear to those around him, that Edens health was suffering. The director of the broadcast, David Attenborough, stated He looked dreadful, very ill. At the start of his address, Eden stated:All my life I have been a man of peace. I still have the same devotion to peace.However, in the same speech, Eden then went on that now was the right time to stand firm and that action was required to undo what Nasser had done with regards to the Suez Canal.In Egypt, civilians were given rifles in an effort to produce a makeshift militia that would support the army. The military in Cairo fully expected a full-scale Anglo-French invasion and wanted as many to help as was physically possible.On November 4th, a major demonstration was held in London with regards to the military build-up. The demonstration was organised by the Labour Party and the most common banner on display was Law Not War. The main speaker at Trafalgar Square wasAneurin Bevan. The man credited with founding the National Health Service said:If he is sincere in what he is saying, then he is too stupid to be Prime Minister.The demonstration turned more unpleasant and the police were needed to restore order near 10, Downing Street.In Cairo, Nasser saw images of the demonstration. He turned to a colleague and said Eden is weak, weak in character.Diplomatically, the course of events seemed to be turning against Eden. It appeared as if the Israelis were going to accept aUnited Nationsproposal for a ceasefire. Even Edens cabinet was split on what course of action should be taken. The main opponent to military action was the Leader of the House, Rab Butler. When it became clear that Israel was not going to accept the UNs ceasefire proposal, the cabinet decided that military action would start. In theory, the action by the armed forces should have been easy, as the Israelis had tied up a lot of the Egyptian Army in the Sinai.On November 5th, ironicallyGunpowder Plotday in Britain, men from the 3rdBattalion of the Parachute Regiment took off for El Gamil airfield, to the west of Port Said. At 05.00, the first men landed at the airfield 668 paratroopers were to parachute into El Gamil in total. The paratroopers faced a mixture of civilians and army fighters. French paratroopers, with some British in support, landed to the west of Port Said. At El Gamil, the resistance put up by the Egyptians was greater than expected and 3 Para took more casualties than had been anticipated. From El Gamil, 3 Para moved on Port Said itself at the mouth of the Suez Canal. The Royal Air Force gave the men fighter cover as they moved. Despite fierce resistance in a cemetery near Port Said, the British force had a successful first day.However, on that day a letter was received in London but not shown to the sleeping Eden until the following day from Bulganin, the Soviet Unions Prime Minister. As Suez was played out in the background of the Soviet invasion ofHungary, seeming Soviet involvement was a worrying occurrence. Bulganin made it clear that the Soviet Union would take action against any aggressors in Egypt.In the era of theCold Warand with the world reeling from the Soviet invasion of Hungary, it would have been expected that Britains primary ally at the time the United States of America would have rallied to support Great Britain. This did not happen in fact, the opposite happened. Dwight Eisenhower, Americas president, was campaigning to be re-elected as President of America. The global image of an American ally acting like an imperial bully against a nation that probably could not protect itself against such a force was unacceptable to Eisenhower. He had already told Eden that the use of force was unacceptable to the Americans. In a letter to Eisenhower, Eden wrote:History alone can judge whether we have made the right decision.Militarily, Day One went as well as could have been expected. Diplomatically, things were not going well for Eden.On November 6th, the sea landings took place in support of the paratroopers on the ground. At 04.00, guns from Royal Navy ships started to pound known defences in Port Said. At 04.45, men from 40 and 42 Commandos, Royal Marines, started their assault on Port Said. 45 Commando went in via helicopters. Faced with a combination of British and French paratroopers, British commandos and the Israeli Army in Sinai, it seemed obvious to many that the Egyptian forces would not last for long.However, on the same day, politics started to take its toll. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold McMillan, told a cabinet meeting that there was a run on sterling, especially in New York and the Britain faced the real prospect of having to devalue sterling and also face the possibility of an Arab oil embargo. Both would have a major negative impact on the British economy. This was also coupled with the prospect ofUnitedNationsanctions. Eisenhower had also made it clear to his cabinet that America would not do anything to prop up sterling until Britain and France had started to withdraw their forces from Egypt.Faced with the possibility of a major dent in the UK economy, the cabinet took the decision to order a ceasefire.By the end of November 6th, Port Said had been taken and the military estimated that full control of the Suez Canal would only take another 24 hours. However, they were ordered to stop fighting at midnight on the same day.By November 7th, casualty figures could be assessed. It is believed that about 650 Egyptians were killed including civilians, with 2,000 wounded.The Anglo-French forces lost 26 men killed and 129 wounded included in these figures were Royal Marines killed and wounded in a friendly-fire incident involving the RAF.There was little doubt that Britain had been humiliated on the international scene. However, Eden remained defiant. On November 17thhe said:We make no apology and will never make one for the actions which we took.On December 20th, in theHouse of Commons, Eden was asked if he had ever had prior knowledge of an Israeli attack preceding a British/French one. Eden told the House that he had not clearly misleading the House on what he actually did know. However, his health was failing.British troops started to withdraw on December 23rd.On January 8th, 1957, Eden addressed his cabinet for the last time. He gave his reason for resigning as increasingly poor health. The Queen accepted his resignation on January 9th and Harold McMillan succeeded him.In Egypt and in the whole Arab world, Nasser became a hero idolised by millions. He was seen as the man who had stood up to the imperial ambitions of Britain and France and had defeated them.

MLA Citation/Reference"The Suez Crisis of 1956".HistoryLearningSite.co.uk.2006. Web.Britain and the cold warThe forgotten warThe impact of the cold war on Britain is just beginning to receive serious consideration from historiansNov 11th 1999|From the print edition LADY THATCHER was conspicuous by her absence in Berlin this week. As George Bush, Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev reminisced on a stage together about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the woman who earned the sobriquet iron lady because of her resolute stance in the cold war remained in Britain. Some said it was because her presence in Berlin was inappropriate, given her deep misgivings about the unification of Germany. Others said it was simply a scheduling conflict. But whatever the real cause of the iron lady's absence, it captured the insousiance with which Britain is commemorating the end of the cold war.Nobody disputes that the end of the cold war was a defining moment for the United Statesand even more obviously for Germany and the Soviet Union. But when it comes to Britain there has been strikingly little reflection about how things changed in 1989. Historians and commentators have tended to regard the cold war as something that happened somewhere else; and to regard the defining questions for post-war Britain as the loss of empire, or the endless prevarication about Europe.But, in fact, it was the cold war, more than any other event, that determined Britain's approach to the post-war world. Martin Longden of the University of Leeds points out that at the end of the second world war, the new Labour government was hoping to place Britain at the head of a new European block. Labour's foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, told the Foreign Office in August 1945 that Britain's aim was extensive political, economic and military co-operation throughout Western Europe, with an Anglo-French alliance as a corner-stone.In this section Drop by drop A general theory of spin doctors The forgotten war Young toddlers Loyalty test Foot off the escalator Ping pong Go forth and multiply Auld lang syneReprintsRelated topics Government and politics Politics World politics Political parties British politicsHowever, his ambitions were thwarted by increasing tensions between the old wartime allies; Britain and the United States on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other. The French, with communists in General de Gaulle's government, were thought politically unreliable. And Britain's dire economic problems undermined its ability to ensure European security, in the face of what was perceived to be an immediate Soviet threat. So it became Britain's overriding aim to tie the Americans into Europe. The closeness of Anglo-American military and intelligence ties, driven by the cold war, became a defining feature of British foreign policyand a source of tension between Britain and France, which led de Gaulle twice to veto British membership of the then European Economic Community, on the grounds of Britain's irremediable Atlanticism.The cold war also had a huge impact on the British economy. David Edgerton, professor of the history of science at Imperial College, London, is the author of The Rise of the British Warfare State, to be published next year. He argues that it would be more accurate to describe post-war Britain as a warfare state than as a welfare state. Despite the creation of the National Health Service, Britain's spending on welfare as a proportion ofGDPwas actually low compared with its main European allies, whereas its spending on defence and warfare was the highest of the big European powers. After the immediate post-war disarmament, Britain began to rearm at a faster rate than at any time in its peacetime history. Come the early 1950s and the first set-piece cold war confrontation in Korea, Britain was spending almost 10% of itsGDPon defence. Although by the 1980s this figure had halved, Britain still spent more on defence than any of theNATOallies except America.Arguably, the rearmament of the early 1950s used up skilled labour and machinery at a crucial time, when Britain was struggling to recover from the second world war. There was an enormous concentration by government on defence-related research and development, which crowded out what might otherwise have been more productive research. Needless to say, several of these weapons programmes were costly flops, such as the Blue Streak missile and theTSR2jet, both cancelled in the 1960s. By the early 1960s it was clear that Germany and France were beginning to pull clear of Britain economically. Could it have been, in part, because they did not have the defence burden as a drag on their economies?Harriet Jones, director of the Institute of Contemporary British History, argues that the cold war also had a profound effect on domestic politics. In the 1951 election, the Tories used posters with the slogan Socialism leads to Communism against a background of an atomic mushroom cloud. In the 1980s, the Tories again skilfully exploited Labour's links to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Ms Jones suggests that the cold war environment was essential to the success of post-war conservatism, and that it was no coincidence that the Tories fell into disarray in the 1990s, without the glue of anti-communism to hold them together.Discussing the legacy of the cold war has become a mini-industry in much of the United States and Eastern Europe. Britain is only just realising thatfor all the concentration on empire and Europefor almost 50 years it was the cold war which shaped Britain, for good, perhaps, but also probably for ill.How Significant Was The British Role In The Early Cold War?An essay looking into the role Britain played in the creation and subsequent continuation of the Cold WarDate: 30/09/2013

Author InformationUploaded by:SarahUploaded on: 30/09/2013Subject:HistoryHow significant was the British role in the early Cold War?

The British role in the Cold War has often been overlooked as ever having any importance in what is primarily described as a bipolar war between America and the Soviet Union. More recently however historians such as Anne Deighton have looked at the role of Britain and concluded that its role in the Cold War was a lot more significant than first thought. Some will go further, like John Kent, and say that they had a big part in actually starting the Cold War. This is hardly surprising seeing as Russia and Britain have a long history of rivalry. This had initially been based on mutual fears of expansionism but after 1917, this was combined with ideological differences too. America was relatively new to this rivalry and so Britain took it upon themselves as being the educator in their Anglo-American relationship. The significance of the British role during the Cold War can be assessed by seeing how much influence they had on certain key events, how much they influenced America and finally by whether or not they can be described as initiators of the aggression at the start of the Cold War. Also when the Cold War started is in itself something that is open to interpretation as it depends on how you judge it but for the purpose of this essay, the early Cold War years will be defined as the period directly after the Second World War until the Suez crisis in 1956 as this event is a good indicator on how significant Britain's role was.

Primarily though it is necessary to look through this historic rivalry between the two powers. They had been rivals for a long time. A lot of the events and issues between Britain and the Soviet Union during the Cold War had been issues for them in the early nineteenth century, for example, Britain had to get involved in Greece twice to counteract Russian power and expansionism just like they had had to in 1944. They had always been against them ideologically, for example, Britain was against the Holy Alliance in 1815 as Britain had felt that Russia was standing in the way of liberalism so there was always this hostility and friction between the two over beliefs. Furthermore the policy of rollback and containment, techniques used by America during the Cold War, were techniques that Britain had been using initially against Russia for centuries. It was only in the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 that the British reason for mistrusting Russia changed slightly as their ideology had but this hostility was still present between them . Communism was a massive threat to the entire Western world but Churchill was a massive opposer of anything communist and he often shared this view with Presidents Roosevelt and Truman whenever he could.

Winston Churchill was Prime Minister during the Second World War and even though he had tried for cooperation with Stalin initially, he still hated communism and would often send messages to Roosevelt warning him of the perils communism could bring and how Stalin could not be trusted. Rasor argues that it was in fact Churchill that started the Cold War with his overly aggressive attitude towards the Soviet Union which was emulated by the new, impressionable President, Harry Truman . Churchill wanted the intensification of the Anglo-American relationship as he felt this was the best way to combat the Soviet threat. Through this intensification, Harbutt argues that Churchill was able to inspire the timing of the reversal of American policy from trying to cooperate with the Soviet Union to being harsher . Churchill was seen by Truman as being more experienced on European affairs than him. Deighton would argue that Britain shaped the Cold War and that Churchill was a massive authority with his 1946 'Iron Curtain' speech , which it has been stated had a massive influence on the creation of the Truman Doctrine which would further cement the two camps (Reynolds) .

Churchill's views were not the only ones that were influential in the shaping of the Cold War though. Kent mentions how Ernest Bevin, Foreign Minister in 1945, unlike Atlee was very concerned with being an imperial power separate from America and the Soviet Union and that this was motivated by economic interests. Bevin wanted to keep their influence in the Mediterranean and the Middle East and it was through this that tensions between the Soviet Union and Britain grew in 1945 . However, this foreign policy had failed in many respects as Britain needed money they did not have so their foreign policy had to be tweaked slightly . Bevin was now more concerned with building up Anglo-American relations, a lot like Churchill was. This would be significant as Bevin's policy would affect how the Cold War would be carried out. Reynolds argues that there was a pattern of Britain proposing policies and America carrying them out which obviously shows how influential Britain was. He says that Bevin's contributions to the Marshall Plan, the Brussels Pact and NATO were invaluable. It was Bevin who requested that discussions were set up to discuss the possibility of an Atlantic pact. Furthermore, if Bevin had not partaken in trying to build up Western Europe so much, Congress in America would not have passed the acts that they did as they needed the evidence that Europe could help itself before agreeing to support them financially.

There is a strong argument for the idea of it being Britain either developing the idea that led to key events in the Cold War or at least having a major influence on them. America had always been isolationist but Bevin saw that American intervention was necessary if they wanted to fight off the Soviet threat. Reynolds comes up with the argument that America had to get more involved in the Cold War due to Britain contracting power in a lot of areas that were susceptible to Soviet influence . Even though this does not show how Britain was actively trying to influence the Cold War, it still shows that they were significant. They did not have the economy to support all of their sphere of influence. They had to pull out of the Greek Civil War due to the lack of funds and they could not financially support their zone of divided Germany. America then had to step in. The Truman Doctrine, and later the Marshall Plan, was introduced to support the Greek fight against communism and Britain and to combat their financial problems in Germany Britain proposed the idea of merging the two German zones and creating Bizonia. This would be breaking the Potsdam Agreement and, combined with the Truman Doctrine, would lead to Stalin being more hostile and exercising tighter control in his sphere of influence in the East (footnote). Frazier explains his view on this argument by saying that this contraction of power in Greece was a conscious decision made by Britain in order to secure American intervention. Frazier says that they were financially in trouble but that they could have managed to stay in Greece if they had wanted to. They knew America would intervene if Britain pulled out of Greece and as mentioned, they knew they would need America if they were to successfully fight communism. This intervention took the form of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan and Frazier believes this to be the first event in the division of the two camps so he is effectively suggesting that it was Britain that started the Cold War .

There is also the argument that America needed Britain as well. American strength was not enough to beat the Soviet Union so it was essential to them to cooperate with Britain . Furthermore, America was so far away from the Soviet Union that they needed a power in the middle to help bridge this gap. Moreover, America had adopted the policy of defence in depth and so relied on Britain to provide air bases that they had accumulated across their empire .

Now that the argument for why their role was significant has been outlined, it is necessary to see what other historians think. Firstly, it has been argued that it was due to Britain that a lot of key events took place, for example, Bizonia. The problem is that it places too much influence on Britain. Bizonia came into creation based on more than just British suggestion. American initiative and want for integration in the first place was just as important and that maybe Britain suggesting it acted as a trigger for its creation. Britain was just a middle ranking power who depended a lot on America. There is a reason that a lot of historians describe the war as being a bipolar affair. This is because of the amount of power that America and the Soviet Union had compared to Britain and the rest of Europe. If they did have any significance, it was because America allowed them to have it. America introduced a lot of other programmes that perhaps influenced the Cold War more and they were also happy to exclude Britain when they wanted to, for example the Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons.

There is one massive event that happened in 1956 that effectively shows how insignificant the British role was during the Cold War and this was the Suez Crisis. Eden, the Prime Minister at the time, was very concerned about Nasser's intentions for the Middle East after he had nationalised the canal. Doing this restricted British access to the Mediterranean Sea and there was the worry that Nasser was acting alongside Stalin who Eden feared was trying to dislodge the West from the Middle East and gain territory in Africa . Instead of trying to resolve the issue peacefully, Eden, along with France who were certain that Nasser was helping the rebels fight for independence in Algeria, wanted to exert force. Eisenhower was against this idea from the start and remained this way throughout the whole crisis. Eden still wanted to go ahead with his plan and so held secret meetings and basically colluded against Egypt and America. They would get Israel to attack Egypt and then Britain and France would have to get involved by occupying the canal under the pretence that they were trying to separate the two opposing forces . Once Eisenhower heard about this, he was angry and wanted Eden to explain himself. Eden said that appeasement had not worked against Hitler and they had had to basically wait until he acted before they could react, he did not want this to happen again so was acting before it was too late . After calls for peace and continuous attempts from Eisenhower to convince Eden to call a ceasefire, he had to put pressure on Britain to pull them out of Egypt. This took various forms, one of them being that he stopped exports of oil entering the Western hemisphere to make up for the loss they were receiving from the Middle East. This led to Eden surrendering in Egypt and giving into Eisenhower's wishes straight away .

The Suez Crisis is the best example for a point previously made about how if Britain did have any significance in the Cold War; it was because America let them. It shows Britain trying to protect their interests and pretending to be the great world superpower it thought it was but then getting denied this by America. They wanted to stop expansionism happening from both Nasser and Stalin and affecting their interests in the Middle East but because America did not agree with their method, they had to stop. They had no real choice in the matter. Baylis elaborates on this idea by saying that there would be no future for Britain without close collaboration with AmericaThe British see their role in the Cold War as crucial because without them America would not have got involved. They are under the impression that US foreign policy after the war did not involve the Soviet Union but Leffler shows us how this assumption is untrue. America had been against the Soviet Union as well since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution so it is wrong to assume that it was British rhetoric that brought them into the Cold War alone.

Another important point to make is the fact that there are not many sources that say that Britain had a key role in the Cold War and those that do argue this point are British so are bound to have biased opinions that contrast what the majority of historians say about the origins of the Cold War. Deighton's article, where she says that Britain carried the same responsibility for starting the Cold War as America and the Soviet Union, is based on British archives but this does not necessarily mean that what is written is true . Moreover, Frazier's article which states that Britain deliberately pulled out of Greece in order to bring America into the war but this is based on nothing more than opinion. There is no real factual evidence to support this and Frazier himself admits to this. His article is based around a biography written about Bevin which Frazier admits was based on little fact.

In conclusion, it seems fair to say that Britain did have some role in the shaping of the Cold War but that this was very minimal. Britain was in very bad times economically and so this led to greater American involvement which may not necessarily have happened if this had not have been the case. For example, it is difficult to say if the Truman Doctrine, which is often described as the starting point for the Cold War, would have happened if Britain had not have pulled out of Greece and Turkey. It does seem to be reasonable to argue that, when looking at certain events during the early Cold War, Britain did value the 'special relationship' they had with America and that through this they were able to perhaps manipulate what happened, for example, the creation of Bizonia as this had once again been done to combat Britain's poor financial circumstances. However, America would not have done anything that they did not agree with or they saw as beneficial to them as well as the Suez Crisis shows. If anything, it can be debated that America only intervened in what they did because it protected them and their interests. The creation of Bizonia was not done just because of Britain, it was done because it would help their economic markets as well. This conclusion is hardly surprising as America have ever only acted when it has affected them as they have a history of isolationism.The Cambridge SpiesBy Phillip KnightleyLast updated 2011-02-17

If Communism had not fallen, the full story of four remarkable pro-Soviet spies would perhaps never have been told. Today, however, the tale can be examined in a clear light, and raises the question of whether the spying game has ever been worth the candle.On this page A world of shadows The early years Failure to trust Looking for discrepancies Dealing with suspicion Find out more Print this pageA world of shadowsThe hardest and most bitterly fought confrontation between the Soviet Union and the western democracies during the 50 years of the Cold War was on the espionage front. In this arena the KGB, the 'sword and the shield' of the USSR, pitted its wits against its principal adversaries - the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States (CIA) and the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)....all of whom operated in a world of shadows, where deception and betrayal flourished.The aim of each was to steal the secrets of the other side, to try to peer inside the mind of the enemy, to fathom his intentions, and to neutralise them before they could be executed. The soldiers in this war were the spymasters, the spies and their agents, all of whom operated in a world of shadows where deception and betrayal flourished.KGB headquarters, Moscow During the spy war it was impossible to write authoritatively about it. The present author once wrote that the truth could not be told 'until the files of the KGB, the CIA and the SIS are all opened to public scrutiny' - little dreaming that this would ever happen.But when Communism collapsed and the Cold War ended, this is exactly what did occur, and thus it became possible to tell the story of the four most remarkable spies of the Cold War, four larger-than-life Englishmen: HAR (Kim) Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt, all of whom betrayed their country to spy for Moscow.In the new political climate, it became possible to tell the story both from Britain's point of view and through the eyes of the KGB. And from this tale we can draw some startling conclusions about the nature of espionage and its real value in the modern world.TopThe early yearsAnthony Blunt In the early 1930s, the democratic world appeared to be in trouble. The Great Depression had caused widespread unemployment. Fascism was on the march in Germany and Italy. To many young students at Cambridge University, privileged though they were, this was worrying and unacceptable.Four of them - Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt - wanted to do something about it. They believed that the democracies would prove too weak to stand up to Hitler and Mussolini, and they knew that many people in Britain did indeed admire these leaders. They also thought that only the Soviet Union would be powerful enough to defeat Fascism. So, when they were approached by a recruiter from Moscow, the four young men agreed to serve the KGB.The KGB believed that recruiting clever people from a respected university was a good game plan, because the chances were that sometime in the future these young men would be among Britain's rulers and well placed to betray their country's secrets.This is how it turned out. By the time World War Two was underway, Maclean was climbing the ladder in the Foreign Office, Burgess was an intimate of prominent politicians, and Blunt was an officer in the Security Service - MI5. Even more astoundingly, Philby was an officer in the SIS. And all the while they were establishing themselves in these positions, these four men were reporting to Moscow.Put together, their information should have been of inestimable value to Moscow.It got better for the KGB. Just before the war ended, Philby was appointed head of the SIS's anti-Soviet section, so that the man who was charged with running operations against the Russians, was a Russian agent. Blunt, meanwhile, had been on the distribution list for material from the war's most secret operation, Ultra, decoded German radio traffic.Then, as the Cold War got under way, Philby became SIS liaison officer with the newly formed CIA in Washington, where Maclean was first secretary at the British embassy, sitting on a committee that dealt with atomic bomb matters.Burgess at this time was with the Foreign Office news department. Put together, their information should have been of inestimable value to Moscow. But the KGB files on these dedicated Soviet agents show a different picture.TopFailure to trustGuy Burgess Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution, when a British secret service plot nearly brought down the new Communist government, the KGB had regarded the SIS as the most sophisticated and ingenious of all the capitalist intelligence services, capable of all sorts of duplicity and convoluted conspiracies.So although the KGB had recruited four young Englishmen who appeared dedicated to their cause, was it just possible that the SIS had deliberately placed these men in the path of the Russian recruiter? Was it possible that although the KGB believed that these four agents had penetrated the British establishment, the very opposite was the case - Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt had instead penetrated the KGB?And all the while the KGB wasted the agents' valuable time by trying to trip them up...The KGB files show that a powerful section of the KGB believed that this was the case. Officers argued that it had been all too easy for the Cambridge ring. Could the British authorities be so stupid to as to allow men of such left-wing backgrounds into positions of trust in the establishment? How could Philby, who had helped Communists escape from Vienna and had then married a Viennese Communist, get through the security checks that the SIS must carry out on all those it recruited?This suspicion tainted the KGB careers of all four. None of them was entirely trusted. None of the important information they sent to Moscow was accepted at face value, unless it could be confirmed from other sources.Moscow's spymasters argued that they could not be sure they were not having disinformation deliberately fed to them, with the intention of misleading the KGB. And all the while the KGB wasted the agents' valuable time by trying to trip them up, trying to prove that their loyalty really lay with Britain.TopLooking for discrepanciesHAR (Kim) Philby With the Germans at the gates of Moscow in 1941, the KGB bombarded Philby with orders to write his autobiography yet again, hoping to find in the new version some discrepancy with which to tax him. Even the patient Philby, who is never known to have once said a bad word about the KGB, to anyone who spoke to him, got fed up.His controller reported to Moscow: 'We've recently raised the issue with 'S' [Philby] about his submitting a summarising, complete and detailed autobiography, with notes on all his contacts, all his work with us, the English institutions, and the like. But 'S' says that he doesn't have the time, that in his opinion, now is the time that attention should be paid primarily to getting information, and not to writing various biographies. We pointed out the error of his conclusions to 'S'.'...the KGB concluded that this was evidence that Blunt was... a British plant...And when Philby was not writing and re-writing reports about himself, the KGB wanted him to find out the names of Soviet citizens who might have been recruited by the SIS station chief in Moscow. When Philby looked at the SIS files, and reported that the SIS had not recruited anybody yet, the KGB asked Blunt the same question. When he confirmed Philby's reply, the KGB concluded that this was evidence that Blunt was, like Philby, a British plant, and the British conspiracy to penetrate was more widespread that the KGB had imagined.TopDealing with suspicionDonald Maclean Once the KGB had convinced itself that the Cambridge spy ring was most likely a British conspiracy against the Soviet Union it faced a difficult decision. How was it to handle this?If it cut off all contact with the Cambridge ring and it later turned out that its agents were genuinely loyal to the USSR, then the KGB would be blamed. Those officers running the Cambridge ring might be accused of sabotage. They might be shot. All right, then, Moscow reasoned, let's pretend that nothing has happened and do our best to reinforce Philby's conviction that we trust him and his ring completely....a dirty bogus business, riddled with deceit, manipulation and betrayal...And so the game of deceit and double-dealing continued. The Cambridge spies were deceiving their colleagues, their service, their families and their country. They did this in the sincere belief that they were serving a greater cause, through an elite intelligence service, the KGB, which fathered and mothered them and appeared to trust them totally. But the KGB, in turn, was deceiving the Englishmen, because it really believed that they were playing a treble game and were all traitors to the Communist cause.The conclusion from all this is that the main threat to intelligence agents comes not from the counter-intelligence service of the country in which they are operating, but from their own centre, their own people.In a dirty bogus business, riddled with deceit, manipulation and betrayal, an intelligence service maintains it sanity by developing its own concept of what it believes to be the truth. Those agents who confirm this perceived truth - even if it is wrong - prosper. Those who deny it - even if they are right - fall under suspicion.From that moment on, the better that agent's information, the greater the suspicion with which he or she is treated. When other agents offer confirmation, the suspicion spreads, until the whole corrupt concern collapses, only for a new generation of paranoid personalities to start afresh.Knowing this, anyone interested in the spy world should reflect on the moral problems of espionage, and how they might be confronted.Perhaps one way would to be to consider whether we need intelligence services in the 21st century. They are only a comparatively recent phenomenon (the SIS dates from 1911, the KGB from 1917, and the CIA from as recently as 1947). It could be that nations have been the victim of a vast confidence trick to deceive us about the necessity and the value of spies.TopFind out moreBooksThe Private Life of Kim Philby 1999by Rufina Philby (St Ermin's Press)The Faber Book of Treacheryedited by Nigel West (Faber and Faber)No Other Choiceby George Blake (Jonathan Cape, 1990)The Philby Filesby Genrikh Borovik (Little,Brown, 1994)TopAbout the authorPhillip Knightley is the author ofThe Second Oldest Profession: The Spy as Bureaucrat, Patriot, Fantasist and Whore(Pimlico) and Philby: KGB Masterspy (Vintage). In 30 years of writing about espionage, he has met just about every major spy and spymaster from all sides in the espionage wars.What was the Lusitania and how did it impact the war?The Lusitania is a British passenger ship that was carrying US weapons on the bottom so Germany torpedoed it; Germany agrees to stop attacking neutral shipsWhy did Germany resume sinking ships in 1917Germany figures that they will provoke America to join the war, but they assume they will have defeated the Allies before the US can get involvedWhat role did the Bolshevik Revolution play in the warThe Bolshevik Revolution was a revolution in Russia that caused Germany to think that they were going to win because they didn't have to split up their troops between France and Great Britain and Russia anymoreWhat was the Zimmerman TelegramThe Zimmerman Telegram was a telegram that Germany sent to Mexico to encourage them to attack us; Mexico showed it to the USWhat was happening on the US's home front during World War OneA draft starts which causes an increase of war protests; there are a lot of Anti-German hate crimes targeted at German AmericansWhat are the parts of Wilson's 14 Point PlanEnd secret agreements; Freedom of the seas; Free trade (no tariffs); Limit to arms; Peaceful settlement of colonial disputes; League of NationsWhat does the Treaty of Versailles causeThe Treaty of Versailles causes the conditions for World War TwoWhat is Authoritarian government (include example)A single person controls the government and every aspect of people's lives (Italy and Mussolini, USSR and Stalin, etc.)What is Totalitarian government (include example)A single party controls the government and every aspect of people's lives (Germany and Nazis, etc.)What is Democracy (include example)Any form of government that is by the will of the people (US, France, Great Britain, etc.)What is Capitalism (include example)An economic system where production and distribution are privately or corporately owned based on supply and demand (Italy, etc.)What is Socialism (include example)An economic system where production and distribution is owned collectively or by a government and based on need (USSR, etc.)What is Communism (include example)An economic system where there is collective ownership of property and people work for the good of everyone (early Catholic churches)What is a mixed economy (include example)The mixture of two or more forms of economy (US, France, Japan, Germany, Great Britain, etc.)What "isms" impact the actions of Germany "getting grabby" during World War Twoimperialism- Germany annexes nearby landnationalism- Hitler claims that they are taking the land because German people lived thereWhat "isms" impact the actions of Japan "getting uppity" in World War Twoimperialism- Japan invades China and continues through the South Pacificmilitarism- they invade China to increase their NavyWho were the Axis powers in World War TwoGermany, Italy, Japan, and 6 other nationsWho were the Allied powers in World War TwoBritain, France, China, USSR (eventually), US (eventually), and 45 other nationsWhat is the Lend-Lease Actallows the sale of materials to any country that the President thinks helping will help usWhat is the Atlantic CharterRoosevelt and Churchill outline their post-war goals (including no land gain, no more imperialism, and a League of Nations replacement)How did the US enter World War TwoThe bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941Why do we invade North Africa during World War TwoWe adopt "beat Hitler first" policy and are trying to split German troops because Germany controls most of North AfricaWhat happens in 1943Allies invade Italy from African bases and help Italy overthrow Mussolini; the Soviet army pushes German forces back (brutal winter)What happened on D-Day3 million allied troops invade France and, on June 6, take the beach at NormandyWhat led to V-E dayApril 1945- Germany is collapsingApril 30- Hitler commits suicideMay 7- Germany surrendersMay 8- V-E dayWhat did we learn at the Battle of MidwayWe learned to island hopWhat did we do to force Japan to surrenderWe warned them to surrender "or else" and dropped leaflets telling people to evacuate before we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (Aug 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (Aug 9, 1945)Why were the Japanese so determinedThey would rather die honorably in battle than go home and disgrace their families; Kamikaze (divine wind) would crash their planes into base of ships to sink them after they were out of other optionsWho was the Cold War betweenThe US and their allies and the USSR and their alliesHow did the Cold War beginThe Cold War started when we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and NagasakiWhat are Satellite NationsNations dominated politically and economically by a more powerful nationWhat was the containment policythe goal was to keep communism from spreading so we surrounded the communistic countriesWhat was the Marshall PlanUS gives Europe $12.4 billion to rebuild Europe, we make a lot of moneyWhat was the Berlin AirliftAfter the USSR blockaded Berlin the US and GB sent in everything they needed every day for a yearWhat was the Berlin WallA wall put in place by the USSR to keep people from leaving East BerlinWhat was the UNthe replacement for the League of NationsWhat was NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization; designed to help the US set up to defend western Europe from USSRWhat was the Warsaw PactUSSR set up with satellite nations to counter NATOWhat happens in 1949USSR tests atomic bomb and China becomes communist which causes our containment plan to failWhat happened in the Korean WarNorth Korea invades South Korea and takes over the country so the US and UN get involved to push North Korea back and China gets involved to push the US and UN back. Fighting is stalemate until 1952; 2 million Koreans and 54,000 Americans dieWhat are the three patterns throughout the war1. Proxi Wars2. Arms Race3. Points of suspense where there might be a nuclear war (Cuban Missile Crisis)What is McCarthyismSen. McCarthy claims that the country is infiltrated by "commies" and the US begins to hunt for "spies"When does the Cold War endIn 1989, after USSR get a new President, Michel Gorbachav and Russia finally accepts Capitalism, which does not help their problems