Britain's Position in the World
Chapter 7
, Chapter 7
Britain’s Position in the World, 1951-1997
Challenges: Korean War, suez crisis, Falklands war, first gulf war
To what extent do you agree that Britain responded skilfully to the crises of the period
1951-97?
- Agree
Thatcher won admiration from the public and from the US for victory in the Falklands
in 1982, evident from her landslide election victory a year later, suggesting she
responded skilfully
Made contributions to American fighting both in the Korean war and First Gulf war,
demonstrating loyalty to US and the effectiveness of the UN (although contribution
dwarfed by US - in Korea 700 British deaths compared to 34,000 American)
Unlike the Labour and Conservative governments in 1964-79, Thatcher dealt with the
miners strike successfully as the wage demands were not given in to, and the
government did not crumble (however, it did result in the destruction of mining
communities around Britain so not skilful)
Although it weakened relationship with the US, staying out of Vietnam despite
American pressure saved lots of money and lives
- Disagree
Economic crisis and striking 1964-79: All governments failed to tackle inflation,
unemployment or the declining British industry, resulting in a fall in international
power. Strikes were also caved in to which worsened the economic climate
Suez Crisis: The invasion with the French failed, and was almost universally
condemned, weakening relations, particularly with America, and forcing Eden to
resign
Vietnam: Johnson was annoyed that Britain didn't send troops in support, and was
further irritated by Wilson's attempt to broker peace and criticism of heavy bombing.
This weakened relations
How successfully did Britain respond to International Crises?
The Korean War:
After defeat of Japan in 1945, Korean Peninsula divided at the 38 th parallel
between a communist north and a pro-American regime in the South.
June 1950- N. Koreans launched invasion of S. Korea.
USSR was boycotting the UN over its refusal to recognise Communist China- enabled USA to
organise coalition of 16 countries, under the UN flag.
,Chapter 7
Sept- US landing behind N. Korean lines —> forced communists to retreat and
Americans launched invasion in North.
• THEN… Chinese sent forces into Korea —> pushed US forces back to 38th
Parallel.
• British joined US-led UN’s force in Korea- BECAUSE …Lab gov and foreign
secretary Ernest Bevin believed communist aggression needed to be challenged
to prevent another war.
-Participation would (as one official said) ‘demonstrate to Americans that we
were one of two world powers outside Russia.’
-War was first challenge to the credibility of UN. (Of which Britain was a
founding member)
-if Britain failed to join war, it might imperil the US commitment toDefence of Europe
and (newly-founded) NATO alliance.
NATO- formed in April 1949. Permanent military alliance – some of Original members: USA, Canada,
Britain, Norway, France, Italy. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, West Germany in 1955
How Successful was British Involvement?
• Britain showed it would take part in defending independent states, supporting
UN and working alongside USA.
• N. Korean invasion defeated, S. Korea protected.
• Political/strategic control of war still remained firmly in American hands +
underlined British being junior partners.
British/Commonwealth forces made contribution, BUT not as much as USA – Britain lost
700 men, USA lost 34k.
British influenced decision in Sept 1950 to invade North – BUT majority troops were
American.
Dec 1950- British PM Attlee flew to Washington- mistakenly fearful that nuclear
weapons would be used. (Even though promised Britain would be consulted)
Britain Shown loyalty to USA.
Helped check communist aggression.
Established UN as an effective agency
NATO created permanent military alliance – firmly tied to USA to
defence of Europe
X BUT Increase in defence expenditure —> added to difficulties of
Britain’s economy. (Still struggling to recover from WW1)
How successfully did Britain deal with the Suez Canal?
Suez Canal = Vital sea route – by which Middle East oil transported to Europe + how
British forces reaches Far Eastern bases
Since 1875: British gov. main shareholder in the company running it.
1952: pro-British Egyptian King was overthrown by military officers blamed for
bad performances of Egyptian army in war against Israel state (1948-9).
, Chapter 7
1954- Nasser- declared himself as Egyptian president
…determined to remove British influence.
—> Negotiated withdrawal of British troops from remaining base in zone around Suez
Canal.
—> even though Egyptian nationalist (not communist!) Prepared to buy
arms and accept aid from USSR.
Dec 1955- USA + British gov agreed to lend Egypt money to build large dam to
help modernise economy.
Mid- July 1956- offer of loan withdrawn. (After Nasser’s reluctance to follow
pro-Western policies)
• Nasser took control of Anglo-French company that ran the canal.
• Americans tried to solve diplomatically with talks, no success
• Eden (had taken office in 1955)- outraged.
His Beliefs-
o 1st step to establish Egyptian domination of Middle East.
o Nasser would allow USSR to extend influence in the region.
o US accepted that continued British influence in Middle East was essential to
preventing area falling to Soviets.
o BECAUSE 1/3 of ships using canal were British, + 2/3 of oil supplied to western Europe
passed through it, Nasser’s action described as having ‘his thumb on our windpipe’
Eden said Nasser had to be challenged.
French also disliked Nasser because he was assisting rebels fighting to end French colonial
rule in Algeria.
Late Oct/Early Nov: French and British + Israelis attacked Egypt.
• Anglo-French invasion failed.
Nasser responded by sinking ships in canal, prevented its use.
• President Eisenhower – had not been consulted about attack, wanted
withdrawal of troops.
Eden, Humiliated by Nasser and Eisenhower.
So… Eden- resigned Jan 1957.
Why Britain’s actions opposed by world
opinion? -
o Nasser’s actions – legal. Even British Cabinet
recognised that ‘his action amounted to no
more than a decision to buy out the
shareholders’ (whom he promised to
compensate)
o USSR condemned invasion as imperialist.
o US wanted to see crisis resolved peacefully. Eisenhower furious as opposed
use of force + felt deceived by collusion between Britain, France, Israel + at
Chapter 7
, Chapter 7
Britain’s Position in the World, 1951-1997
Challenges: Korean War, suez crisis, Falklands war, first gulf war
To what extent do you agree that Britain responded skilfully to the crises of the period
1951-97?
- Agree
Thatcher won admiration from the public and from the US for victory in the Falklands
in 1982, evident from her landslide election victory a year later, suggesting she
responded skilfully
Made contributions to American fighting both in the Korean war and First Gulf war,
demonstrating loyalty to US and the effectiveness of the UN (although contribution
dwarfed by US - in Korea 700 British deaths compared to 34,000 American)
Unlike the Labour and Conservative governments in 1964-79, Thatcher dealt with the
miners strike successfully as the wage demands were not given in to, and the
government did not crumble (however, it did result in the destruction of mining
communities around Britain so not skilful)
Although it weakened relationship with the US, staying out of Vietnam despite
American pressure saved lots of money and lives
- Disagree
Economic crisis and striking 1964-79: All governments failed to tackle inflation,
unemployment or the declining British industry, resulting in a fall in international
power. Strikes were also caved in to which worsened the economic climate
Suez Crisis: The invasion with the French failed, and was almost universally
condemned, weakening relations, particularly with America, and forcing Eden to
resign
Vietnam: Johnson was annoyed that Britain didn't send troops in support, and was
further irritated by Wilson's attempt to broker peace and criticism of heavy bombing.
This weakened relations
How successfully did Britain respond to International Crises?
The Korean War:
After defeat of Japan in 1945, Korean Peninsula divided at the 38 th parallel
between a communist north and a pro-American regime in the South.
June 1950- N. Koreans launched invasion of S. Korea.
USSR was boycotting the UN over its refusal to recognise Communist China- enabled USA to
organise coalition of 16 countries, under the UN flag.
,Chapter 7
Sept- US landing behind N. Korean lines —> forced communists to retreat and
Americans launched invasion in North.
• THEN… Chinese sent forces into Korea —> pushed US forces back to 38th
Parallel.
• British joined US-led UN’s force in Korea- BECAUSE …Lab gov and foreign
secretary Ernest Bevin believed communist aggression needed to be challenged
to prevent another war.
-Participation would (as one official said) ‘demonstrate to Americans that we
were one of two world powers outside Russia.’
-War was first challenge to the credibility of UN. (Of which Britain was a
founding member)
-if Britain failed to join war, it might imperil the US commitment toDefence of Europe
and (newly-founded) NATO alliance.
NATO- formed in April 1949. Permanent military alliance – some of Original members: USA, Canada,
Britain, Norway, France, Italy. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, West Germany in 1955
How Successful was British Involvement?
• Britain showed it would take part in defending independent states, supporting
UN and working alongside USA.
• N. Korean invasion defeated, S. Korea protected.
• Political/strategic control of war still remained firmly in American hands +
underlined British being junior partners.
British/Commonwealth forces made contribution, BUT not as much as USA – Britain lost
700 men, USA lost 34k.
British influenced decision in Sept 1950 to invade North – BUT majority troops were
American.
Dec 1950- British PM Attlee flew to Washington- mistakenly fearful that nuclear
weapons would be used. (Even though promised Britain would be consulted)
Britain Shown loyalty to USA.
Helped check communist aggression.
Established UN as an effective agency
NATO created permanent military alliance – firmly tied to USA to
defence of Europe
X BUT Increase in defence expenditure —> added to difficulties of
Britain’s economy. (Still struggling to recover from WW1)
How successfully did Britain deal with the Suez Canal?
Suez Canal = Vital sea route – by which Middle East oil transported to Europe + how
British forces reaches Far Eastern bases
Since 1875: British gov. main shareholder in the company running it.
1952: pro-British Egyptian King was overthrown by military officers blamed for
bad performances of Egyptian army in war against Israel state (1948-9).
, Chapter 7
1954- Nasser- declared himself as Egyptian president
…determined to remove British influence.
—> Negotiated withdrawal of British troops from remaining base in zone around Suez
Canal.
—> even though Egyptian nationalist (not communist!) Prepared to buy
arms and accept aid from USSR.
Dec 1955- USA + British gov agreed to lend Egypt money to build large dam to
help modernise economy.
Mid- July 1956- offer of loan withdrawn. (After Nasser’s reluctance to follow
pro-Western policies)
• Nasser took control of Anglo-French company that ran the canal.
• Americans tried to solve diplomatically with talks, no success
• Eden (had taken office in 1955)- outraged.
His Beliefs-
o 1st step to establish Egyptian domination of Middle East.
o Nasser would allow USSR to extend influence in the region.
o US accepted that continued British influence in Middle East was essential to
preventing area falling to Soviets.
o BECAUSE 1/3 of ships using canal were British, + 2/3 of oil supplied to western Europe
passed through it, Nasser’s action described as having ‘his thumb on our windpipe’
Eden said Nasser had to be challenged.
French also disliked Nasser because he was assisting rebels fighting to end French colonial
rule in Algeria.
Late Oct/Early Nov: French and British + Israelis attacked Egypt.
• Anglo-French invasion failed.
Nasser responded by sinking ships in canal, prevented its use.
• President Eisenhower – had not been consulted about attack, wanted
withdrawal of troops.
Eden, Humiliated by Nasser and Eisenhower.
So… Eden- resigned Jan 1957.
Why Britain’s actions opposed by world
opinion? -
o Nasser’s actions – legal. Even British Cabinet
recognised that ‘his action amounted to no
more than a decision to buy out the
shareholders’ (whom he promised to
compensate)
o USSR condemned invasion as imperialist.
o US wanted to see crisis resolved peacefully. Eisenhower furious as opposed
use of force + felt deceived by collusion between Britain, France, Israel + at
