How Successfully did the UK Respond to Global Crises 1951-97
The UK was involved in three major international crises in this period: the Korean War, the
Suez Crisis and the Falklands War. Although other crises occurred, such as the Vietnam War,
Britain steered clear of these which in the case of Vietnam, ultimately prevented them from
failure and therefore was a successful decision. On a wider scale, British handling of
international crises was generally successful, despite the Suez crisis of 1956 being a complete
failure.
Britain’s response to the Korean War was generally a success. UK forces joined the UN
forces following North Korea’s invasion of the South in June 1950 in order to challenge
communist aggression. Although this was a contributing factor to 10% of British GDP being
spent on military and defence, a percentage that Britain could not truly afford in years of
post-war austerity, the war was the first major challenge to the credibility of the UN of which
Britain was a founding member and arguably allowed Britain to maintain the façade of being
a great power despite being severely economically weakened by WW2. In addition,
involvement in the war was a success as it showed a commitment to the so-called “special
relationship” with America, even if US troops dwarfed Britain’s and the important decision to
push North in September 1950 was largely influenced by American military leadership. This
commitment to American interests on the part of Britain ensured US commitment in return to
the defence of Britain and support for NATO, which was crucial for the protection of British
interests. This meant that involvement in the Korean War was ultimately a success, as it
ensured British safety, defended South Korea, and reinforced American ties to Europe, the
latter of which allowed Britain to decrease military spending in later years.
In contrast, the Suez Crisis of 1956 was undoubtedly a failure. The Suez Canal was a vital sea
route for oil, and since 1875 Britain had been a majority shareholder in running it. In mid-
July 1956, following US and British withdrawal of a loan due to an unwillingness to adopt
pro-Western policies, Nasser took control of the Anglo-French company that ran the canal.
Prime Minister Anthony Eden responded to this by attacking Egypt in late October 1956 with
France. The invasion itself was a failure, and the dire consequences of Eden’s decision were
enforced by Eisenhower’s anger and a potential end to the “special relationship”, as America
had wanted the crisis to be resolved peacefully. Eden’s decision was especially harmful given
the wider context of the USSR’s invasion of Hungary to crush efforts of anti-communist
reform there, making it difficult for the USA to condemn the USSR, especially as Nasser’s
actions were not illegal and the USSR was able to condemn it as imperialist. Suez further
signalled the end of Britain’s legacy as a great imperialist power, giving the public a “wake
up call” that the country no longer wielded the influence on a global stage that it had before
the war. This made the invasion, to a great extent, a failure.
Arguably even more successful than British involvement in the Korean War was the 1982
Falklands Crisis. Although it did not necessarily elevate Britain on the international stage, it
was hugely supported in Britain and transformed Margaret Thatcher’s personal political
fortunes leading to her landslide 1983 election victory. The response to Argentina’s invasion
The UK was involved in three major international crises in this period: the Korean War, the
Suez Crisis and the Falklands War. Although other crises occurred, such as the Vietnam War,
Britain steered clear of these which in the case of Vietnam, ultimately prevented them from
failure and therefore was a successful decision. On a wider scale, British handling of
international crises was generally successful, despite the Suez crisis of 1956 being a complete
failure.
Britain’s response to the Korean War was generally a success. UK forces joined the UN
forces following North Korea’s invasion of the South in June 1950 in order to challenge
communist aggression. Although this was a contributing factor to 10% of British GDP being
spent on military and defence, a percentage that Britain could not truly afford in years of
post-war austerity, the war was the first major challenge to the credibility of the UN of which
Britain was a founding member and arguably allowed Britain to maintain the façade of being
a great power despite being severely economically weakened by WW2. In addition,
involvement in the war was a success as it showed a commitment to the so-called “special
relationship” with America, even if US troops dwarfed Britain’s and the important decision to
push North in September 1950 was largely influenced by American military leadership. This
commitment to American interests on the part of Britain ensured US commitment in return to
the defence of Britain and support for NATO, which was crucial for the protection of British
interests. This meant that involvement in the Korean War was ultimately a success, as it
ensured British safety, defended South Korea, and reinforced American ties to Europe, the
latter of which allowed Britain to decrease military spending in later years.
In contrast, the Suez Crisis of 1956 was undoubtedly a failure. The Suez Canal was a vital sea
route for oil, and since 1875 Britain had been a majority shareholder in running it. In mid-
July 1956, following US and British withdrawal of a loan due to an unwillingness to adopt
pro-Western policies, Nasser took control of the Anglo-French company that ran the canal.
Prime Minister Anthony Eden responded to this by attacking Egypt in late October 1956 with
France. The invasion itself was a failure, and the dire consequences of Eden’s decision were
enforced by Eisenhower’s anger and a potential end to the “special relationship”, as America
had wanted the crisis to be resolved peacefully. Eden’s decision was especially harmful given
the wider context of the USSR’s invasion of Hungary to crush efforts of anti-communist
reform there, making it difficult for the USA to condemn the USSR, especially as Nasser’s
actions were not illegal and the USSR was able to condemn it as imperialist. Suez further
signalled the end of Britain’s legacy as a great imperialist power, giving the public a “wake
up call” that the country no longer wielded the influence on a global stage that it had before
the war. This made the invasion, to a great extent, a failure.
Arguably even more successful than British involvement in the Korean War was the 1982
Falklands Crisis. Although it did not necessarily elevate Britain on the international stage, it
was hugely supported in Britain and transformed Margaret Thatcher’s personal political
fortunes leading to her landslide 1983 election victory. The response to Argentina’s invasion
