Chapter One: 1950s
Schuman’s Europe [1952-1960]
Part I
Europe during the 1950s was one that had begun the process of rebuilding and reconcile. By 1952 the Western European nations had signed the treaty of Paris which started them on the path to a joint pact bring them closer together. The three communities allowed for further recovery at a faster rate with the relaxing of trade barriers as well as a new defensive union against any communist aggression. Robert Schuman, the main artist of the treaty, would be empowered by the European Political Community [EPC] as its President in 1952. His goal would be simple – that of strengthening the bond between the nations. The 1950’s would also see the further inclusion of European nations into the Communities with Norway and Denmark’s joined attempt at membership being approved by the European Communities in 1957. Even here both nations had different reasons for joining. In Denmark’s case it was most economic and the nation felt that it was a natural path for the nation to take. For Norway [1] it was economic but also military – it felt under support of Britain and the US joined in hopes of better protecting itself against a Communist threat. Regardless of their reasons on the whole both were accepted with open arms into the communities.
Blue Africa Project
“I suppose it is fitting that the empire building in Africa starting in Germany and it will now end in Germany” – President Nixon [2], 1955 on the Hamburg Conference
Robert Schuman used his presidency of the European Political Community to bring the Community members together to discuss the situation of de-colonisation. It would bring discussion between the European nations who had empires to collectively start to pace that would lead to the end of their empires – although obviously it was not put in this was outwardly during the discussions. Schuman stressed the urgency to retain the support of those regions in the fight against Communism. It had already been known that Stalin before his death in 1954[3] was actively support groups in regions such as Africa and Asia. This was easily pointed out with the Egyptian-Soviet link in 1952 following General Nasser’s Coup also in 1953. Even before the start of Schuman idea there had been attempts at decolonisation such as in British India and Dutch Indonesia in 1950 however Schuman recognised the issues that had come after especially in the new nations that came out of British India. By 1953, the Indian Republic and the Republic of Punjab [4] and warred with each other and Hyderabad had become annexed by India. Although at the time it was clear that Communism had not become entrenched in any of the new states Schuman understood how the situation could become different in nations within other regions such as Africa. He didn’t want the European nations to engage on expensive campaigns in these areas which would both may allow Communism to become embedded and pull resources from the European mainland. Though his position in the European Political Community was supposed to revolve around the co-ordination of the other communities and mainly that of the European Defence Community he felt that it was job to defend the Communities interests – what the interacts with the decolonisation issue.
The Hamburg Conference would lead to tension mostly between the powers of Britain and France, whose both government were not too happy with a foreign body intervening in their own practises as they already had the United States breathing down their back about such matters. However it was made perfectly clear that they were not being forced into giving their empires up immediately but the conference were there so that when the action occurred in that it would be a joint effort to allow for stability of the regions that were left. Further evidence of the necessity of the Conference was highlighted in the Indo-china situation following the French exit the previous year which left the state vulnerable to the effects of Communism as seen by the division of the region. The Conference itself did not openly attack communism more so stating openly that it was the nation’s responsibility to manage the colonial situation with great care. However it this anti-communism view can be clearly seen in the private talks between the nation’s representative and in their actions post Conference.
The Hamburg Declaration also known as the Blue Africa directive [5] was a unified plan regarding to the step by step decolonisation of Africa by European powers. It really served more of united voice of Europe regarding their attitudes to their Empires. On paper the declaration seemed like a step of Europeans liberalism at their colonies however the actions taken were more in another paranoid state at Communism. The USSR had a new leader following Stalin’s death and therefore made it difficult for the European nations to understand the paths they would take during their term.
Even within the declaration each nation took different paths when it came to decolonisation. France quickly dismantled its empire in North Africa [1956-1965] as they focused on guiding the nations such as Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria in their seeking of independence. They took a different view to that of Britain as allowing the smaller states to become independent with the thought being that they could more easily control the smaller nations in their pseudo-empire. This mentality was easily attacked by both the United States and the USSR who both became upset about the French continuation of their control in the region – as they saw France continuing to retain both military bases and considerable amount of economic control over the newly created nation states. To start with in nations such as Ghana and Sudan, Britain attempted something similar to that of France with the creation of smaller states but they would soon look to another plan when it came to decolonisation. The planning of creating larger unions of colonies in an attempt to create a state that would have more regional power, making it easier for themselves to contain the spread of communism. It also took a look at strengthening nations such as South Africa along a similar line. [6]
Suez War
“BRITAIN AT WAR!” - Headline of the Times Newspaper, November 2nd 1956
The Suez War would be a conflict that would once again test the resolve of the European Communities as well as the strength of the British and French.
The Origins of the war would begin in 1953 [7] following the successful coup by General Nasser against the Egyptian Royal Family. What started out as a simple riot in Cairo soon grew to a full uprising leading the Egyptian Royal Family fleeing to Britain which left Europe shocked at the escalation of the event. Nasser would eventually seek allies in the USSR in attempt to deal with the Egyptian economy and military, culminating in meetings with Stalin and Soviet Officials in 1953. The USSR was all too happy to oblige and began sending over equipment and experts to help their new Egyptian allies – Nasser would however never fully accept Communism in his country but he saw them as a perfect ally to help solve his main goal – of retaking the Suez Canal. The Canal was still effectively under British Control even after the coup and the Government was keen on keeping the Canal Zone. However it wouldn’t be until late 1956 when the conflict would begin.
-----
“The Conflict itself would start following the unsuccessful attempt of a coup by pro-royalist forces funded by the British Government. This put the Egyptian military on high alert and through high tensions within the Egyptian ranks lead to the Ismailia incident.
“It quite worrying how easily a war can start isn’t it? I don’t know who fired but that was all it took – one young person’s itchy trigger finger. To be honest through we had already been through a coup a few year previously and with the new fighting in our towns and cities many of the young soldiers were ready to get their own back on the English. Obviously at the time no-one knew that it was them who helped the Royalists in their attempts at getting control of their country but inside most people believed the English and something to do with it and it wasn’t helped by us being told to move towards the canal for ‘pre-cautionary measures’.
I heard recently that there was a report from some American University, I can’t remember which one but it said that the Egyptian command actually ordered the regiment to fire at the English so that they could retake the Canal. Personally I’m not sure if I’m inclined to believe it but a part of me does see the rationale behind that.
From the start on November 2nd we felt so strong. Our new T-54’s overran the English and took control of the central Canal and pushed both North and South. I remember we had a huge celebration on November 5th when we got news from our higher ups that we had taken Port Said from the British. My 25 year old self was so happy, we celebrated into the night even when our officers tried to stop of and get us to focus on our job we just ignored them. Though thinking about it we cheered too early and I should have expected the English to hit us hard eventually. It was the 8th when they their counter attack started right and they retook Port Said by the 10th? [Interviewer Nods]. Yeah that must be right; my Tank Regiment was ordered north to help stop the English pouring out of the region. I do feel sorry for those troops in the south, during the siege of Suez.
When the French also joined it became obvious we would lose – how could we win? Facing against both England and France? At least my war ended sooner than others. On the 15th we were surrounded by the English and Captured and that was where I spent the rest of the war – a prisoner of war. I remember thinking that it must have been the world shortest war on the 24th when we found out that Egypt had surrendered – I guess they couldn’t deal with the English and French army pushing towards Cairo. In all fairness though, looking back I think being captured was the best thing that happened to me as it allowed be to stay in Sinai following it creation. My family were defiantly not happy when they learned that I failed to return to Egypt but I guess they forgot about that when the Anti-Nasser riots started and they fled to where I was.
War defiantly changes you - it made me who I am today. I regretted many things I did during the war but again I think that is why I helped in the Sinai Government after the war, I guess a part of me felt like I had to pay back and help people rather than destroy. I just hope the future of Egypt and Sinai continue in a peaceful relationship.” Prime Minister Hamadi Bitar, Prime Minster of the Republic of Sinai [1973-1977], talking in 1997 on the 40th anniversary of the Republic of Sinai.
[Hamadi Bitar would be known as a quite open speaker about the Sinai War, later writing several books on the situation following his term in office and would become a leading spokesperson for the Global Anti-War Organisation.]
-----
The war itself would last from the 2nd of November to the 24th of November 1956. It conclusion would both be at the behest of the USSR and the USA. Nasser’s relationship with the USSR would somewhat sour following the war feeling backstabbed that the USSR did pretty much nothing to aid the Egyptians during the conflict. In conclusion would lead to the creation of the Republic of Sinai [8] whose role was to independently govern control over the Suez Canal so that neither Britain nor Egyptian would retain control. This would eventually lead to outrage in Egypt culminating in Anti-Nasser Riots in many of the Cities. Nasser would still continue to have control over the nation although at a much less popular level. The war did relieve some pressure from the UN in finding a homeland for the Jewish people [9] as it expressed its desire to settle many in the new republic but this lead to confrontation from the surrounding Arab states. Between 600-700 000 Jewish people would move into the nation though many within the community expressed their desire to have a nation for themselves causing more issue for the UN
France had joined into the conflict under regards to the European Defence Community as Britain was seen really as the defender in the conflict. Other member states such as the Netherlands and Belgium also joined in but to a much lesser degree, both sending around 2000 troops each to aid Britain focusing mainly in the Egyptian Cyrenaica region. Surprisingly for the British Government the public reaction was that of an anti-war sentiment – many of whom didn’t want to be involved in a war even though they were attacked. Much of the public viewed the conflict as a pointless endeavour in a region which they shouldn’t have controlled in the first place.
--------------------------------
Notes
[1] Norway shares a border with the USSR so they would rather have some backup.
[2] 50’s Nixon? – Taft is elected President in 1952 but dies from Cancer in 1953 leaving Vice President Nixon in charge. This was done for two reasons, Firstly no Korean War and no NATO leads to changes to Eisenhower’s movements [chopping down to butterflies and from what I read the stalemate in Korea lead to a rise in support for Eisenhower’s election draft movement] and doesn’t run for president. Secondly who doesn’t like a little bit of chaos!
[3] Stalin’s heart last a little longer
[4] The Partition of the British Raj goes along a different path due to a longer wait for the creation of the Partition – this will be looked at in a further section.
[5] The term Blue Africa Directive is really a post-cold war term referring to the Capitalist ‘Blues’ vs the Communist ‘Reds’
[6] Although this does refer to post 50’s decolonisation but I felt that it was important to refer to it here.
[7] Later Egyptian Coup but really along similar lines just with Nasser taking most of the control
[8 Although supposed to independent of Egypt or Britain, Europe would continue to have strong links with the nation – In a similar way to how Israel has a relationship with the USA.
[9] This has been a key issue in the UN but has found difficulties in finding a suitable homeland in which the Jewish people are happy – made more difficult with Palestine being a county in 1950 which makes it harder for the UN to set up Israel.