|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Suez Crisis
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
I'm no historian but there seem to be quite a few knowledgeable modern historians on here judging by the appeasement thread.
Are people able to explain why Anthony Eden was so vilified over Suez? Okay, he made an error of judgement but so might Maggie Thatcher be deemed to have done if things had gone differently over the Falklands.
Why did Eden get things so wrong over US support? Was his error of judgement of such magnitude that it justifies his historical vilification? He was on the "correct" side in opposing the policy of appeasement but his detractors seem to forget that.
I remember reading his obituaries when he died in 1977. This was pre Thatcher but I remember everyone nodding sagely when someone on the TV described him as the last PM to believe that Britain was a world power and the first to learn that she wasn't. In the 70s it was normal to speak in those dismissive terms but does a longer historical perspective justify such a view?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the villification comes from the dodgy way the Crisis was handled. Eden and the French effectively did a back-stairs, behind the scenes deal with the Israelis whereby they would intervene when they clashed with the Egyptians in Sinai and ride in as if they were some kind of impartial peace-keeping force - when all the while it was a ploy to reoccupy the Suez Zone.
It was sneaky and underhand and that's why the Americans didn't back it. They held the moral high ground on that one.
That's my understanding of what went pear-shaped with Suez. Eden effectively lied to the British public.
The Falklands was a different thing. There was no subterfuge involved. The British Task Force sailed to the Falklands/Malvinas and recaptured them.
If we were to use an analogy it would be as if Maggie had done some kind of deal with Chile to provoke some kind of border incident with Argentina then had the Task Force sail in ostensibly as some kind of neutral peace-keeping force but in reality as a ploy to recapture the Falklands.
There are different perspectives on Suez of course, and, with the usual caveats in place, here's the Wikipedia take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
I was taught at school that the crisis put the Americans in an awkward position as they could hardly turn around and wag the finger at the Soviets for the invasion of Hungary if their own allies - Britain and France - were acting aggressively in the Middle-East.
Both the US and the Soviets objected to the British/French/Israeli action.
On the other side, one could argue that Nasser was an unsavoury dictator and posed a threat to peace in the Middle East. Sure. But dodgy deals of the kind that allegedly went on behind the scenes before the British/French invasion aren't the sort of thing one wishes for or experts from elected democratic governments.
My father was in the Suez Zone before British withdrawal when Nasser nationalised it. He was a national serviceman. Heavy scene ... there was sporadic violence and some killings of British officers and men. He was on one of the invasion ships heading for Egypt as part of the second wave when the operation was called off ... so he didn't see action.
He was sent to Cyprus next ... which he loved (apart from the fact that people were trying to blow them up or shoot them).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Well I honestly don't know if he's particularly "vilified." Possibly, amongst other things because, almost unbelievably, his wife is still alive.... She was much younger but even so.
There's no doubt though that the Suez Crisis was an utter debacle (although militarily it was a textbook operation which the nascent NATO and Warsaw Pacts learned a lot from in terms of combined arms assault and heliborne airborne assault).
Gamaliel however has it spot on. It was the double dealing which did for it - arguably without that sort of level of duplicity, and if had been under the cover of *genuine* Israeli nonsense rather than artificial then the UK and France might have got away with it without US support. It was the dithering waiting for support which allowed the wheels to come off as quite what was going on emerged. Not that it did, of course, for many years - but there was a smell about it which world opinion got onto very quick.
Britain, France and Israel were, for want of a better word, busted whilst engaging in chicanery.
Eden's ill-health was genuine but also very convenient as an excuse to stand down - and we got to have Macmillan instead, who was far better (one of the better PMs full stop I'm inclined to think).
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
The huge difference between Suez and the Falklands is that the inhabitants of Suez were a military garrison, occupying the territory that was obviously within Egypt. The Falkland Islanders have no wish to be part of Argentina and were there because they live there.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It was a perfect storm really - revealing the failing power of Britain, the ability of the US to call a halt to the operation, the perceived lying of Eden to parliament, and I suppose, the new power of the old colonies. I think nobody expected that Egypt could run the canal efficiently, but they seemed to.
I remember it well, as it caused big divisions politically, and there were big demonstrations against it.
Nicolson's diaries provide a vivid description of those stormy days, and N's own son, Nigel, was asked to step down as a Tory MP, as he had abstained in the Commons vote on Suez.
One curious thing is that Nasser had been utterly vilified in the British Press, compared to Mussolini, and so on, yet Eden somehow was unable to utilize this, perhaps because of his secrecy, which alienated the Labour Party.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was sneaky and underhand and that's why the Americans didn't back it. They held the moral high ground on that one.
For the first - and arguably last - time post WW2...
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
I've heard it said that Eden lacked charm or charisma, maybe not such a drawback as today but his wooden performance on TV affected his "ratings". He was compared unfavourably to Churchill who, although a toff like Eden, had the common touch (and war leader status, of course).
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Famous and classic quote from Aneurin Bevan in Trafalgar Square:
"Sir Anthony Eden has been pretending that he is now invading Egypt in order to strengthen the United Nations. Every burglar of course could say the same thing, he could argue that he was entering the house in order to train the police. So, if Sir Anthony Eden is sincere in what he is saying, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be a prime minister."
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I remember this vividly. For Americans, the Suez crisis was inextricably linked to the Hungarian revolt. The US would probably have done more for the Hungarians if Suez hadn't been happening at the same time.
I was a student in Germany at the time. Another American student got in touch with the US Consulate in Stuttgart and asked what the American students should do. They said to sit tight; "There was no official emergency yet." Somehow, those were not soothing words.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I've heard it said that Eden lacked charm or charisma, maybe not such a drawback as today but his wooden performance on TV affected his "ratings". He was compared unfavourably to Churchill who, although a toff like Eden, had the common touch (and war leader status, of course).
I thought the other problem Eden had was that he lacked any real friends in the Parliamentary Conservative Party. Having spent so long as Foreign Secretary - hobnobbing with leaders from around the Globe - he hadn't nurtured any allies in the Commons. He was in No 10 by dint of being Churchill's man, which wasn't of much use when Churchill had left the stage.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
On a tangent
I have a memory that in October 1973 petrol ration coupons were issued in the UK in anticipation of rationing being necessary (it wasn't implemented). My father told me at the time that the coupons issued had originally been printed and issued during the Suez Crisis. Was this true?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
I am not sure whether those specific coupons were issued then, but I know that fuel was rationed then, both in Sweden and in the UK. Thing was most of the oil ran through the Suez Canal as the pipeline through Syria was being repaired. Also, I'd add to it all that the Suez Canal was the climax of a long, complicated affair between Egypt, the UK and the US regarding the construction Asswan dam, in which control/national independence of the canal became a bargaining chip. At the end of the day, everyone agreed that nationalising the Suez Canal had been somewhat out of line, but that responding by invading, and through such a scheme, was just a ridiculous response that also risked WWIII as the Soviets threatened a nuclear attack if the Brits and French didn't retreat.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
On a tangent
I have a memory that in October 1973 petrol ration coupons were issued in the UK in anticipation of rationing being necessary (it wasn't implemented). My father told me at the time that the coupons issued had originally been printed and issued during the Suez Crisis. Was this true?
I'm sure old stock was used. I worked for HMSO at that point in time and my recollection is that the old stock was dug out from a dusty warehouse corner pending a secure reprint to avoid forgery. Using the ancient stock was a pretty neat form of security anyway. The stock might even have gone back earlier, to WW2 or immediate post war time, but my memory's even hazier about that. Not sure either whether it was a departmental or central HMSO warehouse, could have been either, I guess, depending on throwaway standards.
Interesting historical oddity. Not sure whether it demonstrated contingency planning or a bit of luck and resourcefulness. More likely the latter?
[ 18. December 2013, 06:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
I have a very vague memory of seeing the coupons issued in 1973 although I was a teenager and couldn't yet drive-I think there was a novelty factor involved to my age group- and that they looked "old".
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I agree with this memory, especially the "looks old" bit (but not the "teenager" bit).
[ 18. December 2013, 06:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I've heard it said that Eden lacked charm or charisma, maybe not such a drawback as today but his wooden performance on TV affected his "ratings". He was compared unfavourably to Churchill who, although a toff like Eden, had the common touch (and war leader status, of course).
Interesting, because in photos he always looks terribly charming and charismatic- tall, handsome, well-dressed. IIRC there was a discussion somewhere on the Ship, ages ago, about politicians that you might fancy, and a female shipmate said that from his photos Eden looked like just about the only British PM that she might have wanted to sleep with. This didn't seem an odd thing to say.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
I've heard it said that Eden lacked charm or charisma, maybe not such a drawback as today but his wooden performance on TV affected his "ratings". He was compared unfavourably to Churchill who, although a toff like Eden, had the common touch (and war leader status, of course).
Interesting, because in photos he always looks terribly charming and charismatic- tall, handsome, well-dressed. IIRC there was a discussion somewhere on the Ship, ages ago, about politicians that you might fancy, and a female shipmate said that from his photos Eden looked like just about the only British PM that she might have wanted to sleep with. This didn't seem an odd thing to say.
Apparently he was prone to fits of temper and shouting. But then so was Churchill, reportedly, and in more recent years, a still-alive Labour PM (better not name him/her for fear of libel laws)
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Apparently he was prone to fits of temper and shouting. But then so was Churchill, reportedly, and in more recent years, a still-alive Labour PM (better not name him/her for fear of libel laws)
I think Gordon Brown's alleged uses for a mobile phone are very, very well documented. There have even been questions in the House about it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Yes, but I don't think anything is admitted or proved.
Apparently Margaret Thatcher was always warm an thoughtful to her underlings. She reserved her venom for political foes and, of course, colleagues like Howe et al.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that Eden saw Nasser as similar to Mussolini in his untrustworthyness. He'd resigned in 1938 over ground shifting to appease Mussolini.
Eden was right to judge Nasser as untrustworthy over continued observance of treaties which did not suit him. Nasser did play ducks and drakes with international treaties, relying (correctly as it turned out) that the Arab world would see many of them as a kind of legalised colonialism. I think he also saw that he could "play between the cracks" of differences between Western Allies. In both those respects, I think he was more astute about the global realpolitik than Eden was.
An interesting question is the extent to which the UK Foreign Office also misread the situation in forming their prior advice to Eden? Based on Eden's 1938 actions, and the probably settled view that appeasement was not a good thing, it was probably hard to tell Eden that he should do anything that smacked of that. Of course, the career FO civil servants would know that as well, which might have limited the way they said things.
Generally, the UK FO today is in favour of observing the following four stages of foreign policy when it comes to advising on "heroic" intervention.
(With thanks to Yes Prime Minister)
quote:
Stage one; we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two; we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three; we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Stage four; we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
That's not just a good joke. Circumstances have to be really exceptional to push diplomats away from that kind of considered strategy. Things were a little different in the 1950's but not so much. Talk and patient manoevering have always been the preferred line.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Barnabas, you seem to be saying that there might be a connection between Eden's anti appeasement stance in 1938 and events over Suez two decades later. I was wondering if this is a connection which is acknowledged by the historians?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's an opinion held by some, I think.
The Wiki article on Eden says, amongst other things that he had a world wide reputation "as an opponent of appeasement, a 'Man of Peace', and a skilled diplomat". That got damaged as a result of Suez.
The longer Wiki article on the Suez crisis is actually very long (!), and subject to criticism here and there, but is on the whole a pretty informative read.
[ 18. December 2013, 10:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
Barnabas, you seem to be saying that there might be a connection between Eden's anti appeasement stance in 1938 and events over Suez two decades later. I was wondering if this is a connection which is acknowledged by the historians?
Whereas I am not sure if all historians agree on that that was what was indeed behind it, it sure was a loudly claimed reason. Nasser was in diplomatic messages and in UN speeches compared to both Hitler and Mussolini, and the Brits kept returning to the image of a modern Munich agreement that the world had to resist.
Probably the main material reason for the overreaction was the economic importance of the Suez Canal, where surrendering it to Egypt meant Britain's welfare would be dependent on Nasser's capriciousness. Most of Britain's oil ran through the Suez Canal, but even more importantly, as one of the top ministers is quoted as saying in (IIRC) The Economic Diplomacy Of The Suez Crisis by Diane Kunz, "Remember Australia." The Suez Canal cut short the distance to Australia by about half, meaning the maintenance of that special relationship would be at risk with the Suez Canal in Egyptian hands. Egypt had already blocked Israeli ships in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal, pointing to Nasser's unreliability.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Most of Britain's oil ran through the Suez Canal, but even more importantly, as one of the top ministers is quoted as saying in (IIRC) The Economic Diplomacy Of The Suez Crisis by Diane Kunz, "Remember Australia." The Suez Canal cut short the distance to Australia by about half, meaning the maintenance of that special relationship would be at risk with the Suez Canal in Egyptian hands.
That only goes to show that the British politicians were not paying too much attention to what was actually going on. At the time Australia was at the height of an economic boom and had been rapidly moving towards the USA since the early stages of WWII.
The distance of that movement away from the UK and towards the USA might have been greatly reduced if somebody in Britain had said "remember Australia" in 1941-42 when the war came to Australia's doorstep.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Some facts about Australia-UK trade
Link to Australian statistics website
Note the following quote
quote:
1966–67 — The UK relinquishes its position as Australia’s number one leading trading partner. Imports from the USA surpass those from the UK, and Japan replaces the UK as the number one market for exports. Trade deficit 0.3%.
So ten years after the Suez crisis, UK-Australian trade in both directions was still a mutual top spot. Which of course did not make that trade and its transport costs irrelevant even after the loss of top spot. Just less significant, is all.
tgc, you seem to have produced a red herring in this debate. By all means feel free to start a separate thread on any aspect of the history of Australian/UK relations and their effects on trade etc. But it's rather more than a bit of a tangent here, don't you think?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Most of Britain's oil ran through the Suez Canal, but even more importantly, as one of the top ministers is quoted as saying in (IIRC) The Economic Diplomacy Of The Suez Crisis by Diane Kunz, "Remember Australia." The Suez Canal cut short the distance to Australia by about half, meaning the maintenance of that special relationship would be at risk with the Suez Canal in Egyptian hands.
That only goes to show that the British politicians were not paying too much attention to what was actually going on. At the time Australia was at the height of an economic boom and had been rapidly moving towards the USA since the early stages of WWII.
The distance of that movement away from the UK and towards the USA might have been greatly reduced if somebody in Britain had said "remember Australia" in 1941-42 when the war came to Australia's doorstep.
I'm not too sure if Britain was involved in some sort of major conflict in 1941-42. It may be that they had their hands somewhat busy on some minute distant front or three. I need more knowledgeable people to fill me in on that one.
However, what you did see in the UN General Assembly was that Australia was one of extremely few nations to support France, Britain and Israel pretty much whole-heartedly, going against the wishes of amongst others the US in doing so. Not knowing much of Australian economic history, it still seems to me that the political ties to Britain remained close and important.
ETA: Cross-posted with Barnabas82.
[ 18. December 2013, 14:55: Message edited by: JFH ]
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It was a perfect storm really - revealing the failing power of Britain, the ability of the US to call a halt to the operation, the perceived lying of Eden to parliament, and I suppose, the new power of the old colonies.
Yes, I think all of these hold a key to why Eden ended up being hurt so badly politically. That America could bring Britain to heel so sharply, was a shock to a public who hadn't fully digested Britain's inability to have a fully independent foreign policy in the new Cold War era.
.. and ultimately one they held Eden to blame for.
[ 18. December 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Most of Britain's oil ran through the Suez Canal, but even more importantly, as one of the top ministers is quoted as saying in (IIRC) The Economic Diplomacy Of The Suez Crisis by Diane Kunz, "Remember Australia." The Suez Canal cut short the distance to Australia by about half, meaning the maintenance of that special relationship would be at risk with the Suez Canal in Egyptian hands.
That only goes to show that the British politicians were not paying too much attention to what was actually going on. At the time Australia was at the height of an economic boom and had been rapidly moving towards the USA since the early stages of WWII.
The distance of that movement away from the UK and towards the USA might have been greatly reduced if somebody in Britain had said "remember Australia" in 1941-42 when the war came to Australia's doorstep.
I'm not too sure if Britain was involved in some sort of major conflict in 1941-42. It may be that they had their hands somewhat busy on some minute distant front or three. I need more knowledgeable people to fill me in on that one.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kittyville
Shipmate
# 16106
|
Posted
I assume TGC is referring to the surrender of Singapore, seen here very much as abandoning Australia to its fate, despite the massive commitment of Australian troops to British fighting forces in previous conflicts. It was viewed as a betrayal then, and it's a view that persists.
Posts: 291 | From: Sydney | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Australians really should get over that. Canada exists, period, because Britain told the British North American colonies in 1862 that if the Union Army decided to march north, then that was that and they wouldn't defend us. The rest is history.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
But to return to Suez Robert Menzies, the then Aust PM, led a very embarrassing delegation to Cairo to present the position of the UK and French Govts. It had the inevitable fate it deserved.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
I assume TGC is referring to the surrender of Singapore, seen here very much as abandoning Australia to its fate, despite the massive commitment of Australian troops to British fighting forces in previous conflicts. It was viewed as a betrayal then, and it's a view that persists.
Is anyone honestly suggesting that Britain didn't try, however incompetently, to hold Singapore? Or that we were less than fully committed to the war against Japan, albeit doing most of our fighting, very sensibly, where we were (India and Burma) rather than where we weren't but the Australians were (New Guinea)?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The problem was that Churchill had not read or understood the Statute of Westminster II. Curtin wanted to bring Aust soldiers back from England and the Middle East to defend Aust and conduct the New Guinea campaign. Churchill, an old Empire hand, thought that he could say where Aust troops went. There were very tense arguments, but Curtin won and most of the troops came home. They were then able to wage the long slow slog through PNG, after the victory at the Battle of Milne Bay - like those at Coral Sea and Midway, this was one of the decisive battles of the Pacific campaign.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
In Churchill's (modest) defence, Australia did not ratify the Statute of Westminster until 1942, while Canada did so in 1931. In 1941 and early 1942 Australia was still a Dominion without full control of its military and foreign affairs.
You made your bed, therefore you had to lie in it.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have never understood why it took so long for the Statute to be ratified here. But I'm far from convinced that the delay leads to the consequences for which you argue.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yam-pk
Shipmate
# 12791
|
Posted
Arguably, the Australians merely exchanged one set of apron strings for another, whether they had a choice at that time in the war is open to debate.
Btw, the whole idea of Australia being invaded by the "marauding Asian hords" pre-dated WW2 by very many years, although obviously the war presumably increased the paranoia to fever-pitch...
Posts: 472 | From: The Grim North | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I have never understood why it took so long for the Statute to be ratified here. But I'm far from convinced that the delay leads to the consequences for which you argue.
Australia was at war in 1939 on September 2, 1939 as a Dominion. Canada wasn't at war until September 9th when we passed our own Declaration of War. Australia didn't pass such a declaration, because it was legally unnecessary. 1941 changed all that, but Churchill was working under the understanding he had been used to until that time. There is a difference between politically stupid, which his actions clearly were and legal, which they also were.
Australia didn't have Quebec to push things along as they did in Canada. You've always been the more Union-Jack waving cousin.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I think the correct phrase was the "Yellow Peril" - certainly a popular slogan for many years and with some overtones until the late sixties/early seventies. There was some truth in the fear in 1942. Had the Battle of the Coral Sea not resulted in an allied victory, Port Moresby would have fallen and the probable consequence of that would have been a japanese invasion attempt. Until that battle, there had been considerable debate in Japan between those wanting an invasion of Australia - a debate in which the navy was predominant - and the army-led school which was not in favour. The victory saw a decline in the support for an invasion, that being reinforced by the victories at Midway and Milne Bay.
Nice try, SPK, but not convincing. There is support for your argument in the manner in which the announcement of war was made here. Menzies said that Britain was at war with Germany and that as a consequence Aust was also at war. That does not mean that the UK Govt could decide where Aust troops were to be deployed. Most importantly, it does not mean that Curtin was not able to insist that the troops be returned here at a time when Churchill gave a low priority to the defence of Aust.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Then go read your own constitutional history, GeeD, it's the same as Canada's on this point, aside from the dates. Both Canada and Australia were at war automatically when Britain declared war in 1914. The Governor General is the Commander in Chief, and until the Statute of Westminster was ratified, the GG took orders and instructions from London. That means Churchill was in control. This is black letter law and quite pedestrian constitutional and military history.
Menzies made the same announcement in 1939 that Borden did in Ottawa in 1914.
It's also why Australia decided to backdate your ratification in 1942 to 1939 so Curtin could overrule Churchill.
Canada ratified the Statute early because Quebec did not want to get taken along for another war, period. Conscription in 1917 and 1918 nearly broke this country apart. The Quebec Easter Riots in Quebec City in 1917 over conscription brought us dangerously close to civil war.
Menzies did not have full executive control of Australia's armed forces in 1939 as he was operating under Pre-Statute Dominion constitutional rules.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The command of the armed forces is vested in the Governor General by the Constitution s.68. The appointment of Isaacs as Governor General established that the appointment was to be made by the King/Queen on the advice of the Aust PM, and not by that of the UK. And of course, the GG took advice from the Aust PM.
I think that's the end of your interesting tangent. Any comments on the Menzies expedition to Cairo?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
No, as I said, go read your constitutional history on Dominions. No Statute, no control of the Armed Forces. This isn't an unwritten convention, it's law. Canada has the same as has the as your s. 68 at s. 91(7). It didn't give either Dominion control of their foreign or military affairs in 1914 and it didn't give it to you in 1939, though we had it under theStatute.
Isaacs doesn't matter; he was also an aberration. What matters is that legally the GG was still a British official until the Statute was passed. Without the Statute Westminster could issue an instruction to the GG and override the Australian PM. Which is what explains the hurry to backdate the adoption.
The Statute also got rid of the Disallowance Power under the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
One quick last post SPK. I do know my Aust history and well enough to know that the GG was not a British official but the representative of the King/Queen. I don't know how you can suggest that Isaacs was an aberration. And Curtin was correct both legally and politically to insist on the return of Aust troops serving as a part of the Aust Army.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Then you are in legal error, GeeD with regards to the pre-Statute legal situation.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Maybe I am, SPK but a colleague who has won more constitutional law cases than you've had hot dinners agrees with me. You have yet to deal with the errors I picked up in your various posts. I can't imagine that the Duke of Gloucester would have liked being referred to as a "British official". Even sober, he would have been a bit toey, but in his usual state would have had the horse whip to you in no time.
Try Evatt's book The King and His Dominion Governors written in the mid-thirties but still reliable.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That isn't an error, and I am not impressed by lawyers. Politics has a way of introducing you to lawyers who say all kinds of things. The fact that Oz put the cart before horse in appointing an Australian as GG before exiting Dominion status obscures the legal situation in Australia's case.
I have the assembled scholarly opinion of Commonwealth legal, constitutional and historical scholars with regards to the Statute of Westminster, apart from some dissidents in Australia.
Ask your friend what would happen if the GG in 1938 had reserved under instruct to London under the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, and that bill was disallowed.
The answer is (a) the situation is absolutely legal and (b) Westminster could instruct a GG to so reserve a bill. This is what Australia's backdating of the Statute was trying to kill, it was like tamping down a fire that got out of hand.
The GG pre-Statute of Westminster was not the personal representative of the King but of the British Government and Westminster could and did instruct GG's to disallow legislation, to reserve bills to Westminster, and to exercise the GG's powers (particularly with regards to defence). It was the Statute that transformed the GG into the Monarch's personal representative.
For reading, I direct you here:
E McWHinney on GG, Canadian Parliamentary Review, 2009
Also here:
Statute of Wesminster Adoption Act, 1942
Essential Readings in Canadian Constitutional Politics, p. 18
The revisions to the Canadian Letters Patent in 1947 are illuminating.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I shall deal with this when you answer the errors in your earlier posts.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
If I might for one moment unite the monarchial and Suezian themes..... On Saturday afternoon, taking coffee with Egyptian friends (it's a bit like a joke, 2 Copts from the delta, an Alexandrian Greek and a Theban Muslim walk into a coffeehouse and see an Aleut sitting there) and nibbling on some loukum which caught the disapproving eye of one of the baristas, Nasser and his successors came up in conversation. One of the Copts noted that King Fuad II (ben Farouk) never did abdicate so could theoretically come back any day now. Except, we are told, he's not interested, preferring to continue his 60 years of exile in Switzerland to trying to set Egypt back on to its feet.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
He may not have been able to sign the abdication papers at the time, but you'd think he could have learnt to write by now. Perhaps he was taught only Latin script, not Arabic.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I shall deal with this when you answer the errors in your earlier posts.
I stand by my earlier posts; as the Duke of Gloucester became Governor General of Australia in 1944 after your adoption of the Statute of Westminster, his constitutional position is utterly irrelevant to your line of argument, GeeD.
Back to Suez, I don't think we should examine Menzies too much; it would be an unfair competition for him with Canada's Lester "Mike" Pearson, who got the Nobel Peace Prize out of the affair.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
SPK - my reference was how the Duke of Gloucester would have treated you after your description of him as a British official. That's the problem with lawyers - we read the words. I doubt that he had much of an idea about constitutional law beyond George VI being RI.
My reference to Menzies was sarcastic. His behaviour was disgraceful and embarrassing.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
