Both my Wife's Uncle, and an old neighbour - both Royal Marines - were involved in the Suez Crisis. Whatever the political distaste of this operation by the usual failures of our political betters, these men did their duty to the best of their abilities and in the best tradition of the Royal Marines. Sadly, my Wife's Uncle is no longer with us, but was given a great send-off by a contingent of RMs at his funeral.
My grandad was there he was a driver for officers one day he saw a crocodile walking up the bank towards them so he shot it turned out it was the local dignitaries pet
@@Surv1ve_Thrive for starters it's not lame, and secondly if the comment suits the post I'm replying to then it's still pertinent whether it's one or a hundred replies.
I think KIA means they died at the spot (hence "in action") whereas died of wounds probably means fatal wounds that killed them outside of combat (wounded in action, died in a field hospital behind the front lines). That's my guess.
My father was killed at Suez serving in 42 Commando and he died on 6th November, 3 months before I was born. I have the same name as him, so quite spooky seeing my own name in your roll of honour at the end. I also went on to serve in the Royal Marines. [excuse the clumsy nickname, my real name is Brian Short]
Hi Brian, just received your email and seen your comment. Thank you for yours and your father's service. I'm sorry to hear that he was Killed in Action. I hope this video went someway in honouring him and his colleagues who served during the Campaign 🇬🇧
@@livethforevermore hi Ben, Yes, remembering the fallen is the only way to honour them and I thought you did an excellent job of explaining something that to most people would have been lost or not known about. I myself went to the Falklands war and I guess that too is slipping further from peoples minds and to some they will not have heard of it at all. Thanks for including the names of the fallen. best wishes Brian
Much hounor to ur dad of course politicians don't send their sons to war great comment from u from a kiwi down under and by the by don't have a fskin would hate to one crumpled
the Op would have failed anyways, the politicans saved their own asses and saved britain's assets from being torched in over half the world, also this is back when UN actually had any power and they were using it to fuck britan up
Essentially, the operation would have carried out fine, if anything we might have eventually sent an extra force over if it was required and the port and the area around it given time would have been secured and reinforced with insurgents and mobs being dealt with as and when. The nutshell is, it was like an early version of the Falklands, everyone is mad at us for doing the right thing because they don't want to see major powers at war. It required a strong government and a strong prime minister, but, we were kinda all out of those after the two world wars and all.
@@abchaplin There is no such thing as illegal when it comes to war. That's simply not how it works. It's also entirely your opinion, and you're welcome to believe whatever you like.
When politicians have no guts, we soldiers have to bear the burden of the results. Nevertheless, heroism could not be questioned no matter what happens afterwards. Rest easy, warriors. We who remain have not forgotten.
@@rickytorres8566 Ey what? The British and French built the Canal and was partly owned by the Egyptians until they sold their shares of the canal to the British. The irony is, the US backed the Egyptians because thought they would side with them in the Cold War, made some big Anti-imperial stand on the whole thing while owning the Panama Canal themselves. Egypt and several other Middle Eastern countries sided with the USSR anyway, Britain and France was severely weakened. The US sucks.
My dad Bill and his older brother Tom were both recalled back into the British army for the show . Dad had been for out six weeks and uncle Tom about three weeks from regular service . They were sent to Libya where they met up and thank Christ both came home .
As far as I know, during operation Mousquetaire, french paratroopers made the lowest parachuting in military history (150 meters). They lost 10 men in combat (20 for the british) and egyptians lost 200 soldiers. Quite impressive.
perhaps you should look at what the US did, and the world as it is in the Middle East. the US has caused more harm than good in every theatre of the world.
Not quite. In Suez, the US were actively working against the UK and France. The UK didn't join in the Vietnam adventure because it wasn't in our interests and, besides, we didn't see much of the 'special relationship' in Malaya or Yemen or Oman.
@Tim Webb >Royal Navy >NATO >Egypt had no real navy if any ships at all >Piece of shit country >Was defending their, debatable, home territory, which is always easier. >"eNtIrE eGypTiAn nAtIoN" >Not everyone wants a facist in control of their nation. *Some people still wanted British rule, in fact many throughout all of the colonial nations still wanted British rule when they left, and again if not that, Most didn't want a dictator.* Just, Shhh.
@@nomdeplume798 English speakers don’t know how to say Arabic words. It’s Port Say-eed or بور سعيد if you want to get fancy. I’m sorry matey, with all due respect to your father, he and the rest of the english lads wouldn’t have really cared too much about trying to say it the way the locals say it, but I think the locals are more likely to be correct in how to say the name of one of their own cities.
I feel bad for the Egyptians. 2000 soldiers killed defending their country and 1000 civilians killed. The Egypitans didnt even do anything illegal/wrong. Pretty sad.
this was the moment when the old European powers realized their time had passed and they were no longer tier one world powers and could no longer act independently without the express permission of the united states.
AT-TE Greatest imo you’re both right. Something changed after ww2, in their ppl and power structures, they lost their political spirit and physical resources enough to prevent the kind of great _and_ terrible, men of ambition and will that are needed to try to stand above everyone else on the world stage. Their time passed, but merely as hard power, unilateral actors, and they most definitely could have prevented it. But it was fate, they didn’t have the pieces in place to do so, and it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing either.
I mean you're wrong pal. Britain's never needed "permission" from America and never will. Go back to losing wars that you think you can win without Britain.
The groundsman at my tennis club fought in Suez as a Royal Marine, his name was Albert Middleweek. He was injured during the fighting. Died a few years back. RIP
When UK refused to join in the Vietnam war as a result of Suez..when Ted Heath viewed the scenes at US embassy in 1975 he classed it as a 'sweet revenge'.
For France Suez canal has always been important. The canal had been built by french, maintained by them, several ships were sent in 1915 to support British against Turks, and troops were stationned in Port Said in WWI and WWII. But, in 1956, France was at war in Algeria and Egypt supported algerian rebels. Attacking Egypt was part of a larger plan and that why France committed 34 000 soldiers to invade Egypt and lost 10, plus 33 injured.
A little known fact to add to this op was that the centurion tanks of the 10th Royal Hussars layer down a barrage from the Jordanian Bank of the canal. They were there secretly unbeknown to even the UN or even the US or Soviets. My dad was in Jordan for six years with his regiment from 1952 till 1958
My dad was recalled to the colours for this operation he had left the army in 1955 . As a radio operator in royal signals he was ordered to report to a camp in London called Gouch street it was a underground barracks in London.once back in the Royal signals he was busy listening to the Russian radio traffic.
@@barbaradyson6951 That's not America's Best interest. Eisenhower's role was to resolve this peacefully. Since that it could damage the British Financial System.
It wasn't 'the yanks'. It was the bankers on Wall street that decided what happened here, just like they have done since around 1900 onwards all around the World.
I really enjoyed this video. Its so well put together. The maps you included are extremely helpful, I'd love it if you could continue using that feature in your future videos. Thanks for making this video!
Chick Dempster in the thumbnail was my wife's uncle. We did not find out about his death till after the funeral. His niece who I am married too was too ill to attend at the time and was in a care home. She is now receiving hospice care.
Please do a video on the Aden Appeal as my grandad fought as an engineer for the RAF in this conflict also I think this would also make a good video because the Appeal is quite an unheard conflict. Love the video keep making more
I was a serving Royal Navy medic at Chatham Naval Hospital at the time. We had 2 casualties from the Suez war on my ward.... Royal Marines, one had been shot twice by a sniper the other had serious injuries from an explosion. There was something that sticks with me until now ... they were both 17 years old.
I never knew it had been so involved before your documentary. One of the Royal Marines who had suffered back injuries caused by an explosion, which he said was from a Fleet Air Arm rocket when he was on the beach. Do you know of any incidents of friendly fire?
Yeah and if they never decolonized we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now either. As a Canadian I am deeply ashamed that we declared independence from Britain.
Liveth For Evermore; you forgot to mention that the Irish Guards Regiment were also deployed by the UK. My Father Seán served with a signals outfit there and was wounded in combat. He used to love telling us about his time there and how he was wounded. He passed away on Friday last to the great Barracks in the sky.
And the Americans said, " How very,very dare you". They don't have a clue how to use power do they? Protect your interests or perish. The Americans are so naive with world affairs, even to this day .
You deserve a fuck load more subscribers but if I'm being honest patriotism isn't as strong in the UK as it is in say the US plus population size you can almost expects subscriber numbers to be lower but you best believe the followers you do have are loyal and very supporting for example me!!! Do you have a patreon as your SAS task force knight videos also bring back memories and make me want to send you money to keep the content flowing
Many of youBrits are cursing your polititions for the conflict but what could be said about us Maltese when your Variants and Canberra bombers were coming in,loading and go unload all they had on other people from my island when we had nothing to do with it and we never did harm to anybody.
As I state at the start and in the title, the focus of the video is on the British Army. I also don't mention anything about the activities or casualties of the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force; because the focus is on the British Army, its movements, engagements and perspective of the invasion.
Outstanding video, Liveth! This is one Yank who knew about the “Suez Crisis.” My Dad explained what the UK, France, and Israel had done 11 years before as Nassar in ‘67 began beating the war drums, sparking the Six Day War. He suggested that the UK, France, and Israel could have prevented all of this if “the Great Eisenhower” had left them alone. A few years later I did more investigation into this military operation (it was cool to see Centurions, M47s and the Egyptian SU 100s). I view it now with the perspective of age and experience. The fact that Egypt had Soviet ordnance suggested to the UK and France that Nassar was a Soviet puppet. And Nassar was nationalising the Suez Canal. In the Cold War era this was disturbing - a fact lost on younger viewers. Not only was Nassar nationalising the canal; he was pro-Soviet.
@@Planet_Xplorer check the Atlantic Conference between Churchill and Roosevelt, and the continued effect on US politics, and then ask who is the clown.
Regardless of the actual conduct of the battles, I do wonder what the Egyptian people felt about the canal (in their own country) being under foreign control. I am certainly not happy about the amount of British infrastructure and manufacturing that is now under foreign control, much of it now owned by foreign governments. (Apparently, in the UK, state ownership is taboo unless it is another state!) I honestly do not know how things would have worked out if the Egyptian Government had been approached sometime beforehand and offered the canal. This would hopefully have prevented the conflict and possibly gained another friend in the middle east, but whenever the Western powers decide what is best for them, it all goes belly up, with repercussions that seem to keep increasing. When there is a threat to British territory (like the Falklands), of course there should be a response, but Egypt was not a British colony, even if some monarch thought otherwise.
It was built using western money and the british and rench had majory stakes in the company. How would you react if a foreign government siezed control of said private company because they decided that even tho they didnt pay for a dam thing they should reap the benefits now. There was also the threat of the eqyptian government closing the route costing billions to western powers, if you think any other nation wouldnt react the same way you are just niave.
@@eraldorh India was subjugated by private companies- The British and French East India Companies. The British East India Company also flooded China with Opium, resulting in the 2 Opium Wars. I make no apologies for actions by previous generations, but those are examples of the "benefits" of private companies to the local population. Am I also naïve if I didn't think that the USA would react the same way when Saudi Arabia nationalised the oil production? Did they invade? No
@@MervynPartin The suez canal company did nothing like that so its irrelevant. No because saudi princes visited the US to make assurances that it would not disrupt oil supply and they bought billions of dollars of weapons while they were there. Saudi is also considered a US ally in the region. The nationalisation also didnt involve ruining a private company owned by a foreign government so not only is your analogy shit but you are indeed niave. One of the reasons for the Iraq gulf war was the iraqi nationalisation of the control of oil.
That's a load of horse shit, any encroachment on the Egyptians (rightly wanting to take back their shit) would have brought the wrath of the Arab world to the Imperialists (France & GB) and eventually the Soviets would have capitalized on that.
Ricky Torres you know nothing. Britain could have battered the entire arab/Muslim world single handed back then, as we had for a century or so. Learn some history or STFU
Aizaz Aziz very true, our American friends let the Russians get on with it and have paid the price with a fucked up Middle East ever since. It led to us getting our own nukes, so all well in the end.
It is spelled "said" in English but, was known as Port Side in English. Port Sayeed. Like Ypres was adopted as "wipers" by Commonwealth soldiers in WW1. Thus does "history" screw the truth.
It's terrible when soldiers die in vain through a lack of resolve by politicians. Can't understand how GB and France could have developed such a good plan but not have gained unequivocal supportfrom the USA/NATO prior to the invasion. Had this come off successfully, maybe Nasser would have been deposed and a puppet government established. But Nasser was allowed to prevail with theSix Day War being the eventual result. Can't see how regaining control over the Suez canal in '56 could have triggered WW III when the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars didn't.
This was an engineered war involving the British, French and israelis, which Eisenhower saw for what it was, and (quite rightly) refused to support. The British learned from this.
@@ggale2721 Maybe so but at the end of the day Britain let down France more than anyone by not helping them in the 1st indochina war or defeating the vietminh in 1945/46. Also the commonwealth was well represented by the the brave Australians in the fight against communism. I doubt Britain would have the courage to fight communist North Vietnam.
Reg Gill unfortunately it’s the price we paid for standing up to Hitler. It landed us in huge debt to the USA who used us to leapfrog themselves to be the world superpower. They’ve hung us out to dry on several other occasions. I’m not deluded enough to think that Britain is ‘great’ or that we won WW2 by ourselves, but without Britain clinging on during WW2 the USA could not have used the British Isles as a FOB and stability in Europe after the Soviets would have inevitably won the war would have been doubtful. Ruthless.
Excellent, my father 9 Sqd RE was attached to 3 Para... told me Military success was over shadowed by political failure..I remember he was dropped at el gamil
If the Panamanians had really pushed for us to hand over control of the canal, it likely would've been given. There were student protests and riots but the Panamanian government never tried to nationalize the canal. There's also the fact that the US owned the land the canal was on and there was a military presence there, which was never asked to leave until it was agreed to transition control over to Panama in 1977. Meanwhile the UK had pulled out its defense troops in 1956. So quite a bit different story than the Suez Canal.
an illegal war from GB and France the politicans should have bought to Den Haag if the court would have been established at that time, however respect to the soldiers serving with honor
what constitutes a ''Legal'' war? all wars are Illegal they are waged to steal land and kill another countries soldiers. Britain was protecting it's economy from a rogue state
TheTechOasis a war based on I believe Art 51 of the UN Charta Self Defense or based on an UN Security Council decision like then Korean War or the first Iraq war
@@mkoschier don't give a shit about legal or not, did you think the UN was around during the Mongol Invasions? the Danish invasions of England? the Catholic crusades? world war 1 and 2? what about the US war on the natives? was it legal to butcher 50 million people? how can you legalise war, a legal war and an illegal one are exactly the same. countries invade and take what they want . its up to the defending countries to keep their borders safe. no war should be legal, how can you legalise mass murder destruction and economic sabotage. mental
TheTechOasis your answer looks like you give shit on international law, reference to the past is a straw man, because at that time in history the UN Charta was legally in force
You should have met his brother. When I was dating Chick's niece if you was one minute late back by his brothers clock you had to take cover. Sat next to his niece now.
Yeah, it's a superb video - but it was kind of let down by mispronunciations. Not only Port "Sai'eed" but Port Few-ad as he said in the video is pronounced "Port Foo'aad".
Very little is ever said about this conflict. I didn't realise until now,how many casualties there were. One of the forgotten,short but poignant,conflicts of the 20th century. I served with 40cdo,in the seventies,and the seniors, (who would have been young marines back then) never mentioned this. Always Aden!
Is that true according to War in peace magazine that state “The British at Gamil had a rougher time. Unlike the French they did not carry a personal weapon for use during the descent and once on the ground they had to break open containers to secure arms and ammunition.” Since British paratrooper be able to carry their personal weapons in jump order since late WW2?
