The crsises of 1956 weren’t all about civil rights. In October, a month before the US presidential election, two world events exploded on the map and each, in its own way, helped set the stage for the Cold War in the 60s and 70s as well as the US role in the middle east. The first treated here is the Suez, the second will be Hungary.
Look at the chapter first of all, “Leapfrogging Containment”. Who is “leapfrogging” what? Compare to cordon sanitaire and you should figure it out. C’mon. I know you can.
The big question here for Kissinger and for us is the extent to which the US should have stood by France and GB in their scheme to regain control of the canal? We didn’t, and things played out as they did. The question may be asked here though; who won? Remember Kissinger assesses the USSR as being the big loser in Korea. Who was the loser here? Did we “win” by not creating a wider war?
Finally, click on link below of Time magazine’s interview with Obama from last year on US foreign policy. Any suprises here? In the excellent article (available to subscribers only) which preceeds the interview Eisenhower is cited by the author of the interview and the article, Fareed Zakaria,an author of several books on USFP, as an “excellent” president in international terms. Interesting to compare that to the “impression of unrelieved failure” quote from Ambrose.
I uploaded assignment for IA on turnitin.com . If you need password try “history”
Like you had said as we initiated the unit, Kissinger just goes into immense detail about what Ambrose shortly states, yes we know that the Suez Canal was controlled by Egypt but Kissinger does not leave out any details. Anyways, as to what you had said towards the “lea[frogging” obviously Khrushchev had “leapfrogged” his way into the Middle East when there was a major arms sale to Egypt in 1955, nevertheless, Kissinger believes that this was “leapfrogging” because the U.S. believed that the Middle East (especially Egypt) was safe from the Eastern sphere of influence.
Going to the second question, Kissinger states that the U.S. should have helped GB and France as soon as they attempted to regain control of the canal because according to Article 1 of the NATO treaty, the U.S. would still be responsible for GB’s and France’s actions and would be obliged to act on behalf of them.
If I am correct, I believe Kissinger states that everybody lost. “Everybody lost by this convoluted scheme” (540).
I agree with Samantha te leapfrogging is basically the two great powers jumping over each others “sphere of influence”.
Kissinger shows a great interest in defending Dulles and Eisenhower in this chapter as he suggests the decisions made by GB and France were not preconsidered and set for failure since they didn’t have the same interests. Yet Dulles and Eisenhower made the rigt choices because they believed they shouldn’t use force, instead be peaceful.
There was a clear connection between Hitler and Mussolini to Khrushchev and Nasser they used on another. But indeed the entire chapter showed the fall of GB and France as U.S. did not back them at all.
Another sad story is the idea of Hungarians being attacked with tanks and
With out support… Later came the Eisenhower Dictrine which should have helped Hungary when they needed it.
It is important to recognize the attempts that GB and F made to avoid war the had the: Six Plans, the Users Association, and the Maritime conference.
According to Wikipedia, the cordon sanitaire is a French term that is used to describe a barrier, usually to prevent from sickness or disease. In English, the term was first used by Kennan to describe a metaphorical barrier to prevent the spread of something dangerous or unwanted (communism). Now understanding the term, the phrase leapfrogging makes more sense. Kissinger is explaining how the Soviet Union is jumping over and crossing the line that contained them. Once the Soviet Union developed a relationship with the middle eastern countries, the easier it would be.
I enjoyed that Nasser liked “playing the superpowers of against each other”. The conflict seemed more relatable as if the fight was happening between teenage girls. I thought it was clever that Nasser recognized the PRC, knowing that the United States would get pissed off. It’s strang that Dulles tried so hard to win over Egypt when he didn’t even like Nasser. It’s even more strange that he felt so betrayed. Dulles brought this on himself and should have realized that Nasser had no interest in developing friendly relations.
Dulles plays a very important role in this chapter. Kissinger makes a point of Dulles strong Presbyterian faith. Dulles was intent on not getting directly involved in Egypt. Kissinger explains that there was moral pressure placed on Dulles. Dulles wanted to keep America’s purity image in tact even though he had practical experience. Kissinger also blames Dulles actions on his overestimaton of propaganda.
Dulles is definitely the star of this chapter. Kissinger makes a point of his Presbyterian faith and the moral pressure placed on him. Dulles was determined to keep America’s pure image when it came to imperialism in tact. Even though Dulles chose not to get directly involved, Kissinger explains that he must have seen the danger due to his practical experience. Kissinger also explains that Dulles overestimated the power of propaganda.
This chapter was a little bit more challenging than most chapters I have read, probably because of the wide content of opinion-analysis type based information than just straight out facts.
Cordon sanitaire is a French phrase meaning “sanitary cordon”. it refers to the Containment policy. In the beginning of the chapter Kissinger begins by explaining that Khrushchev was leapfrogging this (containment policy) which the United States had constructed around the Soviet Union. I think this is an implication that the Soviet Union wove around the United States’ policy in a way that the United States was unable to control the Soviet Union’s actions located in a Soviet sphere on influence, such as in the crushing of the Hungarian Revolt, in which the US did not intervene. In respects to Egypt, Kissinger says Khrushchev leapfrogged the cordon sanitaire in “making his bid for influence in Egypt.”
Upon Dulles’ withdrawal to help with the Aswan Dam, the USSR offered to give Nasser aid to build the dam after invading the Suez Canal. This was not an attempt to spread Communism, but increase the Soviet sphere of influence, which I think is what was meant by leapfrogging containment.
Although Ambrose had talked about Dulles, Kissinger went far more into detail, talking about his character as a whole, and even how many saw him as a little overbearring and imposing. Regardless, Kissinger portrayed him as an important asset to US Foreign Policy, and I liked how he displayed his character in a more dinamic fashion, rather than just telling us the positive things about the man. After reading this chapter, I came to the realization that although the US was allied with Great Britain and France, a lot of the time we didn’t agree with or condone their actions, and the Suez Canal intervention was no different. Kissinger states that both Truman and Eisenhower adamantly opposed British military actio in Iran or Egypt because they believe that it was the duty of the UN to solve disputes of this kind. On some level, the US believed that their allies were too involved, and could possibly benefit from mild policies of containment.