It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would USSR haved nuked London in '56?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I am just an amatuer history buff. I read this paragraph on Wikipedia and it made me wonder:


In 1956, when the US withdrew its support of Egypt's Aswan High Dam facility, Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez canal, a move which incensed Britain and France. The two former Middle Eastern colonial powers partnered with Israel, which attacked Egypt. This alliance quickly collapsed under the weight of overwhelming world condemnation. The US, USSR and UN were uncharacteristically in agreement on the issue; the USSR even issued veiled threats to use nuclear missiles against Paris or London. Israel was able to obtain the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, U.N.E.F. (United Nations Emergency Force), to keep that border region demilitarized.


My question is this: How does this situation fit into the conspiracy theory which says that the middle east situation is being 'managed' toward chaos?

Was this an expected part of the 'end game' from an NWO view? Why did this situation flare up and who was putting pressure on whom?

UK, France and Israel going against Egypt = po'd US, USSR and UN.

Who was pushing whom?


[edit on 12-1-2005 by smallpeeps]




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Good question. It does seem somehow more likely that nuclear weapons might have been used back in the 50's when people held a 'less severe' view of their use. I'm surprised the British and French didn't consider using the same threat (against the Aswan dam) against Egypt to try and get Nasser to back down. I've heard Israel has since done exactly that to keep Egypt from attacking them again.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Yes, I am reading about this as I have time. I am not too informed about the history of the middle east.

I guess the wierd thing about this is that the UK and France partnered with Isreal but the US and Russia did not. If the US is Israel's biggest buddy, why didn't they back Israel in this case? Was the US less-zionized back then compared to today? Was Nasser breaking the rules of the NWO end game?

It is easy for someone to casually observe the present world situation and say that the state of Israel surreptitiously controls the US today but what's hard is to look at the past and find the moments in time that debunk this theory. That's what I'm trying to do.

Nuking London and Paris when these nations simply sided with Israel to re-take the Suez? What was the bigger issue in this conflict? Are there any larger discussions of this moment online or any books I could read about it?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I doubt the USSR would have over this because if it attacked either the UK or France it would mean having to go nuclear with the US as well. The UK also had its own nukes at that time so USSR couldnt strike and hope not to get hit back.

So even though the US and UK might not have been on the same side of this one issue if it came to blows with the USSR the choice would be clear.

I dont think it would have ever came to nukes over that but were countires pushing their weight around yes.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeepsMy question is this: How does this situation fit into the conspiracy theory which says that the middle east situation is being 'managed' toward chaos?

Was this an expected part of the 'end game' from an NWO view? Why did this situation flare up and who was putting pressure on whom?


My personal opinion is that it wasn't God's timing to allow such yet.

And, probably the puppet masters weren't near as ready as they are now to set up the world government.

But those maneuvers then have since significantly set up the Biblically predicted Jerusalem being a stone around the world's neck which we see today.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Remember that Israel was officially established by the British Empire through the UN chanells. Israel used to be a colony of Great Britian (Palestine was in the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire during the first World War, British special forces and their Arab allies under Sir Lawrence cleared the area for the Crown) This would explain why they would support Israel, Israel was seen as a bulwark of Western Civilization in a land of recently freed natives whose behavior (at least in british eyes) was barbarous. The only reason the US supports Israel so heartily now is the fact that Israel is a convenient wall to any Arab unification and the threat of a Islamic Empire. Which the Muslims want back very badly, hence this whole mess with the War on Terror.
Egypts blocking of the Suez Canal by nationalizing it (which would have meant paying taxes for any merchant ship that went through) was quite possibly a move by the Soviet Union to draw the Western States onto an open battlefield. Remember, Egypt was a client state of the USSR.
Except it rather backfired when Israel's army (badly outnumbered) manhandled the Soviet equipped and trained Egyptian army in the Suez campaign of 56'.
I do not what soever beleive that the SU would have went nuclear over this issue, they didn't have a whole lot at stake and subsequently rebuilt the Egyptian armies and did the same for Syria and Jordan just before Israel panicked and launched the 67' Six Days war (quite possibly one of the most stunning acheivments in military history.)
The SU didn't use nukes then but they did come close during the Yom Kippur war of 73'.
As far as the Middle East beign part of a bigger NWO scheme, I think you miss out a little on the bigger picture of the Cold War.
See my thread "What really was the "Cold" War?"
Myself, dr_Strangecraft, and a few others have a pretty neat discussion over the broader issues of the Cold War.
I think the only reason the UN got po'd was because they realized just how unrealistic their mission of stopping conflict really was. You can't simply alter mankinds hunger for power and the biolgical imperative to fight anyway. Really, when has the UN ever stopped a major war?

I love shamelessly endorsing myself.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by SpecAgentDW]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpecAgentDW
Remember that Israel was officially established by the British Empire through the UN chanells. Israel used to be a colony of Great Britian (Palestine was in the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire during the first World War, British special forces and their Arab allies under Sir Lawrence cleared the area for the Crown) This would explain why they would support Israel, Israel was seen as a bulwark of Western Civilization in a land of recently freed natives whose behavior (at least in british eyes) was barbarous. The only reason the US supports Israel so heartily now is the fact that Israel is a convenient wall to any Arab unification and the threat of a Islamic Empire. Which the Muslims want back very badly, hence this whole mess with the War on Terror.
Egypts blocking of the Suez Canal by nationalizing it (which would have meant paying taxes for any merchant ship that went through) was quite possibly a move by the Soviet Union to draw the Western States onto an open battlefield. Remember, Egypt was a client state of the USSR.
Except it rather backfired when Israel's army (badly outnumbered) manhandled the Soviet equipped and trained Egyptian army in the Suez campaign of 56'.
I do not what soever beleive that the SU would have went nuclear over this issue, they didn't have a whole lot at stake and subsequently rebuilt the Egyptian armies and did the same for Syria and Jordan just before Israel panicked and launched the 67' Six Days war (quite possibly one of the most stunning acheivments in military history.)
The SU didn't use nukes then but they did come close during the Yom Kippur war of 73'.
As far as the Middle East beign part of a bigger NWO scheme, I think you miss out a little on the bigger picture of the Cold War.
See my thread "What really was the "Cold" War?" www.abovetopsecret.com...
Myself, dr_Strangecraft, and a few others have a pretty neat discussion over the broader issues of the Cold War.
I think the only reason the UN got po'd was because they realized just how unrealistic their mission of stopping conflict really was. You can't simply alter mankinds hunger for power and the biolgical imperative to fight anyway. Really, when has the UN ever stopped a major war?

I love shamelessly endorsing myself.


[edit on 4-2-2006 by SpecAgentDW]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Somehow I fubar'd that entire last post, I meant to just edit my quote to put in the thread url and instead made a second reply...in quotes...
hate beign a dork sometimes.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Bouncing this thread as it may become relevant.

If Sinai goes #take then similar threats may be made against Western targets.

Old stuff never goes away, we need to talk it out.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join