THE TRAGIC DESTINY OF THE LAST MUGHAL EMPEROR OF INDIA - Mirza Abu Zafar Sirajuddin Muhammad Bahadur Shah Zafar

PREAMBULE & BACKGROUND

The Timurid dynasty (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani (Persian: گورکانیان‎‎, Gūrkāniyān), was a Sunni Muslim dynasty or clan of Turco-Mongol lineage descended from the warlord Timur (also known as Tamerlane). The word "Gurkani" derived from "gurkan", a Persianized form of the Mongolian word "kuragan" meaning "son-in-law" as the Timurids being in-laws of the line of Genghis Khan

 

Timur -e-Lang - Tamerlane the lame empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=v21r5XtL1Mw#t=100

Timur e-lang (Tamerlane the lame) – founder of the TIMURID DYNASTY & EMPIRE - is a descendant of Genghis Khan ... Babur – founder of the MUGHAL DYNATY & EMPIRE is a descendant of Tamerlane.

MUGHAL

The Mughal Empire (Urdu: مغلیہ سلطن, Mug̱ẖliyah Salṭanat) or Mogul Empire self-designated as Gurkani (Persian: گورکانیان‎‎, Gūrkāniyān, meaning "son-in-law"), was an empire based in the Indian Subcontinent, established and ruled by a Muslim Persianate dynasty of Chagatai Turco-Mongol origin that extended over large parts of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan.

The beginning of the empire is conventionally dated to the founder Babur's victory over Ibrahim Lodi, the last ruler of the Delhi Sultanate in the First Battle of Panipat (1526). The Mughal emperors were Central Asian Turco-Mongols belonging to the Timurid dynasty, who claimed direct descent from both Genghis Khan (founder of the Mongol Empire, through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur (Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire).

The Mughals were a Turko-Mongoloid people originating in the present-day country of Mongolia. Infact the word Mughal itself is a corruption of the word Mongol.
 
The "classic period" of the Mughal Empire started in 1556 with the ascension of Akbar the Great to the throne. Under the rule of Akbar and his son Jahangir, the region enjoyed economic progress as well as religious harmony, and the monarchs were interested in local religious and cultural traditions. Akbar was a successful warrior. He also forged alliances with several Hindu Rajput kingdoms. Some Rajput kingdoms continued to pose a significant threat to the Mughal dominance of northwestern India, but most of them were subdued by Akbar. All Mughal emperors were Muslims and adopted the Arbic alphabet which is the language of the KORAN.

The moons used on their flag(s) has little to do with islam, but infact a traditional symbol of Altaic peoples.

 

Though the Mughals/Mongols adopted Farsi and later Urdu as their official language, their original language was of Altaic origin, meaning it was related to Uzbek, Turkish, Mongolian and other Altaic languages.

Source:

 

 

http://defence.pk/threads/the-mughal-empire-history.24774/#ixzz45LcxMihT

FOUNDERS & CONQUERORS OF THE MUGHAL EMPIRE






 

Emperor
•	1526–1530	Babur (first)
•	1837–1857	Bahadur Shah II (last

The following excerpt is a resume of the article posted by ­

Sarmad Rehman Lillah in 2014.

Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Ill-fated Last Mughal Emperor. The Mughal rule came to an end in India during the rule of the Timurid Dynasty. Among the emperors of the Timurid Dynasty, it was Mirza Abu Zafar Sirajuddin Muhammad Bahadur Shah Zafar who became the last Mughal ruler. His parents were Akbar II and a Hindu Rajuput woman named, Lal Bai. His father had died on September of 1837, and it was after this that he became the Mughal emperor. As he was also a significant Urdu poet, he used a part of his name, Zafar to serve as his nom de plume. The word Zafar means ‘victory’ and under this name he had earned a lot of fame by writing popular ghazals. In 1857, he was actively involved in the Indian Rebellion that had taken place, and for his active participation he was driven away from Delhi by the British. He was made to stay in Yangon, which is a part of Burma and used to be under the dominion of British. ­

Since the empire was already breaking down, Bahadur Shah’s empire was small and did not extend beyond Red Fort of Delhi. Even then, the East India Company was dominant over India both politically and as a military power. Other than the areas that were under the Company the land was divided into more than 300 small princely states (Maharajah, Rajah, Nizam, Nawab, Mir).

Crown of Bahadur Shah Zafar

The emperor however was respected by the Company and a certain amount of pension was paid to him. He even had the authority that let him collect taxes and also keep a military force. He was himself very relaxed about the political state of his empire.

He was more famous for being an Urdu poet than for being a ruler, and he even had written many ghazals in Urdu. In the Rebellion of 1857, most of his opus got lost and utterly destroyed. Though some of his collection did get saved from the wrath of the British. This collection was called the Kulliyyat-i-Zafar. Bahadur is always considered as one of the first and foremost fighters of Indian Independence, who was made the Commander-in-Chief for his constant attempts to fight for the independence of India. He even stayed calm and composed when the Major of that time, Hudson used to send him the slain heads of the emperor’s sons.

The Sepoy rebellion of 1857.

The Indian Rebellion of 1857 occurred as the result of an accumulation of factors over time, rather than any single event. The Sepoys were local soldiers, the majority Hindus or Muslims, who were recruited into the Company's army.         

 

Pattern 1853 Enfield rifled musket

The two weapons which caused the rebellion

The spark that led to a mutiny in several sepoy companies was the issue of new gunpowder cartridges for the Enfield rifle in February, 1857. British officers insisted that the new cartridges be used by both Muslim and Hindu soldiers under their command, despite the widespread belief that the cartridges contained cow or pig fat. Loading the Enfield required tearing open the greased cartridge with one's teeth. This insulted both Hindu and Muslim religious practices. Underlying grievances over British taxation and recent land annexations by the BEIC were ignited by the sepoy mutineers and within weeks dozens of units of the Indian army joined peasant armies in widespread rebellion. The old aristocracy, both Muslim and Hindu, who were seeing their power steadily eroded by the East India Company, also rebelled against British rule.

During the rebellion that took place in 1857 in India various sepoy regiments captured Delhi, and both Hindus and Muslims chose Zafar to lead them so that the broken apart kingdoms would unite again and drive the British away.

 

Heroic Figures of 1857, the first Indian war of independence.

Bahadur Shah Zafar:
Most rebelling Indians accepted Bahadur Shah Zafar as the Emperor of India under whom they united. But he fell to the wily machinations of the British. His fall marked the end of more than three centuries of Mughal rule in India.

Bakht Khan:
Bakht Khan, a subedar in the army of the East India Company, built up an army of Rohilla sepoys. After sepoys in Meerut revolted against the British in May 1857, he became commander of the sepoy forces in Delhi.

Mangal Pandey: Mangal Pandey, part of the 34th Bengal Native Infantry, is primarily known for his involvement in attack on his senior British officers on 29th March 1857 at Barrackpore, an incident that marked the beginning of the First War of Indian Independence.

Nana Sahib:
Nana Sahib, the adopted son of exiled Maratha Peshwa Baji Rao II, led the revolt at Kanpur.

Rani Lakshmibai:
She fought valiantly against the British troops along with Tatya Tope. However, on the 17th of June 1858, while battling against the British near the Phool Bagh area of Gwalior, she laid down her life.

Tatya Tope:
Tatya Tope, a close associate and general of Nana Sahib, fought against the British and joined forced with Rani Lakshmibai.

Veer Kunwar Singh:
The king of Jagdispur, currently a part of Bhojpur district, Bihar, Veer Kunwar Singh, led armed soldiers against the British troops.

_________________________________

After a four-month siege of Delhi during the Sepoy Mutiny, the city had been recaptured by the British in September 1857. Russel, from the Times newspaper in London was visiting Delhi at the time of the trial at the Red Fort of the last of the Great Mughals. He was taken through “a dark and dingy back passage” of the fort to see Bahadur Shah Zafar, who was detained in a small cell, accused of being the mastermind of the uprising. He wondered whether the old and feeble man with dim eyes could conceive the vast plan of restoring a great empire and fomenting the most gigantic mutiny in the history of the world.

Bahadur Shah Zafar arrested by British captain HUDSON


PHOTO OF BRITISH CRUELTY






             

Emperor Bahadur detained by British soldiers

“Not a word came from his lips, in silence he sat day and night with eyes cast on the ground, and as though utterly oblivious of the conditions in which he was placed..”
An English lawyer in an English court of justice might show that it would be very difficult for our government to draw an indictment against the King of Delhi for treason, for levying of war against us as lords paramount….”–Willliam Howard Russel, The Times

 

Mirza Mughal son of Bahadur Shah II Zafar. Mirza Mughal was the fifth son of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the 12th and last Mughal emperor. His mother, Sharif-ul-Mahal Sayyidini, came from an aristocratic Sayyid family that claimed descent from Prophet Muhammad. Following the death in 1856 of his elder step-brother Mirza Fakhru, Mirza Mughal became the eldest surviving legitimately born son of Bahadur Shah Zafar. He was one of the three princes killed by Hudson after the fall of Delhi in 1857.

Bahadur Shah has written beautiful poems, and all his ghazals are an exquisite compilation that comprises of majestic words. One is teleported to another magical world while reading them, and one feels admiration for the works of this noble warrior. Though he is often thought to be one of the weakest Mughal emperor, it is indeed his terrible fate that caused him to be in such a situation. He is otherwise a man of extreme talent and verbosity. In modern New Delhi, there is a road that is particularly named after this emperor. His contribution to the struggle of India’s freedom is great, and it is valued and spoke highly of by all Indians. He is known as the first nationalist of India for valid reasons.

 His empire was in a constant of chaos and turmoil as he was not very capable as a ruler. Later in his life he was defeated by the British and sent away from his country to live in Rangoon. The tomb was built for him in the year 1862, and this tomb still exists.

­

 

He is moreover remembered for never making any disparity between the two religions of Hinduism and Islam. He even kept in check the extremist attitude of the many orthodox ulemas of Islam. The philosophy that was followed by the people during his reign was that of harmony between the two religions. This was practiced to such an extent that even the Hindus had grown to become fond of poetry (shayris and ghazals)

  

Bahadur Shah Zafar II: The Last Mughal Emperor, dethroned by the British. The last Mughal emperor was deposed in 1858 by the British East India company and exiled to Burma following the War of 1857 after the fall of Delhi to the company troops. His death marks the end of the Mughal dynasty         

        _____________________________

Bahadur Shah Zafar with 2 sons in his palace in Delhi.
 

Bahadur Shah Zafar was sentenced “to be transported for the remainder of his days, either to one of the Andaman Islands or to such other place as may be selected by the Governor General in council.” There was a seven-month delay in arranging for Zafar’s exile due to the time needed to select a suitable place and the fact that fighting had not completely ceased in the eastern part of the country. Even though his final destination had not yet been decided, on October 7, 1858, 332 years after Babur’s conquest of the city, the last Mughal Emperor left Delhi on a bullock cart, accompanied by his wives, his two remaining sons and servants. Bahadur Shah Zafar’s twomonth long journey by land, river and sea ended in Rangoon, where he lived in captivity until his death in 1862.

William Dalrymple’s book, “The Last Mughal” published in 2007, gives a detailed and vivid account of the Mutiny-city by city and battle by battle

Bahadur Shah Zafar was a poet and calligrapher of much fame. Hence during his imprisonment when he wasn’t given pen and paper to write on, he had opted to write on the walls instead.

 

 

The ghazal that he wrote for his own epitaph is still remembered by many for its last couplet:

 

“ Kitna bad naseeb hai Zafar dafan kay liye,

Do gazz zameen bhi na mili koo e yaar main”
[How ill-fated is Zafar that even for his burial, He couldn’t be granted a place for the grave in the city of his loved one.]

http://muslim-academy.com/bahadur-shah-zafar-ill-fated-last-mughal-emperor/#sthash.u26fgSmh.dpuf

       ___________________________________

Tomb of Bahadur Shah Zafar

This is the resting place of the last Mughal Emperor of India. The head priest there will give you a tour and show the graves of his wife and his sons. The grave of the emperor being on a lower level was found much later in the 19^th century.

BAHADUR, his wife ZEENAT and the last two of his sons are buried there in Rangoon.

Picture of his favorite young wife ZEENAT as a young girl WHO LIVED WITH HIM IN EXILE AND DIED A FEW YEARS LATER.

Picture of his last 2 younger sons who died in Rangoon, also a few years later.

 

 

 

         ________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

The Indian Prime Minister in a generous & respectful act attend prayers at the tomb of Bahadur Shah Zafar in Rangoon.

 

 

commemorative stamp honoring his memory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



AUTOGRAPH OF BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 



 

 

 

 

THAT'S HOW QUEEN VICTORIA BECAME EMPRESS OF INDIA IN 1877 BY DECLARATION OF BRITISH PRIME MINISTER (the sinister) BENJAMIN DISRAELI.

 

 

 

 

  



 

 

 





A HIGHER CALL: AN INCREDIBLE TRUE STORY OF COMBAT AND CHIVALRY IN THE WAR-TORN SKIES OF WORLD WAR II

A HIGHER CALL: AN INCREDIBLE TRUE STORY OF COMBAT AND CHIVALRY IN THE WAR-TORN SKIES OF WORLD WAR II
BOOK BY ADAM MAKOS AND LARRY ALEXANDER

THE NEW YORK TIMES AND INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER

December, 1943: A badly damaged American bomber struggles to fly over wartime Germany. At the controls is twenty-one-year-old Second Lieutenant Charlie Brown. Half his crew lay wounded or dead on this, their first mission. Suddenly, a Messerschmitt fighter pulls up on the bomber’s tail. The pilot is German ace Franz Stigler—and he can destroy the young American crew with the squeeze of a trigger... What happened next would defy imagination and later be called “the most incredible encounter between enemies in World War II.”

The U.S. 8th Air Force would later classify what happened between them as “top secret.” It was an act that Franz could never mention for fear of facing a firing squad. It was the encounter that would haunt both Charlie and Franz for forty years until, as old men, they would search the world for each other, a last mission that could change their lives forever.

2nd Lt. Charlie Brown ("a farm boy from Weston, West Virginia", in his own words) was a B-17F pilot with United States Army Air Forces (USAAF)'s 379th Bomber Group stationed at RAF Kimbolton in England, United Kingdom.

Franz Stigler (a former airline pilot from Bavaria) was a veteran Luftwaffe fighter pilot attached to Jagdgeschwader 27; at the time, he had 22 victories to his name and would be eligible for the coveted Knight's Cross with one more downed enemy bomber.

Stigler said he could see crew men wounded trying to aid other wounded crew members, knowing this plane would never fly again he could not fire on it. He motioned to Charlie to land and surrender. NO! He offered to escort him to a neutral landing strip. NO! ENGLAND! was the hand signals. Stigler stayed with him to keep other German fighters from taking it down. then with a salute and dip of his wings, turned and flew home.

THE STORY

There is an inherent respect between warriors that supervenes politics.
The 21-year old American B-17 pilot glanced outside his cockpit and froze. He blinked hard and looked again, hoping it was just a mirage. But his Co-Pilot stared at the same horrible vision. "My God, this is a nightmare," the Co-Pilot said. "He's going to destroy us," the Pilot agreed.

The men were looking at a gray German Messerschmitt fighter hovering just three feet off their wingtip.  It was five days before Christmas 1943, and the fighter had closed in on their crippled American B-17 bomber for the kill.

Brown's Crippled B-17 Stalked by Stigler's ME-109

The B-17 Pilot, Charles Brown, was a 21-year-old West Virginia farm boy on his first combat mission.  His bomber had been shot to pieces by swarming fighters, and his plane was alone, struggling to stay in the skies above Germany. Half his crew was wounded, and the tail gunner was dead, his blood frozen in icicles over the machine guns.

But when Brown and his Co-Pilot, Spencer "Pinky" Luke, looked at the Fighter Pilot again, something odd happened. The German didn't pull the trigger. He stared back at the bomber in amazement and respect. Instead of pressing the attack, he nodded at Brown and saluted. What happened next was one of the most remarkable acts of chivalry recorded during World War II

Stigler pressed his hand over the rosary he kept in his flight jacket.  He eased his index finger off the trigger.  He couldn't shoot.  It would be murder.

 Stigler wasn't just motivated by vengeance that day. He also lived by a code.  He could trace his Family's Ancestry to Knights in 16th Century Europe.  He had once studied to be a Priest.  A German Pilot who spared the enemy, though, risked death in Nazi Germany.  If someone reported him, he would be executed.

Yet, Stigler could also hear the voice of his commanding officer, who once told him:  "You follow the rules of war for you -- not your enemy. You fight by rules to keep your humanity."

Alone with the crippled bomber, Stigler changed his mission. He nodded at the American Pilot and began flying in formation so German anti-aircraft gunners on the ground wouldn't shoot down the slow-moving bomber. (The Luftwaffe had B-17's of its own, shot down and rebuilt for secret missions and training.)  Stigler escorted the bomber over the North Sea and took one last look at the American Pilot.  Then he saluted him, peeled his fighter away and returned to Germany.

"Good luck," Stigler said to himself. Franz Stigler didn't think the big B-17 could make it back to England and wondered for years what happened to the American Pilot and crew he encountered in combat.

_____________________________________

As he watched the German fighter peel away that December day, 2nd Lt. Charles Brown wasn't thinking of the philosophical connection between enemies.  He was thinking of survival.  He flew his crippled plan, filled with wounded, back to his base in England and landed with one of four engines knocked out, one failing and barely any fuel left.  After his bomber came to a stop, he leaned back in his chair and put a hand over a pocket Bible he kept in his flight jacket. Then he sat in silence.
Brown flew more missions before the war ended. Life moved on.  He got married, had two Daughters, supervised foreign aid for the U.S. State Department during the Vietnam War and eventually retired to Florida.
Late in life, though, the encounter with the German Pilot began to gnaw at him.  He started having nightmares, but in his dream there would be no act of mercy.  He would awaken just before his bomber crashed.

___________________________________

Brown took on a new mission.  He had to find that German Pilot.  Who was he?  Why did he save my life?  He scoured Military Archives in the U.S. and England.  He attended a Pilots' Reunion and shared his story.  He finally placed an ad in a German Newsletter for former Luftwaffe Pilots, retelling the story and asking if anyone knew the Pilot.

 

 

 

 

On January 18, 1990, Brown received a letter. He opened it and read:  "Dear Charles, All these years I wondered what happened to that B-17, did she make it home?  Did her crew survive their wounds?  To hear of your survival has filled me with indescribable joy..."

It was Stigler.    

He had had left Germany after the war and moved to Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1953.  He became a prosperous Businessman.  Now retired, Stigler told Brown that he would be in Florida come summer and "it sure would be nice to talk about our encounter."  Brown was so excited, though, that he couldn't wait to see Stigler.  He called Directory Assistance for Vancouver and asked whether there was a number for a Franz Stigler.  He dialed the number, and Stigler picked up.

"My God, it's you!"  Brown shouted as tears ran down his cheeks.

Brown had to do more. He wrote a letter to Stigler in which he said: "To say THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU on behalf of my surviving crew members and their families appears totally inadequate."

 

 

 

 

 

The US crew of Charlie Brown B 17 in 1943.

 

The two Pilots would meet again, but this time in person, in the lobby of a Florida hotel.  One of Brown's Friends was there to record the Summer Reunion.  Both men looked like retired businessmen:  they were plump, sporting neat ties and formal shirts. They fell into each other' arms and wept and laughed.  They talked about their encounter in a light, jovial tone.

The mood then changed.  Someone asked Stigler what he thought about Brown.  Stigler sighed and his square jaw tightened.  He began to fight back tears before he said in heavily accented English: "I love you, Charlie."

Stigler had lost his Brother, his Friends and his Country.  He was virtually exiled by his Countrymen after the war.  There were 28,000 Pilots who fought for the German Air Force. Only 1,200 survived. 

 The war cost him everything.  Charlie Brown was the only good thing that came out of World War II for Franz.  It was the one thing he could be proud of.  The meeting helped Brown as well, says his oldest daughter, Dawn Warner.

They met as enemies but Franz Stigler, on left, and Charles Brown, ended up as fishing buddies.

Brown and Stigler became pals. They would take fishing trips together. They would fly cross-country to each other homes and take road trips together to share their story at schools and Veterans' Reunions. Their Wives, Jackie Brown and Hiya Stigler, became Friends.

 

 

Brown's Daughter says her Father would worry about Stigler's health and constantly check in on him.

"It wasn't just for show," she says. "They really did feel for each other. They talked about once a week."  As his friendship with Stigler deepened, something else happened to her father, Warner says "The nightmares went away."

Brown had written a letter of thanks to Stigler, but one day, he showed the extent of his gratitude.  He organized a reunion of his surviving crew members, along with their extended families.  He invited Stigler as a Guest of Honor.

During the Reunion, a video was played showing all the faces of the people that now lived -- Children, Grandchildren, Relatives -- because of Stigler's act of Chivalry.  Stigler watched the film from his Seat of Honor.

 

"Everybody was crying, not just him," Warner says.

Stigler and Brown died within months of each other in 2008.  Stigler was 92, and Brown was 87.  They had started off as Enemies, became Friends, and then something more.

After he died, Warner was searching through Brown's library when she came across a book on German fighter jets. Stigler had given the book to Brown. Both were country boys who loved to read about planes.

Warner opened the book and saw an inscription Stigler had written to Brown:

"In 1940, I lost my only brother as a night fighter. On the 20th of December, 4 days before Christmas, I had the chance to save a B-17 from her destruction,

a plane so badly damaged, it was a wonder that she was still flying.

The Pilot, Charlie Brown, is for me as precious as my Brother was.

                                                                        

Thanks Charlie.

Your Brother, Franz

Watch the video of the first interview of both former enemies after that 1943 day ... 40 years later



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8EkmyoG83Q

 

Does the world have any men like this today?

THE SEMINAL DECADE IN THE HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST 1952-1961 EISENHOWER & NASSER

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1003676419655377

This is a video of a speech in Arabic given by President Nasser in 1966, after he read US PRESIDENT Dwight D. Eisenhower memoirs: Waging Peace, 1956-1961; The White House years Hardcover – January 1, 1965 . You will hear Nasser reveal to the audience that the USA intended to destroy SYRIA & INVADE IRAQ as early as 1957-58. INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE !

True b/c I read EISENHOWER memoirs in 1967 when I was working in Rome and so did Nasser who was, I found out later (internet) a voracious reader, unlike Sadat & Mubarak who weren't.

The video triggered my long desire to shed some light on a somewhat forgotten era of the US-EGYPT relation during the 50's between Eisenhower and Nasser. It was a seminal important decade which has affected the M.E. to this day!!!

Most of you under 50 have no conception & no memory of this vital period in the history of the Arab world. By contrast, I have lived and was a contemporary of the epoch. Let me put the 50's into perspective, specifically in the year 1955: in

-1 the only Arab country of importance was EGYPT (24 millions + Suez canal) - - 2 Iraq (6.4 millions) was totally controlled by GB with an inexperienced teenage King 
- 3 Yemen (4. 7 millions) was one of the most backward country with no schools - - 4 Syria (4.0 millions) agriculturally rich but divided into sectarian fiefs 
– 5 Saudi Arabia (3.5 millions) was an illiterate medieval country, no hospital or university, only $200 millions a year in royalties 
– 6 Libya (1.2 millions) was still an impoverished nation 
- 7 Jordan (800,000) was a desert Bedouin area with Amman about the size of one of Cairo average suburb 
– 8 the Gulfies are not even worth mentioning.

Such was the M.E. Countries in 1955.

What happened during 1952-1961 was momentous in the Arab world & the Middle East

1. Egypt becomes a Republic in 1953 - Saudi Arabia started a modest modernization plan in 1954 – Yemen coup against Imam (sovereign ruler) in 1955 - Great Britain/France/Israel attack Egypt in 1956 – Israel occupation of whole Sinai 1956- 57 - Eden resigns in Jan 1957 - Union between Egypt/Syria becomes UAR in 1958 – US marines invade Lebanon in 1958 (4 months) - Iraq becomes a Republic in 1958.

GAMAL ABDEL NASSER

Like many who belonged to the old regime, I grew up considering Nasser as an upstart & a dilettante leader, however much later after research and the advent of internet I realized that Nasser was neither. He was an ardent admirer of the US, its democracy & secularism, he genuinely wanted to modernize Egypt and alleviate the appalling poverty (80% of the population ate meat only twice a year when the landowner butchered lambs during Ramadan), he was in many ways a self-taught man. He also had an instinct for world politics & he was no one's fool.

The truth is that until 1956, the British still lord it over everybody, “God is an Englishman you know”. I know for a fact that all Egypt's intelligentsia, aristocracy & dynasty members hated the British, mixed with, when hearing that crisp British accent, a feeling of inferiority. To a British all Egyptians, without exception, were “WOGS”. (Most of you have no idea that until 1950-51 the GUEZIRAH SPORTING CLUB in Zamalek was exclusively reserved for British citizens and European whites only. The few upper-class Egyptians or Polo players were admitted as temporary Guests upon invitation). Nasser did not bow to anyone and that alone should make all Egyptians past & present remember him.

US relation with Egypt in the 50's
Through most of the 1950s, relations between the United States and Egypt were dominated by three individuals: Dwight Eisenhower, Foster Dulles and Gamal Abdel Nasser. Though the 2 Americans professed support, in principle, for the anti-colonialist nationalism Nasser represented, Eisenhower and Dulles were constrained by the fact that the United States was at the time a STATUS-QUO POWER, perhaps nowhere more than in the Middle East. Eisenhower overwhelming dogmatic preoccupation was to stop and reverse the spread of Communism. He was a soldier, not a politician, he did possess a military mentality, but he also was the ONLY President WHO SAID NO to Israel in 1958 (see further text)

Nasser found the status quo obnoxious, tilted, as he thought it was, to the advantage of the West and the disadvantage of Egypt; and he did all he could to right the balance. HE WAS RIGHT.

Largely because of their inability to fathom Nasser, Eisenhower and Dulles were unable to shape a consistent policy toward Egypt. As a consequence, U.S.-Egyptian relations during the eight years of the Eisenhower administration oscillated wildly, from relative amicability to spectacular contretemps that led to the decade's most astonishing fiasco and PERMANENTLY ALTERED THE FACE OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

Nasser told Dulles that Egypt's principal problem was not with the Russians, but with the British, who had occupied his country for seventy years. “How can I go to my people,” Nasser said, “and tell them I am disregarding a killer with a pistol sixty miles (British) from me at the Suez Canal to worry about somebody who is holding a knife (Russians) 5,000 miles away?” “The British are our enemy not the Russians”.

In Eisenhower's opinion, the importance of the Middle East lay primarily in its role as supplier of oil to Western Europe — to countries like Britain. The whole point of worrying about Soviet penetration of the Middle East was to ensure that Middle Eastern oil continue to flow to Britain and the other European allies. For Eisenhower, who had risen to world fame and launched a political career on his wartime exploits in the European theatre, Europe was always primary. The Middle East, Egypt included, was important, but only — or at least chiefly — insofar as events there affected the security of Europe.

NASSER WITH MARSHALL TITO OF YUGOSLAVIA & NEHRU PM OF INDIA 

           

Eisenhower's vision: the bipolar world of the Cold War. Eisenhower saw the world entirely within that Cold War framework: everything he did was about stopping Communism, for example: On East Asia (p. 564): US relations with Formosa (now Taiwan): all about stopping a Communist Chinese takeover. On Africa (pp. 579-81): US and UN relations with Africa: all about ensuring that colonialism was not replaced by Russian-aided Communism. On Latin America (p. 539): US relations with the Organization of American States: all about stopping the spread of Cuban Communism. And Eisenhower did not always keep the Cold War cold: he had plenty of "hot wars", most of which are not well-remembered today. For example: 1956 Suez Crisis: The US aided Egypt against England and Israel (yes, we were on the OTHER side then!) 1958 Lebanon Crisis: The US sent 14,000 troops into Lebanon, with 40,000 more offshore -- a major invasion, but for only a few months. 1960: Early troops into Vietnam (yes, Eisenhower started it; JFK continued it; and LBJ escalated it). 1961: Almost invaded Laos (Eisenhower was only president for one month in 1961, until JFK's inauguration, but considered invading). The two lists above do not describe a record of "Waging Peace," as Eisenhower would have us believe from his title. His domestic policy accomplishments (the first list above) show that his intentions were good -- but his viewpoint was entirely colored by his military background. Eisenhower was a military general -- not a diplomat; not a legislator; not even really a politician -- so what else should we have expected?                            _________________________________________

The Tripartite Aggression
The Sinai War
                                           
Also named the Tripartite Aggression and the Kadesh Operation, was an invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel, followed by the United Kingdom and France. 
The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power. After the fighting had started, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations forced the three invaders to withdraw. The episode humiliated Great Britain and France and strengthened Nasser.
On October 29, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai. Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire, which was ignored. On November 5, Britain and France landed paratroopers along the Suez Canal. The Egyptian forces were defeated, but they did block the canal to all shipping. It became clear that the Israeli invasion and the subsequent Anglo-French attack had been planned beforehand by the three countries.
The three allies had attained a number of their military objectives, but the Canal was now useless and heavy pressure from the United States and the USSR forced them to withdraw. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had strongly warned Britain not to invade; he now threatened serious damage to the British financial system. Historians conclude the crisis "signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers". Peden in 2012 states, "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." The Suez Canal was closed from October 1956 until March 1957. Israel fulfilled some of its objectives, such as attaining freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran.
As a result of the conflict, the United Nations created the UNEF Peacekeepers to police the Egyptian–Israeli border, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden resigned, Canadian Minister of External Affairs Lester Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize, and the USSR may have been emboldened to invade Hungary.

The Tripartite Aggression The Sinai War
Part of the Cold War and the Arab–Israeli conflict
Damaged Egyptian equipment Date 29 October 1956 (1956-10-29) – 7 November 1956 (1956-11-07) (1 week and 2 days) (Sinai under Israeli occupation until March 1957) Location Gaza Strip and Egypt (Sinai and Suez Canal zone) Result Egyptian political victory Coalition military victory Anglo-French withdrawal following international pressure (December 1956) Israeli occupation of Sinai (until March 1957) UNEF deployment in Sinai Straits of Tiran re-opened to Israeli shipping Resignation of Anthony Eden as British Prime Minister, end of Britain's role as a superpower Guy Mollet's position as French Prime Minister heavily damaged
 NASSER BLUF Nasser bluffed when he closed the strait of Tiran, though he knew the army was neither ready nor prepared and most importantly he received ASSURANCE FROM FOSTER DULLES, the US Secretary of State that Israel and G.B. will not attack first. He believed the US affirmation.
___________________________________________________




When an American President Said No to Israel

By Donald Neff

It was 39 years ago, on March 16, 1957, that Israel withdrew under unrelenting United States pressure from all the territory it had occupied in the Sinai peninsula during its invasion of Egypt less than five months earlier. As Israeli forces pulled out, they ignored pleas from United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold and displayed their contempt for US President Dwight D. Eisenhower's policy by systematically destroying all surfaced roads, railway tracks and telephone lines. All buildings in the tiny villages of Abu Ageila and El Quseima were destroyed, as were the military buildings around El Arish.

Israel's dogged insistence on keeping by military occupation parts of the Sinai had led to increasingly tense relations between Eisenhower and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. From the very beginning of what became known as the Suez crisis, Eisenhower had forcefully opposed the secret plot by Britain, France and Israel to invade Egypt. Against great political pressures, Ike had managed to stop the ill-considered invasion – but not before Israeli troops grabbed Egypt's Sinai peninsula in a lightning surprise attack starting October 29, 1956.

Britain and France followed Eisenhower's firm advice and quickly removed their troops from Egypt. But Israel insisted on retaining parts of the peninsula. Despite repeated U.S. urgings, Ben-Gurion refused to withdraw Israeli troops. In retaliation, Eisenhower joined with 75 other nations in the UN General Assembly in passing a resolution on February 2, 1957, "deploring" Israel's occupation. Only two nations opposed: France and Israel.

Still, Ben-Gurion refused to move his troops. On February 11, Eisenhower sent a forceful note to Ben-Gurion to withdraw. Again Ben-Gurion refused. At the same time, the influence of Israel's supporters became intense. The White House was besieged by efforts to halt its pressure on the Jewish state; 41 Republican and 75 Democratic congressmen signed a letter urging support for Israel.

Donald Neff

'Terrific Control'

In reaction to mounting pressures against his policy, Eisenhower on February 20 called a meeting of the congressional leadership to seek their support for his position. But the lawmakers, sensitive to the influence of the Israeli lobby, refused to help, causing Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to complain to a friend: "I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews." In other conversations around the same time, Dulles remarked on the terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage which the Jews have built up on congressmen ... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli Embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in the country.

Disgusted with Congress's timidity, Eisenhower boldly decided to take his case directly to the American people. He went on national television on the evening of February 20 and explained:

• Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? If we agreed that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order.

If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing world order. The United Nations must not fall. I believe that in the interests of peace the United Nations has no choice but to exert pressure upon Israel to comply with the withdrawal resolutions.

Not Words Alone EISENHOWER THE ONLY US PRESIDENT WHO SAID “NO” TO ISRAEL.

Ike did not depend only on words. While he expressed his principled position in public, privately that same day he sent a stern message to Ben-Gurion warning of punitive actions if Israel did not withdraw. Eisenhower threatened that he would approve trade sanctions against Israel and might also cut off all private assistance to Israel, which amounted to $40 million in tax-deductible donations and $60 million annually in the purchase of bonds. This combination of public diplomacy and private grit paid off. On February 27, Israel announced it accepted the U.S. position on withdrawal.

Although Zionists continue to criticize Eisenhower to this day, painting his policy as flawed and shortsighted, his actions in the Suez crisis represent one of the brightest, most principled victories of US diplomacy. Eisenhower had acted, as he later recalled, on the basis of his belief that "change based on principle is progress; constant change without principle becomes chaos." 

NASSER QUOTE ABOUT US FOREIGN POLICY



Egypt's late president Gamal Abdel Nasser and his wife Tahiya pictured in 1944 in their wedding outfits at a photographer's studio in Cairo. He was an army Captain then ( he was 6'2" & Tahia 5'10"