Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Western Europe and Canada, Volume XXVII

248. Telegram From the Embassy in the United Kingdom to the Department of State¹

London, December 8, 1956— 7 p.m.

3211. Joint Embassy–USIS message. Embtel 2949, 3020.² With conclusion of foreign policy debate Thursday³ in House of Commons, may be useful to assess present state of British public opinion in regard to ME and particularly British public attitude toward US.

Not since early years of last war have politically interested Britons been so wrought up over any foreign affairs issue. Sharp and bitter division between major parties has been reflected in virulence with which opposing views are expressed in press. Labor and liberal papers on one hand and strongly conservative papers on the other scream at each other from editorial columns, with only moderate conservative publications such as Times, Financial Times, Economist, and Spectator disapproving govt action in restrained fashion more in sorrow than in anger.

Politically-aware members of public have in turn echoed Parliamentary and press division. Important factors in Labor and Liberal reaction are incredulousness fact blunder made, contempt for govt leaders and shame and chagrin that any British Govt should be guilty of such immoral and stupid step. Small minority of “rule of law”/ideal in Conservative Party, represented in Parliament by Sir Lionel Heald and Walter Elliot, and of younger intellectual “new” Conservatives, is bitter over action by own party, considered immoral or incompetent or both. Real bitterness is confined largely to Conservative ranks. Majority of Conservative ranks is still in highly emotional state engendered by frustration over abortive Suez action, humiliation over speedy withdrawal and sense of outrage over strong opposition and criticism by opposition party, part of UK press, Canada, UN, and, bitterest of all, US.

As polls and other evidence indicate, sizeable minority group which normally votes Labor shares majority Conservative feeling on subject as result of normal desire to support a govt which claims it defending British national interests and combined with feeling of contempt for Egyptians and their fighting qualities obtained by many British troops in Egypt during World War II.

State of emotion between opposing views has resulted in many strained personal relationships throughout the country, within parties and even within families. Hundreds of irate letters have been written to newspapers and weekly magazines cancelling subscriptions, particularly among serious journals that have criticized govt. At extreme right of Conservative party, atmosphere so charged that some signers of anti-American resolution in House of Commons sought to ostracize other party members who refused to sign.⁴

Crescendo of anti-Americanism reached its peak in volume and intensity following UN vote on Nov 24 when USDel once again voted with majority against UK.⁵ This was regarded by many govt supporters as unnecessary hounding by “erstwhile” friend and ally, and let loose pent-up floods of recrimination and abuse directed at US.

Criticism of US “softness” was rife on Conservative side during whole period of Suez crisis from time of Nasser nationalization. This rose and fell depending on developments. Even at this stage there was constant reference back to several persistent themes including altered US pressure which forced Britain out of Egypt originally, suspected subordination of American policy in Near East to interests of “oil lobby”, apparent American lack of policy, and disinterest in Canal which was lifeline for Britain and Europe, but no great consequence to US, apparent refusal to take any hard decisions during Presidential election, continued “appeasement” of rising Egyptian dictator to maintain peace at any price, alleged US dragging of Britain into Aswan Dam offer and alleged US lack of consultation and “highhandedness” in withdrawing offer.

British-French action, followed by immediate open criticism from President and Secretary and US leadership “of the hunt” against Britain and France, raised anti-American chorus to a much higher pitch. Besides further stress on earlier criticisms mentioned above, new targets were developed in press and probably promoted by Conservative Parliamentary and central office circles, to support govt position. These included references to historical parallels including Panama, Korea, and Guatemala. Charge repeatedly made that US acted unilaterally in Korea receiving UN, including British, support later and that US intervened unilaterally in Guatemala with no British objection.

British public generally shocked to find whole UN, with US in lead, strongly disapproving British-French action and majority of Conservatives still deeply chagrined at this. Focus of anti-American feeling shifted again at cease fire as impression grew in public mind that US pressure, particularly in form of vague economic oil “sanctions”, was factor in forcing Cabinet to unpleasant decision. This was further intensified by US refusal to activate MEEC with clear implication this would await decision to withdraw troops. For most of this period British press insisted US withholding all oil shipments to Europe until British-French forces withdrawn. Although this picture later corrected in serious papers, popular press continued to assert and still maintains that no oil shipments came from US until MEEC activated. Widespread impression created in Conservative party since numerous MP’s continue to promote it that US Govt at highest level threatened Britain with economic sanctions including oil embargo unless Britain “capitulated”. Additional “cause” for resentment was alleged to UK by refusal of US top leaders to see UK opposite numbers until purge of Suez sins.

Peak of this resentment apparently reached during week of Nov 25 when furious Conservative press belabored US for persecuting Britain. Nov 24 vote touched off explosion of accumulated anti-American sentiment. Most serious manifestations were House of Commons statement signed by 130 Tory MP’s, wild rhetorical outburst by First Lord of Admiralty⁶ and examples of personal unpleasantness toward Americans mainly in form of signs at many gas stations in Britain, particularly near USAF bases, reading “no Americans served here”. There were numerous expressions from unexpected quarters of neutralist sentiments, objections to US air bases in Britain and desirability of lessened defense burden for nation now reduced in both world stature and economic circumstances.

Temperature lowered somewhat this past week as govt supporters licking wounds but anti-American scars likely to remain for long time. Public efforts of government leaders to reverse and point out need for strengthened alliance not yet been adopted by many backbenchers, part of Tory press and party stalwarts in country.

Activation of MEEC, statement of support for Baghdad Pact countries and favorable pronouncements by President, Vice President, and Secretary have all contributed to lessened tension. Certain proportion of sharp utterances during this whole period can be discounted as coming from “blimp” element⁷ of Conservative party which has had a field day in giving vent to long-held views about US. Undoubtedly larger, more important and more serious element expressing these views is comprised of “disillusioned” Conservatives normally pro-American. This includes high percentage of active Conservative workers who feel deeply hurt by America’s outright opposition to Britain on world stage and America’s questioning of British wisdom in ME, which was once exclusive British-French preserve.

Still too early to tell how deeply virus of anti-Americanism has been injected into this group. On other hand there is some evidence that in upper strata of business and professional groups who think in realistic, economic terms, there have been doubts from start of wisdom of Suez adventure, its inevitable cost, and its effect on Anglo-American alliance. Financial Times coolness toward Suez action may be symptomatic of this.

Latest public opinion polls available, reported separately in USIS despatch 114,⁸ do not reflect specifically loudest period of anti-American recrimination. However, polls now being conducted also may reflect opinion tempered by US action and swing by govt leaders to rebuild alliance.

At present time govt enjoys high degree support for its action. This leaves only US as “whipping boys” to be blamed for troubles. Price increases for food and transport already announced as result gas rationing and 19-cent per gallon increase bound to have effect on public opinion in short time. Unemployment and short-time work weeks already being announced. When full price of Suez venture realized, we can expect full and prolonged outburst public opinion. If govt political leaders can successfully duck this blame as apparently have done so far, we are in for serious trouble. Latent anti-Americanism can be expected to boil over and create serious problems for US. If on other hand general public finally realizes that its own govt leaders responsible for the mess and US doing all possible to help bail out economically and restore spirit Anglo-American alliance, then we will have ridden out storm with minimum damage to our relations. Third possibility could be Tory successful effort to sell British people period of austerity as challenge maintain greatness by standing up rights, paying price, and welcoming revitalized Anglo-American alliance. Only developments of next few months will provide answers.

Vice President Nixon’s New York speech was extremely helpful.⁹ Flood of stories from Washington taking same line are contributing to easing of strain of moment. However, reports that US preparing to launch new Marshall Aid plan appearing in press this morning while helping now will create great disillusionment later on if not true. We must be careful not to let promises of aid which are being interpreted with great wishful thinking here to run ahead of hard facts and intentions.

Aldrich

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 741.00/12–856. Confidential. Repeated to Paris.
2. Telegrams 2949, November 27, and 3020, November 29, report on the attitude of the British public toward the United States. (Ibid., 684A.86/11–2756 and 684A.86/11–2956, respectively)
3. December 6.
4. Reference is to a motion in the House of Commons on November 27, which was signed by 126 Conservative M.P.’s by December 1, supporting the government’s policy regarding the Suez Canal and deploring the attitude of the United States. The motion was never debated.
5. Reference is to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1120 (XI) calling upon France, Israel, and the United Kingdom to withdraw from Egypt.
6. Viscount Hailsham.
7. Reference is to a diehard or reactionary, after Colonel Blimp, a pompous, elderly character invented by British cartoonist David Low.
8. Not printed.
9. For text of Nixon’s conciliatory speech at a dinner of the Automobile Manufacturers Association in New York City on December 6, see Department of State Bulletin, December 17, 1956, pp. 943–948.