Trevor-Roper was dismayed by the British invasion of the Suez canal zone in November 1956, following its nationalization by the Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser. He was especially critical of the Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden. The next letter was written to congratulate his former pupil Sir Edward Boyle (1923–81), who had resigned from his post as Economic Secretary to the Treasury in protest against government policy In a subsequent letter Trevor-Roper would urge Boyle: ‘Do get rid of Eden. It seems to me our only hope of ever being considered honest again lies in repudiating that disastrous liability!’ He told Berenson that ‘all my worst suspicions of Eden are confirmed’. This ‘vain, ineffectual Man of Blood’ had thrown his weight about ‘with the uncontrolled, panic-stricken, bewildered irresponsibility of a last-minute convert’ to the anti-Arab cause. ‘So we are condemned by all, haven’t secured the canal, have put it out of action, haven’t got rid of Nasser, and look like making a present of the Middle East to Russia. Was ever a good case so wantonly bungled?’
The letter below was written from a house belonging to Christ Church, 8 St Aldates, into which the Trevor-Ropers moved early in 1956. Though Trevor-Roper would cease to be a Student of Christ Church when he became Regius Professor the following year, they would continue to occupy the house for the next quarter of a century.
8 St Aldates, Oxford
My dear Edward
Two days ago I decided to write to you, and then I thought, No, you are too busy to be troubled with the reading of letters; so I didn’t. Now I hear on the wireless of your resignation, on which I congratulate you, and feel less inhibited.
I was in Dublin when the attack on Egypt took place. I was at a dinner-party for 12 people and the 9 o’clock news was turned on, describing that attack. I have seldom felt so embarrassed. I said to myself: but the whole cabinet has approved, no spectacular resignation is announced, therefore there must be a good reason. Where the govt. is at fault is in its handling of information & its preparation of opinion. The evidence, about immediately impending Arab attacks on Israel, will be produced in a day or two: it ought to have been produced now. So I reserved judgment until I got back to England. But such evidence has never been produced and I am now forced to conclude that it is not available.
My own view is perfectly clear. This situation—I mean, an Israeli preventive war—was predictable a year ago. The evidence that it must happen at any time from May 1956 onwards, and probably before January 1957, was overwhelming. I cannot understand why the govt. did not educate opinion to think in those terms. I quite agree that the overthrow of Nasser was desirable and that force might have to be used. But it seems to me inconceivable that the govt. should not have so managed opinion at home and abroad that such intervention should be interpreted as legal and legitimate, not unprovoked, illegal and outrageous. And, above all, it had to be effective. I fear that as things have gone it will not be effective. In fact, I foresee very black possibilities. I am forced to conclude that Eden, led by the nose by the Arab-appeasers, including America, only jumped on to the anti-Arab ’bus when the extent of his failure became clear; and jumping, could not control the ’bus. He was in the position of Chamberlain in 1939, converted to an opposite policy by facts, not of Churchill in 1939, systematic & consistent in that policy. I do not know if this is a correct interpretation, but it seems—on such evidence as I have—the obvious one.
Now what will follow? At worst, Russian domination; if not that, probably the loss of all British influence in the Middle East; and as for internal politics, a gift of Britain to the Socialists with their unreal, disastrous economic policy. It is a very gloomy prospect.
In these circumstances, I have taken no part in any petitions, manifestos, demonstrations. I feel that I cannot join the Socialist & Liberal hue-&-cry which is based on lack of realism about the Middle East. Nothing—not even idiocy by Eden—can alter the fact that Nasser is a menace and the rotten Arab states are a standing invitation to Russian control. On the other hand I cannot join the die-hards who insist that this move was in some way ‘statesmanlike’. I should like to think that some kind of rational tory policy could be saved from the wreck and could prevail without waiting—as happened when Disraeli wrecked the tory party—for a generation. We simply haven’t a generation to wait now. For this reason I was dispirited to find that no one resigned from office over this issue (I hardly count Nutting,1 I’m afraid): for it seems to me that only those who disassociate themselves can hope to provide an alternative nucleus. For the same reason I was glad to hear of your resignation.
I would very much like to see you if you are in these parts or free in London; and if I can be of any help to you I should be glad to do anything I can. I hope your constituents will support you; if they do, it will be a mark to both them and you; if they don’t, it will be one to you only.
yours ever
Hugh Trevor-Roper