Talk:1952 Egyptian revolution

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Egypt High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African / Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Egypt may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The title of the page, "1952 Revolution", is most curious given that the most commonly used term is the "Egyptian Revolution".

While not discounting the immense importance of the 1919 Revolution, even a cursory view of historical literature, and various media will reveal that "Egyptian Revolution" is the standard historical term for the revolution of 1952. This is an incontrovertible fact and not in any way Nasserist as one contributor falsely claimed. Both supporters and opponents of Gamal Abd-El-Nasser routinely refer to the "Egyptian Revolution", and the use of this term does not preclude discussion of any of the negative policies and consequences flowing from the Revolution.

Indeed, certainty of terms is a desirable prerequisite for an open and frank exposition of the negative aspects of the Revolution and the republican era, in addition to its effects in other parts of the Arab World and Africa. Supplanting the standard and accepted term for "1952 Revolution" fundamentally compromises the neutrality of the article and could have the effect of misinforming the reader.

The preference for "1952 Revolution" over "Egyptian Revolution" either stems from ignorance or from a biased personal political attitude. Such an approach compromises the neutrality of the article and the purpose for Wikipedia's existence.

Furthermore, it defies common sense to use the less used term as the title for the page as the average Wikipedia user would generally type in "Egyptian Revolution" in the search bar, and would then be left with no page (I myself, and many of my colleagues have experience of this).

Louse 08:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue over the title of this page has been raised as a result of a question on the Humanities Desk. This important event in Egyptian history is, quite frankly, difficult to find under the present title. I suggest changing it to the 'July 23 Revolution' or the 'Egyptian Revolution of 1952', the latter for preference. Are there any objections to this? Clio the Muse 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who (eventually) found this article and linked it on the Reference Desk, I meant to say something at the time about the article name which is the worst I can remember seeing in Wikipedia. The article should be changed to Egyptian Revolution of 1952 other revolutions follow this format so changing it shouldn't be contested. - X201 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article and redirected "Egyptian Revolution" here (1952 Revolution). --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be coming to this discussion a bit late, but I feel the need to mention that referring to this event as the "Egyptian Revolution" is contested, as Clio the Muse rightly predicted at the Humanities Reference Desk. I am referring BTW to the redirect, not the recent name change. I should also mention that I do not agree with the unsubstantiated claim that the most common name in Egypt is "Egyptian Revolution" as has been suggested in the beginning of this thread, but "July 23 Revolution" or sometimes simply "July Revolution". At any rate, I am going to create a disambiguation page for Egyptian Revolution to avoid the contentious redirect here. — Zerida 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Egyptian myself, I have never heard any native referring to the 1952 revolution as "Egyptian Revolution", it is predominantly referred to as Zerida said: "23 July Revolution" or "July Revolution" for short, and on a smaller scale would be called "52 Revolution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbussal (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is the term "second revolution" that i have never heard of in Egypt, the first revolution is simply reffered to as "the Revolution of 19" while the 1952 coup is wrongly & widely reffered to as "the July Revolution" or simply "The Revolution". Sokkary (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion on the talk page for 2011 Egyptian revolution (Talk:2011_Egyptian_revolution#Revolution_or_revolution), perhaps this article should be retitled to 1952 Egyptian revolution. Matt (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should include the Arab Liberation Flag, or whatever it was called... AnonMoos 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a UAR flag but I don't see where the Arab Liberation flag goes. Can we add some more images? RJFJR (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a neutrality tag on this page. Can anyone cite specific neutrality problems? (It seems pretty factual to me). RJFJR (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a military coup a revolution is not pretty factual to me. a few officers overtaking a country by force at night is not exactly a revolution, its not the issue of wether it should be called 1952 Revolution or Egyptian Revolution that interests me, but the fact of it never being a true revolution in the first place and the ongoing brainwash of the Egyptian people to think of any military coup as a revolution is what worries me. calling it a revolution would mean it was based on public opinion rather than the Free Officers' opinion which is untrue, unfair and delusive. Sokkary (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems somewhat ridiculous to me. If anything the Egyptian revolution is one of the few examples of what a revolution is (as opposed to the American revolution where it was more an evolution than a revolution) You have here the overthrow of a monarchy and the complete removal of the political structure that was in place, and the installment of a completely different form of government (and public opinion was and continues to be strongly in favor of said revolution) Nableezy (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sokkary, what would you propose to be the title? I see two possibilities, Free Officers Coup in Egypt 1952 or a variant, and the current one. Either seems to be on the face of it factual and NPOV, though the idea that a revolution needs to be based on public opinion seems some what sketchy to me, revolutions nearly all require at least the complicity of the military if not it being the driving force. Nableezy (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesnt seem to be any ongoing issue with the title, no response here yet, so I will be removing the neutrality tag, as Sokkary even wrote that the coup is widely referred to as 'The Revolution'Nableezy (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I back what Sokkary said about this article, the "1952 revolution" is simply a misnomer that was promoted way after the coup took place, during the coup, it was referred to as "the movement" by the "Free officers" themselves, some of the "Free officers" actually still refer to it as "the movement" until this moment, if you can read arabic you can read a summary of one of the talk shaws which hosted "Tawfik Abdo Ismael" -one of the Free officers- that referred to it as "the movement" (http://www.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=121176), and even though this misnomer was cliched, it doesn't change the fact that it was a textbook case of coup d'etat, according the Merriam-Webster dictionary of English language (I am only extracting the politics-related senses here): Revolution: The overthrow of a government by those who are governed. Coup d'etat: A sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force. So, since the "1952 revolution" was a classic case of coup d'etat, the neutrality of this article is seriously questioned, as the author (Nableezy) insists on referring to it as a revolution, which I would accept (barely) to be used in the cliched misnomer "1952 revolution" to match the historical term. (Bbussal (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It was a military coup, quite bloodless too. However, the pretty much immediate effects of the coup were revolutionary in every way. The monarchy was abolished, all political parties were disbanded, land reform and the fall of the pashas was enacted, socialist reforms began including the nationalization of the Suez Canal, open British influence in Egypt was practically destroyed and Egypt became an Arab Republic according to the 1956 constitution. So, yes it was a revolution and most books I've run through refer to the event as a revolution or the beginning of one. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should not let our personal preference or allegiance affect how we handle facts, Wikipedia is strictly a factual encyclopedia, I've seen your page, and you seem like a very committed pro-AbdelNasser chap, but where you stand (whether pro- or anti-) should not affect pure facts, I do appreciate opinion articles, but they should never be mixed with factual ones. Being "revolutionary" (in the sense that it has made radical changes) does not change the definition, as in "revolutionary discovery", "revolutionary theory" and so on, it's only an adjective not a nomenclature, in political nomenclature a "revolution" and a "coup" have their established definitions, and not subject to personal preference. What took place in 23rd of July 1952 is clearly identified as a "coup" even by those who executed it (refer to my original post two paragraphs up). (Bbussal (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed we should not let our personal preferences affect how we handle facts, but we do let the sources. The sources almost overwhelmingly use the word revolution for this event. It is widely known as the Revolution of 52. You cannot say here is the definition of "revolution" and here is the definition of "coup" and this fits "coup" more than "revolution" so lets call it a coup. The sources determine what we call this, and even the sources that say it was a coup usually say something along the lines of "The Egyptian revolution took place when a group of officers, known as the Free Officers Movement, seized power in a bloodless coup". The name of the article is determined by the name used in the sources, and here that name is revolution. nableezy - 16:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, for my message was not clear enough, I am not particularly arguing that the article should be named "1952 coup" that's an awkward name (although technically correct), it's like arguing that we should not call "peanuts" so, it should be called "pealegume" as it is technically a "legume" rather than a "nut", it is a misnomer, but as all other widely used misnomers, it is just ridiculous to try to change it, nevertheless, if I continue speaking about peanuts and say "peanuts are very healthy nuts" then I am absolutely wrong. What I am referring to is: in all other references other than "1952 revolution", it should be referred to by correct terms only, for example: under "The Revolution" section, line 3, I quote "At 7:30 a.m., they heard a broadcast station issue the first communiqué of the revolution". Both the section title and the reference (in bold) are not a historical term (like in "1952 revolution"), but rather a term used to describe the movement, should most definitely be "coup" instead. That's my point. (Bbussal (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough. nableezy - 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state outright, I try hard not to let my personal POV leak on Wikipedia's articles and their talk pages; if I have which I don't really see how, well then I apologize. Anyway, now I understand what you are saying. In this case "coup" would be more appropriate since it would be like Wikipedia is stating that what happened at 7:30 on July 23, 1952 was a revolution. We could say the radio station broadcast the first communique of a "revolution" as long as we attribute that to the station. I don't feel like looking deeper into what this particular source says, so stating coup (not in quotations) would be fine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV dispute [6-Day War]"

The article talks about a plethora of Arab countries pitted against Israel and that seemingly Israel defeated the entire Arab army with a small army of its own. Almost seems like a Rambo movie where he kills all the hundreds of bad guys all on his own. However what it does not say is that even though there is not enough evidence to back claims by the Arab countries that US and British troops were fighting alongside the Israelis, there is little doubt that Israel was supported both in weapons and intelligence by the US. At that time Israel did not have the surveillance technology and weapons to mount such effective and massive strikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadoreus (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing in any history book I can find that supports the racial bias in the following quote from the article, nor are there any records whatsoever of "dhimmini" status being imposed on Egyptian Christians. This entire part should be edited or completely removed unless a valid source is found: "Having excluded whites and Jews of being Egyptian, placed the indigenous Coptic community under partial Dhimmini status, having ethnically cleansed Egypt of its European and Jewish residents, and having seized their real property, on 7 June 1956 the remaining corporations which had any European, Jewish, or Christian influence had their assets seized under a law which promulgated for the "Egyptianisation" of foreign companies and joint ventures. None of these who had their property stolen by the RCC or had suffered assaults, robberies, rapes, or murder under the tumultuous revolution were given compensation for their losses."

Furthermore, later on in the article, the part about "Jews having their assets seized" is partially rebuked with "most Jewish property survived the Egyptianization", nor is there ANY historical context that proves that "whites or Jews" were excluded from being Egyptian, especially considering the existence of Egyptian Jews and functioning temples until this day, as well as "White" looking Egyptians, that have grandparents that were French, or British or otherwise European in one form or another. Nor can I find any historical evidence that suggests that people were raped by the RCC , or rather, even suffering from Rapes as a direct result of RCC policies. That entire line seems to suggest that it was the RCC's fault. That would be like blaming the looting, raping, and violence that happened in new Orleans on Hurricane Katrina, instead of the criminals that took advantage of the situation. (98.233.38.29 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some parts of this article are little better than hate propaganda, particularly the first paragraph on "Causes" ("Germany successfully agitated numerous anti-British movements of various degrees of Islamic and secular political ideologies in the run-up to World War II. Coordinated by German intelligence and nurtured by exposure to Liberalism and Nationalism and renewed Jihadism, these groups coalesced into the Muslim Brotherhood, the Baath Party, and other reformist and revolutionary groups during the inter-war years before gaining substantial ideological, political, psychological, and logistical support from the Axis powers"). How long has such a mixture of confusion and half-truths (at best) been allowed to stay here? Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction mentions that the 1952 revolution inspired other Arab and African states to remove their pro-Western leaders. Does anybody know which revolutions came as a consequence of that which occurred in Egypt? Doors22 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The algerian revolution of 1954 over the french control , it was a consequence of that which occured in egypt , didn't you know what the french minister of foriegn affairs said about this ? he said that the assistance of the egyptian is the base of the algerian resistance and if they managed to stop this assistance they would beat the algerian . but of course he failed to stop the egyptian assistance . if you can read arabic see this : http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9#.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.AF.D8.B9.D9.85_.D8.A7.D9.84.D9.85.D8.B5.D8.B1.D9.8A_.D9.84.D8.AB.D9.88.D8.B1.D8.A9_.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.AC.D8.B2.D8.A7.D8.A6.D8.B1 (Mr AkRaM (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The article is pretty much about the Nasser era. I am going to creat an article called Nasser era and moving much the article to that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Causes" section of this article states that both the United States and Soviet Union were dissatisfied with the monarchy being a British puppet regime, to the extent that both actively worked through their intelligence communities to undermine and topple the regime. It is understandable that the Soviets would not be happy with a British puppet state in the Middle East, but it does not logically follow that the United States would oppose this as well. To the contrary, a regime friendly to the Western powers would be a tremendous advantage. And considering that the three bullet points are taken nearly word-for-word from an article on news.egypt.com (with some additional unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims about the CIA and KGB) and not any sort of historical source, I think these statements do not conform to the NPOV style nor the encyclopedic quality standards set forth by Wikipedia. As such, I am removing them. 63.115.56.32 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
• Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:

• plain English words;
• terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
• items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
• dates."

Ground Zero | t 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to substantiate Miles Copeland's story that he and Kim Roosevelt met with the Free Officers prior to the Revolution and offered American support. According to America's Great Game: The CIA's Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East (pg. 138): "William Lakeland, who himself had close links to Nasser and the Free Officers, expressed doubts that Miles and Kim met with leading members of the movement before the revolution....In a second echo of March 1949, when Za'im approached British military adviser Colonel Gordon Fox prior to launching his coup, there is evidence of the Egyptian Free Officers courting Western suitors besides the Americans. In December 1951, another British military instructor, former RAF intelligence officer Group Captain Patrick Domville, wrote the Conservative member of Parliament Julian Amery telling him that friends in the Egyptian army and air force had asked him to seek secret British support for a plot 'to overthrow....the King and then to set up a military dictatorship.' Perhaps most damaging to Miles' claims, both Kim Roosevelt himself and several of the Free Officers allegedly involved later denied any CIA role in the conspiracy to depose Farouk."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of English in this article is poor. Wodorabe (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian revolution of 1952. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125225015/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/africanperspective/16issue/110415000000000003.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/africanperspective/16issue/110415000000000003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that King Farouk I was overthrown and you keep removing my edit, don’t remove it again, otherwise you are removing facts..... Super.mix5101 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such specifics are unnecessary. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolution was faced with immediate threats from Western imperial powers, particularly the "Jamaca", which had occupied Egypt since 1882, and France, both of whom were wary of rising nationalist sentiment in territories under their control throughout Africa, and the Arab World.

This "jamaca" links to the country Jamaica? Why is this is the article? Did Jamaica actually occupy Egypt and I am just uninformed, or is this just pure misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.205.60 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect First Republic of Egypt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 6#First Republic of Egypt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox and body of the article state that the US backed the revolution; the source given is the quote from a ref that " ... whether or not the CIA dealt directly with the Free Officers prior to their July 1952 coup, there was extensive secret American-Egyptian contact in the months after the revolution." In the ref, this quote follows "Perhaps most damaging to Miles’s claims, both Kim Roosevelt himself and several of the Free Officers allegedly involved later denied any CIA role in the conspiracy to depose Farouk, Kim explicitly rejecting the suggestion that he returned to Egypt after his February trip to meet with Nasser and the others — although he did admit that the Agency was “informed indirectly” of the coup plot (and family correspondence indicates that he might in fact have traveled to Cairo in April)."

Is US support after the revolution or being informed shortly before sufficient to state that the US supported the revolution itself? I don't believe this is how this is done in other infoboxes (i.e. Saur Revolution, where both were true of the Soviets). If no one has any objections I intend to change this shortly. PaKYr (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the secretary of state had charged Kim with persuading King Farouk to implement a reform program that would defuse the "revolutionary forces" in Egyptian society and thereby save his throne." pg 136 - From the given source, infobox indicating The United States support should be removed unless there is much more reliable evidence than what the source is currently providing. AnnexPoland (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From: The rise and fall of Soviet influence in Egypt by Gregory Hale Bradford https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA041161.pdf

Page 25 (27 in the pdf)

"The Egyptian revolution in July 1952 did little to change the Soviet attitude toward Egypt and the potential there for Communism. The initial Soviet reaction to the coup and the new leaders was a mixture of caution and even hostility . The coup in Egypt was seen in Moscow as Anglo—American rivalry for predominance in Egypt . 3 The An Nah ar research staff wrote that “ ... the overwhelming impression during this period is that the Soviet Union considered the 1952 revolution to be of little significance either for its own policies toward the country or for the Egyptian people themselves ”"

From Soviet Foreign Policy towards Egypt by Karen Dawisha

Page 6

"The Soviet view of the new Egyptian regime continued to be hostile well into 1954 with numerous articles appearing in which it was stated, for example, that the Egyptian revolution 'did not bring about any essential changes in the situation. The reaction in Egypt has increased' . It is, of course, true that the establishment of close Soviet-Egyptian relations was not exactly the first priority of the Naguib-Nasser regime either. Indeed, the suppression of the Egyptian Communist Party continued, and relations between Egypt and the West were initially very cordial"

From "The Soviet Union and Egypt, 1947-1955" by Rami Ginat (his phd thesis) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46517908.pdf

Page 205 (208 in the pdf)

"The "Free Officers" coup d'etat on 23 July 1952-*-, was understood by the Soviets to be another link in a chain of attempts by the Western Powers to bring into power in Egypt a government which would serve their interests. The Soviets did not pay much attention to the fact that for the first time in the 20th century, the Egyptian army was deliberately involved in politics. The first Soviet comment, issued by Tass on 24 July, did not mention General Muhammad Najib's statement explaining o the motives behind the coup. It mainly focused on (All Mahir, the new Prime Minister who was described as a tool in the hands of the Americans. Tass remarked that *AlI Mahir's previous accession to power in January 1952, had followed "consultations with U.S. diplomats aimed at involving Egypt in the aggressive Middle East Command" . The Soviets concluded that the political instability in Egypt had been caused by "the interests of foreign imperialists" and also by the rivalry between the Americans and the British for domination in the Middle East. For instance, the former Prime Minister Hilali Pasha was known to be pro-British and his successor, 'AlI Mahir was "fully trusted by the Americans". The strengthening of American influence would probably increase the prospects of Egypt's acceptance of the M.E.C. proposals ."

Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"French support" was added by an anonymous user with a currently blocked IP address at this revision

It has no sources other that a comment in the edit message saying "Had French support". I'm decently well read on this subject and I have seen no evidence that the French government supported King Farouk during the coup. While the French didn't like Nasser by 1954 for his support of the Algerians, this is not the same as saying the French were in anyway involved in local Egyptian politics in June of 1952. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]