Suez Victory- what happens to colonial Africa and Europe?

Basileus Giorgios · Feb 19, 2010

My very first question on AH.com was about Suez, so two years on, let's revisit the topic. Let's say the British, French and Israelis gain a near ASB amount of success- Nasser collapses, the Americans make grumbling noises but no real complaints, and the Soviets are sufficiently troubled with Hungary to leave Egypt to its own devices. Nasser is overthrown, and a pro-European regime is installed. Britain and France duly feel good about themselves as real superpowers, and Israel feels it has made lasting friendships with Western Europe.

So, what happens next? Eden is a war hero in Britain, and I imagine this will go some way to helping out the Fourth Republic? What happens to decolonisation now? Will the Europeans slow down their frantic pulling out of Africa and SE Asia, that in OTL caused such damage? With a stronger Anglo-French friendship, will the EEC become far more dominated by Britain?

Wolfpaw · Feb 19, 2010

If the Tripartite Powers are victorious in the Suez Crisis (i.e. no US pulling the rug out from under them), Nasser will probably be deposed in a coup, probably led by Amer, Salem, and the (relatively numerous) Naguib sympathizers still left in the government. This will probably be done to avoid a Tripartite entry into Cairo, which would just result in all hell breaking loose and everybody getting deposed instead of just Nasser and his hardliners.

Britain will occupy the Canal for the next 10 years (which is what they were planning in '55), the Anglo-French will get the Suez Company back, and the Israelis will occupy the Siani (the British-occupied Canal being the buffer between the Israelis and the Egyptians) or at the very least manage to have it demilitarized.

If you have a Tripartite victory in the Suez Crisis, you'll probably see Britain actually become less involved in the EEC, focusing instead on maintaining the Empire and expanding its influence in the Middle East. The Fourth Republic will probably collapse as per OTL since it really fell apart over Algeria which won't really be and IOTL really wasn't all that effected by Suez one way or the other.

The Baghdad Pact will most likely expand as well to include Jordan, Egypt, and eventually Lebanon and perhaps other states. Remember, with a Suez defeat for Egypt, pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism is basically going to be strangled in its cradle everywhere except Syria. It'll also cut off a lot of inroads the Soviets had into the Middle East.

All in all, much slower decolonization across the board with more federative states (rather than a slew of individual ones) being developed, Britain maintains the illusion of remaining a great power and certainly becomes the major power-broker in the Middle East (for a while, at least), and Islamisim will probably rise earlier due to the Arabs seeking another ideological outlet against imperialism since pan-Arabism is kaput.

Eden enjoys a much more successful career as PM, stepping down sometime in the early '60s, probably stepping down so somebody else can run in '64, which the Tories will most likely win. Also, count on folks like Julian Amery and Enoch Powell to have much more successful careers.

V-J · Feb 19, 2010

Wolfpaw said:
Also, count on folks like Julian Amery and Enoch Powell to have much more successful careers.

Uh, Powell was a staunch west of Suez man. His career would if anything be damaged by slower decolonisation.

But assuming that everything is handwaved (Even assuming a successfuly military and diplomatic operation, itself quite a stretch, Eden had absolutely no plan for what would go after Nasser in Egypt at all - overtones of Iraq) then decolonisation would be slower, Britain's imperial illusions would be reinforced, Middle Eastern politics would be presumably substantially different and Arab nationalism likely retarded.

Europe depends on how this is achieved - if it was somehow done in the face of American opposition, then that would enhance a certain strain of (not neccessarily integrationist) europeanism on Eden et al's part. Less so if it's (more realistically) done with some kind of tacit support.

Susano · Feb 19, 2010

Wolfpaw said:
If the Tripartite Powers are victorious in the Suez Crisis (i.e. no US pulling the rug out from under them),

Well, that alone wouldnt be enough. There still is the USSR.

Faeelin · Feb 19, 2010

V-J said:
But assuming that everything is handwaved (Even assuming a successfuly military and diplomatic operation, itself quite a stretch, Eden had absolutely no plan for what would go after Nasser in Egypt at all - overtones of Iraq) then decolonisation would be slower, Britain's imperial illusions would be reinforced, Middle Eastern politics would be presumably substantially different and Arab nationalism likely retarded.

I wonder. Would it be possible for Arab nationalism to turn ever further left? This seems like a huge windfall for the Soviets.

Al-Buraq · Feb 19, 2010

From Harold Wilson's Memoirs

It was on 26 July that Nasser announced his 'unilateral' nationalization of the Suez Canal. Anthony Eden heard the news
towards the end of a Downing Street dinner to honour King Feisal of Iraq and his premier, Nuri-es-Said. The guest list is important. In addition to Hugh Gaitskell, it included the French Ambassador, Chiefs of Staff and the US Charge d'Affaires. The guests tactfully withdrew, Nuri-es-Said not making himself any more popular in Eden's eyes by pointing to the portrait of Disraeli among the others, now numbering about fifty, of ex-Prime Ministers and saying, 'That's the old Jew who got us into all this trouble' - by borrowing the money from the House of Rothschild when he heard that the Canal was for sale

[FONT=&quot]
Getting into bed with the Israelis and being successful would probably have brought forward the anti-western feeling in some Arab States.
Don't forget that the Saudis, American clients, had a feud running with Jordan and Iraq and despised the Shah, at the time still a British client.
[/FONT]

Susano · Feb 19, 2010

Faeelin said:
I wonder. Would it be possible for Arab nationalism to turn ever further left? This seems like a huge windfall for the Soviets.

Heh, can you imagine what will go on between London and Washington following that? "You idiots, now all the MidEast goes red because of you failing to notice your Empires time is over!" But yes, seeing how it blatantly were two western nations who beat down Egypt and handed the Sinai to Israel on a silver plate, that seems like a likely reaction.

As for the British Colonial Empire, such a success willc ertainly motivate Great Britain to sink more investments into maintaining it, but thats a losing battle. Probably we will see much more bushfire colonial wars in Africa, hardly a good thing...

Faeelin · Feb 19, 2010

Susano said:
Heh, can you imagine what will go on between London and Washington following that? "You idiots, now all the MidEast goes red because of you failing to notice your Empires time is over!" But yes, seeing how it blatantly were two western nations who beat down Egypt and handed the Sinai to Israel on a silver plate, that seems like a likely reaction.

This was one of the reasons that eisenwhower was a bit, umm, leery of supporting the British incidentally.

Rush Tarquin · Feb 19, 2010

Wolfpaw said:
The Baghdad Pact will most likely expand as well to include Jordan, Egypt, and eventually Lebanon and perhaps other states. Remember, with a Suez defeat for Egypt, pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism is basically going to be strangled in its cradle everywhere except Syria. It'll also cut off a lot of inroads the Soviets had into the Middle East.

I find this consequence most interesting. I wonder how it would affect things like the Iraqi Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the Indo-Pakistani wars.

Would an ideologically encircled and isolated Syria lead to an overthrow of the Ba'athists, or even prevent the Ba'athists from coming to power in the first place? Would alternative Syrian governments still be Alawite-dominated? Would Britain hold onto Yemen and what would happen come '68? Would there be conflict between the Libyans and the Egyptians? With the next closest USSR client states being so far away, would the US bother making Israel the mini 10 pound gorilla of the ME? Would Britain and the US be able to prevent their Arab client states from attacking Israel?

Wolfpaw · Feb 19, 2010

Susano said:
Well, that alone wouldnt be enough. There still is the USSR.

Khrushchev was bluffing over supporting Nasser, as several biographies on him have pointed out. Yeah, the Soviets talked tough, but when push came to shove, they weren't going to go to war, not over some tin-pot pseudo-friendly dictator, adn especially not with Hungary blowing up and the aftershocks of that.

Wolfpaw · Feb 19, 2010

Rush Tarquin said:
I find this consequence most interesting. I wonder how it would affect things like the Iraqi Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the Indo-Pakistani wars.

Would an ideologically encircled and isolated Syria lead to an overthrow of the Ba'athists, or even prevent the Ba'athists from coming to power in the first place? Would alternative Syrian governments still be Alawite-dominated? Would Britain hold onto Yemen and what would happen come '68? Would there be conflict between the Libyans and the Egyptians? With the next closest USSR client states being so far away, would the US bother making Israel the mini 10 pound gorilla of the ME? Would Britain and the US be able to prevent their Arab client states from attacking Israel?

Watch my Tail-Gunner in the Pilot's Seat timeline to find out!

(Yes, that was a shameless plug. And yes, I haven't updated it in a month. I've been busy

)

TheMann · Feb 19, 2010

Geographically, Israel no longer has to worry much about Egypt because the Anglo-French canal is between Israel and Egypt, and the Europeans probably will ensure that Egypt doesn't step over the canal to take a shot at the Israelis. That has lots of butterflies for the wars in 1967 and 1973 - in fact, 1967 may never even happen, because the Israelis will have friends in both Europe and America, and as such they'll know the Arabs will not mess with them - period. Arab nationalism of the sort championed by Nasser is for all intents and purposes dead, which in itself creates butterflies.

If anything here, France may be tempted to fight much harder to hang on to Algeria and maybe some of its other colonies in Africa that it has a good reason to keep (Senegal, for example, just because of Dakar) and Britain will be in the same boat. Britain may decide to take a much looser line with the independence of its African colonies and perhaps ones like the Maldives.

Britain probably won't pull back West of Suez, which means they may decide to bring Malta, Gibraltar and maybe even Hong Kong into the UK itself. That would also mean however that the UK would need help defending those territories, which means either long-legs for the RN, RAF or both, and perhaps basing units in Australia and some of the African colonies.

Wolfpaw · Feb 19, 2010

Al-Buraq said:
From Harold Wilson's Memoirs

[FONT=&quot]Getting into bed with the Israelis and being successful would probably have brought forward the anti-western feeling in some Arab States.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don't forget that the Saudis, American clients, had a feud running with Jordan and Iraq and despised the Shah, at the time still a British client.[/FONT]

While Britain's Arab client states are going to be mighty pissed over Israel occupying (or enjoying a demilitarized) Sinai, the UK will probably end up looking okay to the Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, et al. by not only getting rid of Nasser (who was hostile to basically everybody except Syria), but by also saying, "Hey, look. We're going to keep a tight rein on the Israelis. They can't go doing whatever they want with us still in the region!"

And we should remember that at this time in history, the UK was pretty anti-Israeli, or at the very least wary/distrustful/unapproving of them. They basically saw Israel as a giant monkeywrench in the region's balance of power that negatively effected Anglo-Arab interests.

Susano · Feb 19, 2010

Wolfpaw said:
Khrushchev was bluffing over supporting Nasser, as several biographies on him have pointed out. Yeah, the Soviets talked tough, but when push came to shove, they weren't going to go to war, not over some tin-pot pseudo-friendly dictator, adn especially not with Hungary blowing up and the aftershocks of that.

Meh, Hungary looked bad for a while, but only for a while. In any case it didnt exactly bind many troops, even when the Hungarians looked like they might be winning.

But even if we discount the USSR (by realism or by handwaving as per the OP), how does thats trange arab nationalism? There is currently not a single Islamist country of the sort the fundamentalists want - Saudi-Arabia etc have the Sharia, yes, but most Islamists would rather have the House of Saud deposed, for example. Yet, Islamic Fundamentalism is going strong, wouldnt you say? The fact that two western powers engaged in such blatant imperialism WILL create a backlash in the Arab world.

If anything here, France may be tempted to fight much harder to hang on to Algeria

Like what? Even more brutal ethnic cleansing than IOTL?

Wolfpaw · Feb 19, 2010

Susano said:
But even if we discount the USSR (by realism or by handwaving as per the OP), how does thats trange arab nationalism? There is currently not a single Islamist country of the sort the fundamentalists want - Saudi-Arabia etc have the Sharia, yes, but most Islamists would rather have the House of Saud deposed, for example. Yet, Islamic Fundamentalism is going strong, wouldnt you say? The fact that two western powers engaged in such blatant imperialism WILL create a backlash in the Arab world.

I completely agree with you. It's just that the movement will probably not be pan-Arabist in nature. If Nasser goes down, Arab nationalism by and large is discredited since it has proven that, for all of its bluster, it can't stand up to the imperialists on the battlefield. That being said, expect the remnants of the Arab nationalist movement to become far more radicalized.

What some are forgetting is that there were other forms of anti-imperialism that were not Arab nationalism, the major one after Nasserism being Islamism, which was immensely popular in Egypt and has only really emerged so late due to its being forced underground by Nasserists and similar regimes since the '50s.

Therefore, I believe that Islamisim will fill the void left by Arab nationalism's decline, like it sort of has now, only much much earlier.

TheMann · Feb 19, 2010

Susano said:
The fact that two western powers engaged in such blatant imperialism WILL create a backlash in the Arab world.

That's true, but the problems there are 1) most of the Arab dictators and royal families require British or American help just to stay in power and 2) The Shah of Iran would probably be quite happy to keep taking European help, which forces the Arabs to work with the Europeans just to keep Iran in check.

Susano said:
Like what? Even more brutal ethnic cleansing than IOTL?

I was more thinking them just saying "We're not letting go, period, so if you want to keep fighting, we'll keep killing you. But if you want to talk, we'll listen." That won't work at first, but after a while when the Algerians realize that the French are not kidding, that may change a few minds, especially if the French are willing to make a few concessions. That probably wouldn't save the fourth Republic, but de Gaulle would be lording over a substantial chunk of the Sahara in the 1960s then, too. By the early to mid 1970s, there are enough Algerian Frenchmen to start shifting the balance of power in Algeria in Paris' favor.

Faeelin · Feb 19, 2010

TheMann said:
TI was more thinking them just saying "We're not letting go, period, so if you want to keep fighting, we'll keep killing you. But if you want to talk, we'll listen." That won't work at first, but after a while when the Algerians realize that the French are not kidding, that may change a few minds, especially if the French are willing to make a few concessions. That probably wouldn't save the fourth Republic, but de Gaulle would be lording over a substantial chunk of the Sahara in the 1960s then, too. By the early to mid 1970s, there are enough Algerian Frenchmen to start shifting the balance of power in Algeria in Paris' favor.

What Algerian Frenchmen? Where did they come from in numbers large enough to be happy with a foreign occupier who has treated their people like shit for over a century?

Susano · Feb 19, 2010

Wolfpaw said:
I completely agree with you. It's just that the movement will probably not be pan-Arabist in nature. If Nasser goes down, Arab nationalism by and large is discredited since it has proven that, for all of its bluster, it can't stand up to the imperialists on the battlefield. That being said, expect the remnants of the Arab nationalist movement to become far more radicalized.

As said, Islamism has been just as unsuccessful, yet it is still going strong. While Nasser lost in this scenario, the tenets of leftist Arab nationalism have proven true: Europe still upholds colonialism, hence that simply drives home the point again that the Arab states need to band together to face that threat.

Also, there is the USSR to consider, who will of course very much rather prop up fellow travelers than Islamists. Not only gives that Arab nationalist groups an edge - its also that in the 50s the entire world though in terms of the two blocs. So its also a natural reaction that after having been attacked by Western powers, people will tend more towards the eastern bloc (instead of a completely unaligned ideology).

What some are forgetting is that there were other forms of anti-imperialism that were not Arab nationalism, the major one after Nasserism being Islamism, which was immensely popular in Egypt and has only really emerged so late due to its being forced underground by Nasserists and similar regimes since the '50s.

I disagree. It was the concentrated efforts of the USA and the monarchist-reactioanry states in Arabia which destroyed Arab nationalism, which created a vacuum - which was hence filled by Islamism (which is a nice irony all in itself). The "default setting" so to say was Arab nationalism. And I dont think it would yet fall, due to it ideologically proven right (if practically defeated) and due to Cold War bloc dynamics.

TheMann said:
That's true, but the problems there are 1) most of the Arab dictators and royal families require British or American help just to stay in power and 2) The Shah of Iran would probably be quite happy to keep taking European help, which forces the Arabs to work with the Europeans just to keep Iran in check.

In all cases it are just the elites, though. The Iranian elites fell IOTL, as did half the monarchies - its just that the other half held so stubbornly out. However, the notion that in this scenario ALL will hold out simply because Egypt is defeated is rather nonsensical I would say. Yes, Nassers Egypt did provide help to Arab-nationalist groups, but most nationalist coups and uprisings appeared very much by itself IOTL.

I was more thinking them just saying "We're not letting go, period, so if you want to keep fighting, we'll keep killing you. But if you want to talk, we'll listen." That won't work at first, but after a while when the Algerians realize that the French are not kidding, that may change a few minds, especially if the French are willing to make a few concessions. That probably wouldn't save the fourth Republic, but de Gaulle would be lording over a substantial chunk of the Sahara in the 1960s then, too. By the early to mid 1970s, there are enough Algerian Frenchmen to start shifting the balance of power in Algeria in Paris' favor.

Sooo... in that scenario France turns from ethnic cleansing to genocide? Well, I guess that only confirms what Ive said: That scenario would create a nasty world. But yes, as Faeelin has said, there are not enough "Algerian Frenchmen".

MerryPrankster · Feb 19, 2010

How is reclaiming one's own property that was stolen by a dictator "blatant imperialism"?

The Egyptians owned half the canal with the French, the Egyptian government was fiscally irresponsible, the Egyptian government sold their half to the British.

The fact that many Egyptian workers died building the canal (something I remember Nasser cited in his speech when it was nationalized) doesn't really matter.

Now, if the British and French marched into Cairo, overthrew Nasser, and imposed an unpopular puppet, THAT would be a different matter.

Interesting idea about the British ingratiating themselves to the Arabs by claiming to have Israel on a leash.

Susano · Feb 19, 2010

MerryPrankster said:
How is reclaiming one's own property that was stolen by a dictator "blatant imperialism"?

Nationalisation is not theft and the souvereign right of every country.