WI: the British win at suez.

in 1956. the egyptian government under nasser seized and nationalized the suez canal. the british and french wanted to invade egypt but they were persuaded by the usa and ussr not to. th usa didn't want them to attack because they thougfht it would start a nuclear war since nasser was soviet backed, but russia didn't have the capabilities at the time to wage a full scale nuclear war and they were already tied up putting down a rebellion in Hungary.

I have heard that the british, french, belgian, and dutch militaries had a plan to land paratroopers in cairo while staging a naval assault on alexandria and seizing the canal. is it possible that this plan could have happened? and if so could britain and france have retained larger parts of their colonial empires and still remain major powers today?

deh74 said:

in 1956. the egyptian government under nasser seized and nationalized the suez canal. the british and french wanted to invade egypt but they were persuaded by the usa and ussr not to. th usa didn't want them to attack because they thougfht it would start a nuclear war since nasser was communist, but russia didn't have the capabilities at the time to wage a full scale nuclear war and they were already tied up putting down a rebellion in romania(i think).

I have heard that the british, french, belgian, and dutch militaries had a plan to land paratroopers in cairo while staging a naval assault on alexandria and seizing the canal. is it possible that this plan could have happened? and if so could britain and france have retained larger parts of their colonial empires and still remain major powers today?

Click to expand...

Nasser was not a Communist.

The British Empire was a dead letter by 1956

Egypt was already invaded, and military victory was already achieved by the Anglo-Franco-Israeli force, the issue with 1956 was never a militarical one.

These might help.

Long story short, the British buy themselves another 10-15 years as a power in the Middle East before the whole thing falls apart and we see violent revolutions in the Arab states.

Could they even keep it for very long? I would have thought that the bad press would have forced a swift British withdrawal regardless of whether they won or not. In any case, merely trying to hold the Suez, much less Egypt, would be obscenely difficult for the British, even ignoring the above issue.

RousseauX said:

Nasser was not a Communist.

The British Empire was a dead letter by 1956

Egypt was already invaded, and military victory was already achieved by the Anglo-Franco-Israeli force, the issue with 1956 was never a militarical one.

Click to expand...

i'm sorry nasser was actually just a soviet backed dictator. i'll change that.

Zmflavius said:

Could they even keep it for very long? I would have thought that the bad press would have forced a swift British withdrawal regardless of whether they won or not. In any case, merely trying to hold the Suez, much less Egypt, would be obscenely difficult for the British, even ignoring the above issue.

Click to expand...

Their plan was to have Nasser deposed in a palace coup (Eden originally wanted him assassinated with nerve gas), and these were the three options the Brits were entertaining based on how smoothly things went:

• Case A: UK keeps control of the Canal Zone and 5000 technical personnel there.
  
  Case B: UK leaves a small staff to supervise CZ installations.
  
  Case C: Only a few inspectors would be left.

I think Case B to be most likely and the most tenable.

Incidentally, Khrushchev was as surprised as Britain and France by the nationalization of the Suez. He predicted (rightly, to be honest), that it would cause a giant clusterfuck that he didn't want, and was forced politically to back Nasser publicly. Nasser, of course, was also aware of this, and moved ahead without Soviet backing in this case.

Wolfpaw said:

Their plan was to have Nasser deposed in a palace coup, and these were the three options the Brits were entertaining based on how smoothly things went:

• Case A: UK keeps control of the Canal Zone and 5000 technical personnel there.
  
  Case B: UK leaves a small staff to supervise CZ installations.
  
  Case C: Only a few inspectors would be left.

I think Case B to be most likely and the most tenable.

Click to expand...

But surely any of these options would result in even worse condemnation of Britain than OTL, because, well, it would be a rather bald invasion and coup.

Zmflavius said:

Incidentally, Khrushchev was as surprised as Britain and France by the nationalization of the Suez. He predicted (rightly, to be honest), that it would cause a giant clusterfuck that he didn't want, and was forced politically to back Nasser publicly. Nasser, of course, was also aware of this, and moved ahead without Soviet backing in this case.

Click to expand...

so does this mean that russia would not have actually intervened in egypt?also no one really seems to care when the usa deposes dictators so why would they have cared if the brits did it?

Zmflavius said:

But surely any of these options would result in even worse condemnation of Britain than OTL, because, well, it would be a rather bald invasion and coup.

Click to expand...

In for a penny, in for a pound. They will still be top dog thanks to the Baghdad Pact, Syria's impotence, and the fact that they are not seizing any Arab land or giving it to Israel (as some hallucinate might happen to the Sinai).

Yeah, they'll be hated, but who's gonna stop them?

deh74 said:

so does this mean that russia would not have actually intervened in egypt?

Click to expand...

The Soviets never planned on intervening on Egypt's behalf. Ever. The Politburo was horrified when Khrushchev had Bulganin make a nuclear bluff over Egypt (which was an actively anti-Communist country, privately derided as "fascist," and had experienced only lukewarm relations with the Soviets in '55).

Wolfpaw said:

The Soviets never planned on intervening on Egypt's behalf. Ever. The Politburo was horrified when Khrushchev had Bulganin make a nuclear bluff over Egypt (which was an actively anti-Communist country, privately derided as "fascist," and had experienced only lukewarm relations with the Soviets in '55).

Click to expand...

so no one would actually stop the british from retaking egypt?

deh74 said:

so no one would actually stop the british from retaking egypt?

Click to expand...

The British weren't planning on retaking Egypt; they wanted to get rid of Nasser and install a government more friendly to their interests. There was some talk of restoring the monarchy, but most people realized that was a complete pipe dream, and that Naguib and Nahas Basha would be better bets.

Wolfpaw said:

The British weren't planning on retaking Egypt; they wanted to get rid of Nasser and install a government more friendly to their interests. There was some talk of restoring the monarchy, but most people realized that was a complete pipe dream, and that Naguib and Nahas Basha would be better bets.

Click to expand...

ok thanks.

deh74 said:

i'm sorry nasser was actually just a soviet backed dictator. i'll change that.

Click to expand...

No, he wasn't. Nasser came to power after a coup that had US-backing. The United States hoped to use Egypt under Nasser as the cornerstone of a proposed Middle Eastern Treaty Organization to check Soviet influence in the region. The problem was that Nasser's own goals were to become the preeminent Arab state in the region (hense his tactic support of paramilitary raids in Israel). In order to do so, he had to find arms, and these were being supplied by the British, French and Americans in equal numbers to the Israelis in order to prevent a regional arms race.

At first, this wasn't a problem, as the Soviet Union had a policy that pretty much stated "If you are not a Communist, you are an enemy." This policy changed under Kruschev, who began to seek support from anti-colonial, liberal, developing nations.

Nasser took this as an opportunity to play the United States off of the USSR to better his nation's standing in the region. He also turned to the USSR for funding of the Aswan Dam, after the United States withdrew funding (feeling that the Soviets would not be able to supply the funding to complete the funding, and drive Nasser back into the US's arms.) Dulles even went so far as to counsel Eisenhower that bidding for Nasser's friendship was going to be an expensive escapade.

Adding to the problem, Egyptians, and Nasser as a result, were violently anti-British. In order to secure his own power, Nasser was forced into conflicts with the British (especially since their attempts to create the Baghdad Pact directly interfered with his own plans for Egypt to become the dominant Middle Eastern power); this would eventually lead to the nationalization of the Suez Canal, and the crisis which resulted.

You could read the United State's backing of Egypt duringthe Suez Crisis over Britain as being another attempt to better relations with Egypt; something which they would not have considered against a "Soviet Stooge." Considering him such fails to understand the complexity of Middle Eastern politics during the era.

Wolfpaw said:

The British weren't planning on retaking Egypt; they wanted to get rid of Nasser and install a government more friendly to their interests. There was some talk of restoring the monarchy, but most people realized that was a complete pipe dream, and that Naguib and Nahas Basha would be better bets.

Click to expand...

Anthony Eden, from my reading, had become very fixated on Nasser by this point, to the point of ... worrying people.

It is worth pointing out that it was not the Canal itself that Nasser was nationalizing, but the Suez Canal Company which oversaw maintenance and operation of the Canal; Britain had already recognized the CZ as Egyptian territory in '54, but with the British reserving the right of return for seven years and the SC Co. remaining independent until Nov. 16, 1968.

DanMcCollum said:

Anthony Eden, from my reading, had become very fixated on Nasser by this point, to the point of ... worrying people.

Click to expand...

Taking a shitload of amphetamines will do that to you.

Cook said:

Taking a shitload of amphetamines will do that to you.

Click to expand...

Seeing him as a reincarnation of Mussolini and Hitler didn't help. Eden memorably wanted Nasser "destroyed . . . murdered . . . I don't give a damn if there's anarchy and chaos in Egypt."

Wolfpaw said:

Seeing him as a reincarnation of Mussolini and Hitler didn't help. Eden memorably wanted Nasser "destroyed . . . murdered . . . I don't give a damn if there's anarchy and chaos in Egypt."

Click to expand...

And to think, he looked so cool and sane in that hat of his

On a side note; I just posted a topic about "The Middle East Without Kruschev" which kind of overlaps with this thread, so I thought I'd point it out

Getting back on topic: In order to get the British to 'win' the conflict, you are going to have to get the Eisenhower administration to back them and not Egypt. I think, in order to secure this, you are going to have to get Eisenhower and Dulles to totally give up on their plans on the MEDO and to strengthen their position in Egypt. I'm not exactly sure how to accomplish this task.

Also: If the British are able to overthrow Nasser, somehow, who would be set in his place, would you think?

DanMcCollum said:

Also: If the British are able to overthrow Nasser, somehow, who would be set in his place, would you think?

Click to expand...

The plan was Naguib, with some bashas lurking in the shadows (Mahir, Nahas, etc.) and running things day-to-day.

And Britain doesn't need Eisenhower's support so much as his non-intervention, which isn't all that hard to get. Denouncing rhetoric don't mean shit if Ike doesn't seriously threaten the British economy.