What if after the Suez Crisis and the failure of the Americans to support their British/French allies in Egypt, filled with disgust at the lack of American support the British abandoned the "Special friendship" that she and America shared? What changes in the Cold War and beyond might occur?
Suppose after the Suez Crisis Britain turned more to Europe and away from the USA
- Thread starter kaeim
- Start date
An interesting prospect certainly. One difficulty is the French 4th Republic is only years away from collapse and the triumphant return of deGaulle an arch Anglophobe. Its not impossible certainly, but France needs to avoid its self-centred Gaullist approach in the 1960s to make such an alliance possible.
RedRalphWiggum
Banned
Only if they could somehow avoid decolonisation. The two combined still wouldn't be as powerful as either the USA or the USSR.
Well they certainly won't be joining with the Non-Aligned Movement!
A possibility may be efforts to 'relieve' US forces in Europe. In the name of prestige the sticking point of weak Euro contributions to NATO is challenged and Anglo-French forces are beefed up to take over key roles. After all I'd imagine the Soviets would be keen on a detente in Europe, and they're more likely to trust the internationally weaker but still nuclear armed Europeans than their American rivals.
This wouldn't be a literal break with the USA but a long-term trend to become less reliant. During an alt-Vietnam I'd imagine the Americans would be pretty keen on such a cost saving measure however in the long-run the Soviets might be in healthier standing with a colder Iron Curtain.
A possibility may be efforts to 'relieve' US forces in Europe. In the name of prestige the sticking point of weak Euro contributions to NATO is challenged and Anglo-French forces are beefed up to take over key roles. After all I'd imagine the Soviets would be keen on a detente in Europe, and they're more likely to trust the internationally weaker but still nuclear armed Europeans than their American rivals.
This wouldn't be a literal break with the USA but a long-term trend to become less reliant. During an alt-Vietnam I'd imagine the Americans would be pretty keen on such a cost saving measure however in the long-run the Soviets might be in healthier standing with a colder Iron Curtain.
altamiro
Banned
Not as powerful, yes, but still powerful enough to tip pretty much any balance if they decide to take a side.
Probably no, but it could trigger the creation of a stronger cooperation with other european nations. An early european army would be unlikely, but not impossible.
Consider besides that Soviet Union could play along accepting to reduce their military commitment in east europe to match the troops fielded by the anglo-french. It would be into Politburo best interest to sow dissension among the western allies
Actually saying France sided with the United States is debatable, they were pretty 'loner' about it all.
My idea wasn't to kick the US military out of Europe but for the Europeans to take a larger burden of defence, leading to long term geopolitical change as per the OP's question, namely a far more militarily capable Britain/France/Europe, more independent of the United States.
My idea wasn't to kick the US military out of Europe but for the Europeans to take a larger burden of defence, leading to long term geopolitical change as per the OP's question, namely a far more militarily capable Britain/France/Europe, more independent of the United States.
Probably a greater and earlier development of joint weapons and systems development projects, would be a first basic step of at least 'harmonizing' the armed forces of any Anglo-French effort.
One could even more easily ask: What if the United States were not so tolerant of their French and English allies hasty and ill-conceived actions in the Suez, what result? Suppose the United States became disgusted with its putative allies for acting in suuch a provocactive manner, risking world peace for such short-sighted goals, based on the Anglo-French hopr that the United States would support their hasty dash toward world conflict out of fear splitting before the Soviet menace?
The short sighted goals of defending a critically important waterway from unlawful seizure by a bunch of hick colonials? If the US took the UK and France to task for that, they'd be pissed. Plan to see France as even more of a dick in the Cold War, and Britain to break somewhat with the US.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
IIRC the US used its backing of the pound as a piece of leverage, I doubt that Eden was about to take such a threat so lightly. So you would need someone less shrewd or with less backbone in the oval office than Ike, which has all sorts of butterflies seperate from the main issue.
Typo
Banned
A waterway that's a byproduct of and which has importance in past imperialism which the Anglo-French wasn't really willing to defend at the cost of alienating the US anyway
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
After some thought, I have concluded that short of replacing Ike in the white house, you could have Harold MacMillan call bullshit on Ike's threat, or have someone other than Macmillan as the Chancellor of the exchequer, or have Anthony Eden disregard the advice he gets from MacMillan, which isn't entirely out of the question, Eden was far from being one of the best PM's the UK has had.
However once you get passed that there is the problem that the islands are now going to have a serious economic crisis on their hands. Add to that the fact that there was an oil embargo on France and Britain as a result of the crisis, and both nations are going to have a hard time sustaining their economies, much less large scale military budgets. So even if britain does tell the US to screw off, shortly after the dust settles I cans see them come crawling back for assistance in short order.
However once you get passed that there is the problem that the islands are now going to have a serious economic crisis on their hands. Add to that the fact that there was an oil embargo on France and Britain as a result of the crisis, and both nations are going to have a hard time sustaining their economies, much less large scale military budgets. So even if britain does tell the US to screw off, shortly after the dust settles I cans see them come crawling back for assistance in short order.
Riain
Banned
Would the US want to annoy Britian and France so much that they formed another power bloc? Any short term embargo would only strengthen these two powers in the medium/long term. Britian at the time had a lot of diplomatic clout and was the 3rd nuclear power, things that are not to be sneezed at. I think the US walked a tightrope between influencing Anglo-French policy and not pushing them into their own independent orbit, which would be a real danger to the US.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
at the time France and the UK depended heavily on US support both economically and militarily. They had a hell of a lot more to lose by antagonizing the US than the US had to lose by cutting its support. Without oil from abroad I don't see how either country could maintain their economies for any extended period. The Suez canal was not worth the kind of shitstorm that was due to befall the UK if Eden decided to call Ike for bluffing (I do not think he was bluffing).
Riain
Banned
In 1956 Britain was the key player in the Mid East not the US. One background reason for Suez was because Nasser opposed the British led Baghdad Pact, he didn't want the Mid East centre of gravity moving from Cairo to Baghdad. If the both sides dug in their heels Britain and France could default on their loans and go back to being independent powers, and then where would the US be? There is nothing set in stone about economic dependence on the US, it was done because it suited all parties and was easy.