West of Suez: Could Britain retain a Med "empire"?

[perfectgeneral]

What if post war Britain saw retaining interests and holdings in the Med sea area as more important? Perhaps because of the strategic/trade pressure applied by the North Africa campaign.

Now I wouldn't expect a solution to the issues of Palestine, but Malta might take on the same status as Gibraltar. Cyprus might be seen as the warmest retirement home as part of Britain's overseas territory. Is the there any way that Libya could be retained in the peace deal? Tobruk basing rights?

Any impact on later events in the Med and Middle East?

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Not sure about Cyprus but I know Malta had the chance to be annexed but Parliament declined.

 

[Gillan1220]

Good question.

Barring that Britain was bankrupt after WWII, the Empire found herself on the declining end. Maintaining a Med empire was definitely out of the question. The 1956 Suez Canal Crisis proved it.

But to answer your question, here we go:

Now I wouldn't expect a solution to the issues of Palestine, but Malta might take on the same status as Gibraltar. Cyprus might be seen as the warmest retirement home as part of Britain's overseas territory. Is the there any way that Libya could be retained in the peace deal? Tobruk basing rights?

Malta would be given the same status Gibraltar. Cyprus would be the same as OTL, where the UK has bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

In Libya, I think either Gaddaffi needs to be butterflied away for Britain to have basing rights there. We can see a base in Tobruk (perhaps a training ground for the SAS?) or maybe a naval base in the Mediterranean coast.

Any impact on later events in the Med and Middle East?

Britain at least needs to have a budget or not bankrupted for the previous war if she wants to control the Med. This would mean a friendly rivalry with France on who controls the large swimming pool.

In the Middle East, if Britain still has influence on Palestine, Jordan, and Syria, perhaps the Arab-Israeli war would be butterflied away, along with the wars that came after it.

 

[perfectgeneral]

In the Middle East, if Britain still has influence on Palestine, Jordan, and Syria, perhaps the Arab-Israeli war would be butterflied away, along with the wars that came after it.

Given the huge conflict predating the second WW Palestine is not an easy fix. A COIN without end. The Suez crisis is relatively easy. Especially with deployments in the Suez zone and Tobruk. America wants to play hard ball? Pull UK forces out of Germany.

 

[Riain]

From the start of the Cold War until the mid 60s Britain was in a perpetual state of negotiation with its NATO allies about value of the forces in Europe and those in the Middle East and East of Suez. Britain argued that the Middle East and East of Suez forces were important to contain the Soviet Union, whereas the Europeans wanted forces on the continent, which is hardly surprising.

I once read that while any NATO country can sustain an armoured brigade in Europe only Britain can sustain a strike carrier group. If this path was taken i can imagine Britain retaining a strong presence in the Middle East and Western Mediterranean beyond the 70s.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Cyprus would be the same as OTL, where the UK has bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

Cyprus was annexed by UK in WW1 and didn't regain independence until 1960. The sovereign bases were agreed in 1959.

Relative economy: Cyprus has a current GDP of ~$27.7bn Malta one of ~$17bn and Gibraltar £2.344bn as of 2018.

 

[Driftless]

Good question.

Barring that Britain was bankrupt after WWII, the Empire found herself on the declining end. Maintaining a Med empire was definitely out of the question. The 1956 Suez Canal Crisis proved it.

But to answer your question, here we go:

Malta would be given the same status Gibraltar. Cyprus would be the same as OTL, where the UK has bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

In Libya, I think either Gaddaffi needs to be butterflied away for Britain to have basing rights there. We can see a base in Tobruk (perhaps a training ground for the SAS?) or maybe a naval base in the Mediterranean coast.

Britain at least needs to have a budget or not bankrupted for the previous war if she wants to control the Med. This would mean a friendly rivalry with France on who controls the large swimming pool.

In the Middle East, if Britain still has influence on Palestine, Jordan, and Syria, perhaps the Arab-Israeli war would be butterflied away, along with the wars that came after it.

I think all but the greater Palestine problems could have been, as you presented them. Palestine, I think was always going to be a social-political volcano, erupting at frequent intervals

 

[Riain]

Of course all if this us predicated on Britian having something to offer the countries in this 'volunteer empire'. Refurbished hunters and Canberras are all well and good but after that its lightnings, Buccaneers, harriers, TSR2 all of which are a bit niche for most Middle East countries.

 

[Viper91]

Money and population wise, I've always felt Britains best bet of retaining a notable "Empire" would probably be in the Caribbean. Transition a few African holding to independence two or three years sooner, and turn around and invest an extra £100 Million in British Honduras in the 1950s or 1960s. Most of Britains present day remaining holdings are in the Caribbean, British Honduras was the last major territory of note to gain independence prior to the handover of Hong Kong.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I believe the main issue with any "Empire 5.0" scenario* is 'What's in it for the UK?'. In economic terms rather than geopolitical and maritime strategy terms. The UK economy between the late 1950s and mid-1960s had periods of pressure on sterling and growth was seen as lagging behind western European peers. Hence the frequent Defence Reviews, budget cuts and other aspects of "Stop-Go".

Supporting small, usually poor, colonies wasn't on anyone's political agenda and as others have said the Royal Navy came behind the nuclear deterrent and BAOR in defence priorities. (Correctly or not, even with hindsight who knows for sure?)

The Gulf States would have been the best bet for a profitable colonial or neocolonial relationship after the oil shocks of the 1970s. BUT, that information isn't available in the 1950s when the retention of any colonies would be up for discussion.

Now, with a better performing UK economy and maybe no Suez disaster, there could be less pressure to dump Malta and any of the Caribbean colonies etc. that wanted to stay as self governing British protecorates. Like I think what's now the U.A.E. did.

That's a whole new challenge though and might be ASB even with a September 1945 date for PODs.

* Post independence for India, Malaya and the African colonies