AH Challange: Turn the Suez Crisis into a British Political Triumph.

Spitfiremk1 · Jun 9, 2009

As we all know, the Suez Crisis is for many the real end of the British and French Empires, and the final transfer of Power to the US and USSR as the two New Superpowers.

Your challange, should you choose to accept it, is to turn the Suez Crisis into the Opposite, into a triumph for France and Britian. Bonus Poitns if there is no WW3/nuclear exchange what so ever.

Good Luck

.

oudi14 · Jun 9, 2009

For a start, you'd have to somehow get rid of John Foster Dulles. Then make Ike more like Reagan. So the US stares down the Russians, while Britain and France go in and kick ass. I know this is oversimplifying it, but its something to build around.

Spitfiremk1 · Jun 9, 2009

oudi14 said:
For a start, you'd have to somehow get rid of John Foster Dulles. Then make Ike more like Reagan. So the US stares down the Russians, while Britain and France go in and kick ass. I know this is oversimplifying it, but its something to build around.

It's a good start

/.

Neala · Jun 9, 2009

Spitfiremk1 said:
As we all know, the Suez Crisis is for many the real end of the British and French Empires, and the final transfer of Power to the US and USSR as the two New Superpowers.

Your challange, should you choose to accept it, is to turn the Suez Crisis into the Opposite, into a triumph for France and Britian. Bonus Poitns if there is no WW3/nuclear exchange what so ever.

Good Luck .

You could have Eden simply refusing to bow to Eisenhower's pressure. What would he have done? Forced a collapse in Sterling? It would have meant the collapse of the American economy and hence was in all likelihood a bluff

There would have been a strain on relations for a while but it would've blown over once the larger cold war situation became upper most in peoples minds again

Fletch · Jun 9, 2009

kellineil said:
You could have Eden simply refusing to bow to Eisenhower's pressure. What would he have done? Forced a collapse in Sterling? It would have meant the collapse of the American economy and hence was in all likelihood a bluff

There would have been a strain on relations for a while but it would've blown over once the larger cold war situation became upper most in peoples minds again

I remember reading a book about suez where it stated Macmillan overstrated the financial problems to Eden in order to get him to change tack and ease his own path to Downing Street. Britain could have lasted longer than it did. The big question would be what would happen under the occupation?

Of course the easiest way to avoid a catastrophe would be to get Baldwin, Chamberlain or Churchill actually negotiate with the Egyptians on extending rights over the canal prior to the nationalisation..........

Susano · Jun 9, 2009

kellineil said:
You could have Eden simply refusing to bow to Eisenhower's pressure. What would he have done?

The problem is less what the USA would have done, but what the USSR would have done. The Suez Crisis had the potential to become an early Cuba Crisis, had the USA sided with the UK and France.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan · Jun 9, 2009

Susano said:
The problem is less what the USA would have done, but what the USSR would have done. The Suez Crisis had the potential to become an early Cuba Crisis, had the USA sided with the UK and France.

Exactly. I believe that the USSR had claimed that it was willing to start a goddamn nuclear war over the issue, and in this situation the USA didn't have the desire to carry on. The POD should be the USSR having problems of their own, and not willing to tackle the West here.

oudi14 · Jun 9, 2009

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
Exactly. I believe that the USSR had claimed that it was willing to start a goddamn nuclear war over the issue, and in this situation the USA didn't have the desire to carry on. The POD should be the USSR having problems of their own, and not willing to tackle the West here.

Considering that they did have problems of their own right then, with Hungary, I'm surprised they were willing to spend so much time worrying about Egypt.

Bill Cameron · Jun 9, 2009

oudi14 said:
Considering that they did have problems of their own right then, with Hungary, I'm surprised they were willing to spend so much time worrying about Egypt.

Oudi14,

The USSR played up Suez partially in order to distract world attention from Hungary.

Bill

Nae'Blis · Jun 9, 2009

From what I understand the Soviets were really bluffing on Suez, they would not start a nuclear war over it as it would be suicide to do so, the disparity in nuclear stockpiles at the time was to great.

The Sandman · Jun 9, 2009

oudi14 said:
Considering that they did have problems of their own right then, with Hungary, I'm surprised they were willing to spend so much time worrying about Egypt.

Bill Cameron said:
Oudi14,

The USSR played up Suez partially in order to distract world attention from Hungary.

Bill

In that case, have Hungary go worse for the Soviets, causing sympathetic unrest in the other WP nations (except East Germany, presumably). With the Soviets probably having to move a goodly chunk of the Red Army just to sit on Eastern Europe and keep anyone else from getting ideas, they'll be too preoccupied to do more than bang their shoe about Suez.

What effect would it have on Israel if they got the Sinai a decade early, btw? Especially given that the Six Day War is almost certainly not going to be happening here.

Douglas · Jun 9, 2009

Bill Cameron said:
Oudi14,

The USSR played up Suez partially in order to distract world attention from Hungary.

Bill

jamhaw said:
From what I understand the Soviets were really bluffing on Suez, they would not start a nuclear war over it as it would be suicide to do so, the disparity in nuclear stockpiles at the time was to great.

Correct on both points.

If you want an Anglo-French (or even Western European!) triumph, try this one for starters: one plan was for a joint British-French-Dutch (they were willing to join at one point!)-Belgian (same here) force of paratroopers to be dropped into Cairo. The British high command thought the idea was crazy (and it was), but say that everything miraculously goes right, and the Europeans seize Cairo and oust Nasser in a coup de main. An amphibious force lands at Suez and Alexandria a few days later, a new government more friendly to the Europeans is installed within the month, and the Europeans leave. Of course the Egyptian "collaborators" aren't going to be in power for more than a couple of years, but the lightning descent from the skies on Cairo will be something that can be played on politically for years to come.

Requirements?

1. Probably a turnover in the British high command. Get someone willing to try a risky gamble in there, if you can.

2. The Dutch and Belgians come along if the crisis taking place in the Netherlands doesn't occur...it's a POD in a timeline I once worked on. Say the lady who had visions doesn't have them: Presto! You have a European morale-builder.

3. The RN needs to be better prepared for amphibious operations to "cement" the paratroopers' landing...it shouldn't be too hard to accidentally posit some Mediterranean exercises for early 1956 with the appropriate butterflies, should it?

Results?

1. Third World countries are going to think twice before challenging the "dying" colonial empires after they see what happens when you don't play nice.

2. Greater Western European cohesion means...who knows?

Anywho, those are my two cents on the matter.

Bill Cameron · Jun 9, 2009

The Sandman said:
In that case, have Hungary go worse for the Soviets, causing sympathetic unrest in the other WP nations (except East Germany, presumably). With the Soviets probably having to move a goodly chunk of the Red Army just to sit on Eastern Europe and keep anyone else from getting ideas, they'll be too preoccupied to do more than bang their shoe about Suez.

Sandman,

I don't think having the Red Army tied down in Eastern Europe is going to do the trick. It wasn't as if the USSR would be sending an army to the Middle East anyway.

In the OTL, they threatened with their nuclear capability. A capability we now know they didn't have, but a capability the people of the time did they think they had.

What effect would it have on Israel if they got the Sinai a decade early, btw? Especially given that the Six Day War is almost certainly not going to be happening here.

I wonder if leaving the Israelis out of the picture and, as Douglas suggests, involving more western European countries might have helped? IIRC, Eisenhower was just as angry with the Israeli Sinai landgrab as he was with the UK/France seizure of the Canal itself and if a big chunk of NATO was involved, the US might have second thoughts.

As many posters have already suggested, a workable POD must tackle the US opinion of the operation. With US backing, either implicit or overt, the USSR's threats will be rendered moot. Perhaps if Nasser went communist or was believed to be communist?

Bill

Jukra · Jun 10, 2009

Douglas said:
Correct on both points.

If you want an Anglo-French (or even Western European!) triumph, try this one for starters: one plan was for a joint British-French-Dutch (they were willing to join at one point!)-Belgian (same here) force of paratroopers to be dropped into Cairo. The British high command thought the idea was crazy (and it was), but say that everything miraculously goes right, and the Europeans seize Cairo and oust Nasser in a coup de main. An amphibious force lands at Suez and Alexandria a few days later, a new government more friendly to the Europeans is installed within the month, and the Europeans leave.

Even just Franco-British operation without Israeli complications would probably suffice. At this point France had the most experienced airmobile infantry force in the world due to continuos operations in Indochina and Algeria since 1945. They would be more than capable to perform high tempo operations on very short notice. Add more steel to British military staff spine and there would be a Franco-British "blitzkrieg" on Egypt which would make operation Iraqi Freedom look like a march of snails.

The real question, however, is what happens afterwards?

Electric Monk · Jun 15, 2009

Anybody mind if I steal some of these ideas if I ever rewrite the 1950s portions of my Democratic President Reagan timeline? I was pushing Anglo-French integration and making it Western European integration works perhaps better.

Oh, and as for American opinion Eisenhower was more worried about re-election than his allies. He believed backing Suez would be a major disadvantage going into November. Reverse that (as I did via making it a public fight that not backing Suez is pro-communism and anti-free market/corporations) and Eisenhower has a very very big reason to shut up about Suez though I doubt he'll ever back it explicitly.

stevep · Jun 15, 2009

Douglas said:
Correct on both points.

If you want an Anglo-French (or even Western European!) triumph, try this one for starters: one plan was for a joint British-French-Dutch (they were willing to join at one point!)-Belgian (same here) force of paratroopers to be dropped into Cairo. The British high command thought the idea was crazy (and it was), but say that everything miraculously goes right, and the Europeans seize Cairo and oust Nasser in a coup de main. An amphibious force lands at Suez and Alexandria a few days later, a new government more friendly to the Europeans is installed within the month, and the Europeans leave. Of course the Egyptian "collaborators" aren't going to be in power for more than a couple of years, but the lightning descent from the skies on Cairo will be something that can be played on politically for years to come.

Requirements?

1. Probably a turnover in the British high command. Get someone willing to try a risky gamble in there, if you can.

2. The Dutch and Belgians come along if the crisis taking place in the Netherlands doesn't occur...it's a POD in a timeline I once worked on. Say the lady who had visions doesn't have them: Presto! You have a European morale-builder.

3. The RN needs to be better prepared for amphibious operations to "cement" the paratroopers' landing...it shouldn't be too hard to accidentally posit some Mediterranean exercises for early 1956 with the appropriate butterflies, should it?

Results?

1. Third World countries are going to think twice before challenging the "dying" colonial empires after they see what happens when you don't play nice.

2. Greater Western European cohesion means...who knows?

Anywho, those are my two cents on the matter.

Douglas

I remember reading a long time ago, ~2 decades or so, that the initial plan supplied by the military was to land on the coast and advance overland to Cairo to overthrow Nasser and bring in a friendly government. As you say it may not last long but it would have a big impact on how the world viewed the nations involved.

However, because the spark for the war was Nasser seizing the Canal and the politicians wanted to make it 'less controversial' the decision was taken to occupy the Canal Zone only. The down side to this was that it left Nasser's government free to act against it and meant an extended commitment, giving chance for pressure from the US to increase the economic damage.

Not sure if an air drop would have worked and would have been very risky, but if it had worked it could have had a dramatic effect on breaking the moral of the Egyptian nationalists, at least for the moment and boosting that of the allied powers. Also if it was the 1st wave, with allied forces landing on the coast the need to relieve the isolated paras would give a strong incentive for a decapitating strike, to seize Cairo and overthrow Nasser.

This would give less chance for the US to do the damage while if the allies have had a big and quick military victory they would feel less inclined to back down.

The Soviets were basically bluffing and seeking to distract from their own mess in Hungary. However if an allied success looked more likely they might try turning up the heat by making more belligerent sounds. This could have the effect of both rallying feeling in the majority of the populations under threat, as that tends to happen, and probably more importantly putting pressure on the US to stand with its allies against a threatening SU.

Steve

StevoJH · Jun 15, 2009

stevep said:
Douglas

I remember reading a long time ago, ~2 decades or so, that the initial plan supplied by the military was to land on the coast and advance overland to Cairo to overthrow Nasser and bring in a friendly government. As you say it may not last long but it would have a big impact on how the world viewed the nations involved.

However, because the spark for the war was Nasser seizing the Canal and the politicians wanted to make it 'less controversial' the decision was taken to occupy the Canal Zone only. The down side to this was that it left Nasser's government free to act against it and meant an extended commitment, giving chance for pressure from the US to increase the economic damage.

Not sure if an air drop would have worked and would have been very risky, but if it had worked it could have had a dramatic effect on breaking the moral of the Egyptian nationalists, at least for the moment and boosting that of the allied powers. Also if it was the 1st wave, with allied forces landing on the coast the need to relieve the isolated paras would give a strong incentive for a decapitating strike, to seize Cairo and overthrow Nasser.

This would give less chance for the US to do the damage while if the allies have had a big and quick military victory they would feel less inclined to back down.

The Soviets were basically bluffing and seeking to distract from their own mess in Hungary. However if an allied success looked more likely they might try turning up the heat by making more belligerent sounds. This could have the effect of both rallying feeling in the majority of the populations under threat, as that tends to happen, and probably more importantly putting pressure on the US to stand with its allies against a threatening SU.

Steve

The British and French governments should have kept their backbones and not only gone in using the original plan, but also on the original timeline rather then letting Eisenhower delay them with his stalling tactics. The operation took place something like two months after the originally planned "D-Day".

And as you said, the original plan was a full amphibious assault with Cairo and Nasser as the Target.

The Sandman · Jun 16, 2009

Bill Cameron said:
Sandman,

I don't think having the Red Army tied down in Eastern Europe is going to do the trick. It wasn't as if the USSR would be sending an army to the Middle East anyway.

It has nothing to do with the ability to move troops around and everything to do with the politics of it. Not only would the Soviets have a PR nightmare on their hands if Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary all end up in more-or-less open revolt, they'd also be spending most of their time and political energy on dealing with the crisis. The Politburo would quite simply not want to have to deal with managing a potentially major crisis with the US and NATO when they're already working 24/7 on dealing with the uprisings in the Warsaw Pact. You can only handle so many crises at once before you have to prioritize.

Also, the Soviets might be willing to just ignore the Suez Crisis (beyond the minimum required amount of saber-rattling) if the quid pro quo is that NATO ignores it when they move in to crush the rebellions. Neither side is actually willing or able to do anything to stop the other, but since neither side knows that they'd be willing to trade.

Of course, there'd be some inevitable facepalming on both sides when the Cold War eventually ends and the relative impotence of either side to intervene in the other's sphere of influence became public knowledge, but that would be 30-40 years down the line from the POD.

I wonder if leaving the Israelis out of the picture and, as Douglas suggests, involving more western European countries might have helped? IIRC, Eisenhower was just as angry with the Israeli Sinai landgrab as he was with the UK/France seizure of the Canal itself and if a big chunk of NATO was involved, the US might have second thoughts.

As many posters have already suggested, a workable POD must tackle the US opinion of the operation. With US backing, either implicit or overt, the USSR's threats will be rendered moot. Perhaps if Nasser went communist or was believed to be communist?

IIRC, the Israelis were brought in because holding the Canal would be immensely difficult in the Egyptians could attack it from both sides.

And all you need to bring the US on board is the British and French having cut the Americans in on a percentage of the Canal's ownership in lieu of some portion of their repayments from WWII. If it looks like US business interests might be in the least bit threatened by the Egyptian takeover, we'd be bang alongside the Franco-British intervention.

perfectgeneral · Jun 16, 2009

Go ahead with Suez, but with the EM-2 assault rifle and and Taden GPMG to reflect lack of American support. Claim a Anglo-French joint freehold and sovereignty, in perpetuity, on the canal zone. France joins the commonwealth, Britain joins the Coal and Steel Community.

Push tanks/troops into Austria and load the Hungerian border. So much for Austrian neutrality. The soviets just used it as a buffer to consolidate Hungary. The Russian zone becomes the Euro-defence zone, the rest stays independent, but allied to NATO. Tit-for-tat over Hungary. Start pushing for coups in the Czech part of Czechoslovakia and East Germany.

HJ Tulp · Jun 16, 2009

Douglas said:
Correct on both points.

Requirements?

1. Probably a turnover in the British high command. Get someone willing to try a risky gamble in there, if you can.

2. The Dutch and Belgians come along if the crisis taking place in the Netherlands doesn't occur...it's a POD in a timeline I once worked on. Say the lady who had visions doesn't have them: Presto! You have a European morale-builder.

3. The RN needs to be better prepared for amphibious operations to "cement" the paratroopers' landing...it shouldn't be too hard to accidentally posit some Mediterranean exercises for early 1956 with the appropriate butterflies, should it?

Results?

1. Third World countries are going to think twice before challenging the "dying" colonial empires after they see what happens when you don't play nice.

2. Greater Western European cohesion means...who knows?

Anywho, those are my two cents on the matter.

We were planning to join in? Never knew that. Greet Hofmans dies and the world becomes all happy and joyous? Seems about right

I wonder what a better relationship between the Netherlands and the British and French would do to the West Papua Crisis.