Anglo-French-Israel call America's bluff; Suez Crisis

What about decolonization? Think it will be slower
Without a friendly US, UK economy will be weaker, less abke to keep Military Spending up in trying to keep a lid on.
Weaker UK won't be able to hold on any better than stronger OTL UK did.

The Colonies had the whiphand, not the UK. Africa is going away. Cyprus is going away. Gulf States going away.
 
I am not sure about that part. Kuwait and Bahrain OTL offered to remain Crown Protectorates. If this UK did win the Suez Crisis by calling America's bluff, wouldn't they gravitate more to remaining as Protectorates?
OTL, UK couldn't afford to. The Treasury was driving UK decision to Decolonization. Each if the places spun off, just cost too much.
 
With a UK/US split in 1956, French/US relationship is very different in this TL.
US wasn't applying pressure on Paris like was done on London.
eh that's kind of contradictory. France left the NATO command because of rising tensions with the US after the Suez Crisis and UK for simply forgiving the US after the Suez Crisis. Whose to say both UK and France would show America the big finger and form their own bloc whilst retreating from the Command structure. Also you underestimate Eden. He had a plan which was similar to Operation ROBOT which he wished to implement after the crisis, which as we saw he was ousted before he could do it. If it had been implemented, the British economy would get a 3 decade headstart as OTL they only implemented it in 1985.
 
As a Canadian that thought makes me sad.

For this thread, you might see a quicker rise in pan-arabisim as they feel that they have to unite or else 3rd parties will just dictate policies.
As a Canadian as well (US-CAN dual citizen), I can sympathize. But I think it would be interesting to explore Canadian politics without Pearson and how it develops.

Maybe? Arab nationalism was also highly linked to pan-Arabism, which might be dropped in favor of Baathism. So you could potentially see a merger between Syria and Iraq.

This is a highly fascinating read but I do think that, while arming Egyptian civilians would help slow down the Franco-British forces, your own sources say that their effectiveness was severely limited. Allied forces were slowed but not stopped, and it wouldn't be impossible to paint Nasser as a monster who forces civilians into combat roles as part of a "mad scheme to harm the nation of Egypt" and pushing civilians into harms way.

Taking Port Said would have effectively given Franco-British forces control over the Suez Canal. Taking Port Said would have disheartened Egyptian resistance, as well as cutting off Suez and the Sinai, giving the Anglo-French the means to clear and control the rest of the canal, and such a massive loss would have damaged Nasser's reputation with the people which was already precarious - which is half the reason he did nationalized the canal zone. Nasser losing the Suez Canal, losing Port Said/Port Suez (and likely Ismailia) to Franco-British forces, and being able to threaten Cairo, a lot of his support is going to evaporate.

With a UK/US split in 1956, French/US relationship is very different in this TL.
US wasn't applying pressure on Paris like was done on London.
It's highly unlikely to be an Anglo-American split. Eisenhower isn't going to risk NATO and countering the Soviets in Europe over Suez. Common interests, different goals kind of thing. Eisenhower isn't going to end Anglo-American ties, but they may become colder. France, having enjoyed a successful operation with the British, will see much warmer relations with the British after a successful Suez.
 
It's highly unlikely to be an Anglo-American split. Eisenhower isn't going to risk NATO and countering the Soviets in Europe over Suez. Common interests, different goals kind of thing. Eisenhower isn't going to end Anglo-American ties, but they may become colder. France, having enjoyed a successful operation with the British, will see much warmer relations with the British after a successful Suez.
Eden did propose an united Anglo-French Customs Union and Free Market. If both France and Britain win the Suez Canal, could it have happened?
 
I've said before that if you have Eisenhower die in 1955 of his heart attack and have Nixon become President, you'd probably see a British victory in Suez. This would butterfly away the U.S. opposition to Anglo-French-Israeli action. America's position would probably have been something like Reagan during the Falklands. "Peace? No... Ok, here have some weapons." (Yes I'm quoting OverSimplified).

I'd also be interested to see what effects a successful Suez this would've had on Israeli politics.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
If Nasser arms civilians, the best they can do is die for their country, especially in front of the lenses of the world's press. Especially if female, or either aged or pre-adolescent.

The propaganda would be shattering for the UK & France, with their own public opinion turning against a government that kills women, kids & old men.
 
Top