Are there any good TLs on the Suez Crisis?

I've been looking through the search function, but that doesn't really turn up anything. I'm specifically interested in TLs or at least PoDs that lead to the US backing the British and French over Nasser or at least not throwing them under the bus. If there aren't any such TLs, then what would be a good PoD for Eisenhower to do this and what are the effects? Assuming Khrushchev does nothing, since he doesn't want WW3 over this, can the Anti-Party Group unseat him for appearing weak towards the capitalists?
 
I can't think of any TL on the top of my head, but try Google (link to "Suez" query here). It works better than the site's search function.

I may as well say something about the crisis. The Anglo-French situation is greatly overestimated, and even without Eisenhower supporting the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, the Anglo-French may very well fail, as it was horribly planned. During their invasion of the Canal Zone, the British attempted to kill the soldiers and spare the civilians. However, the civilians were armed by Nasser and enormously anti-colonialist, and thus the soldiers were forced to knock on doors and ask people if they were civilians or not. Such horrible planning does not lend itself to success. And as far as Eisenhower was concerned, the Suez Crisis was just Nasser nationalizing a company and reimbursing its shareholders, and the British doing an absurd overreaction. No, I think that you'd need to take out Eisenhower entirely to have the US ally with Britain and France.

Khrushchev would also not be taken out of power, as the US allying with the colonial powers would be a great propaganda coup for the USSR. IOTL, across the third world, there were mass protests against the West. As far as Indonesia, people protested the actions of Britain. This does symbolize the sheer opposition of the third world against the west, and thus, if the US had allied with the colonial powers, it would have alienated them all from the west. Khrushchev can easily spin this as an example of "capitalist imperialism" and he'd have lots of listeners across the third world. As decolonization continues, I expect more communism than OTL.

Also, we should look at nations' support of the Suez Crisis. Many world leaders were opposed to Britain's actions, and even members of white countries in the Commonwealth, such as St. Laurent and Menzies, were ultimately opposed to Britain's actions. This represents a sheer opposition to Britain's actions that would remain the case, even if the US allied with Britain and France.
 
I can't think of any TL on the top of my head, but try Google (link to "Suez" query here). It works better than the site's search function.

I may as well say something about the crisis. The Anglo-French situation is greatly overestimated, and even without Eisenhower supporting the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, the Anglo-French may very well fail, as it was horribly planned. During their invasion of the Canal Zone, the British attempted to kill the soldiers and spare the civilians. However, the civilians were armed by Nasser and enormously anti-colonialist, and thus the soldiers were forced to knock on doors and ask people if they were civilians or not. Such horrible planning does not lend itself to success. And as far as Eisenhower was concerned, the Suez Crisis was just Nasser nationalizing a company and reimbursing its shareholders, and the British doing an absurd overreaction. No, I think that you'd need to take out Eisenhower entirely to have the US ally with Britain and France.

Khrushchev would also not be taken out of power, as the US allying with the colonial powers would be a great propaganda coup for the USSR. IOTL, across the third world, there were mass protests against the West. As far as Indonesia, people protested the actions of Britain. This does symbolize the sheer opposition of the third world against the west, and thus, if the US had allied with the colonial powers, it would have alienated them all from the west. Khrushchev can easily spin this as an example of "capitalist imperialism" and he'd have lots of listeners across the third world. As decolonization continues, I expect more communism than OTL.

Also, we should look at nations' support of the Suez Crisis. Many world leaders were opposed to Britain's actions, and even members of white countries in the Commonwealth, such as St. Laurent and Menzies, were ultimately opposed to Britain's actions. This represents a sheer opposition to Britain's actions that would remain the case, even if the US allied with Britain and France.

Strange, I remember reading that Anglo-French military actions were quite successful. As far as Eisenhower goes, he did regret not backing Britain and France over Nasser after it turned out the latter was pro-Soviet. What if Eisenhower is convinced somehow Nasser is a closet commie in bed with Moscow?
 
Last edited:
The Israelis reached their objectives and established air superiority fairly quickly. The British and French already took Port Fuad and Port Said or were close to doing so. Would losing the canal and the Sinai Desert coupled perhaps with additional landings or bombings not be enough to make some people think twice about the wisdom of Nasser's decisions?
 
Strange, I remember reading that Anglo-French military actions were quite successful.

Not at all. Again, the Anglo-French were literally knocking on doors to determine who was a civilian and who was not, and they failed, because Nasser gave civilians arms to fight back and blurred the lines between them successfully.

As far as Eisenhower goes, he did regret not backing Britain and France over Nasser after it turned out the latter was pro-Soviet. What if Eisenhower is convinced somehow Nasser is a closet commie in bed with Moscow?

I'm not sure if that would be enough. From what I've been reading, he was incredibly angry at Britain and France from the outset, stating that they could "boil in their own oil". He did not share Eden's view that Nasser was a proto-Mussolini at all, ans believed that he had only nationalized a canal. Those aren't feelings that can just be handwaved away, even if he's convinced that Nasser is a Soviet puppet.

Would losing the canal and the Sinai Desert coupled perhaps with additional landings or bombings not be enough to make some people think twice about the wisdom of Nasser's decisions?

No. Arabs would just think that Nasser was a victim of the evil west and Jews, and most of the third world would believe the evil west part, judging by the outpouring of support by Nasser throughout the Third World IOTL. IOTL, at several nadirs for the Egyptian cause, Nasser was worried that his people were beginning to contemplate peace, but then demonstrations in favour of Nasser demonstrated otherwise.

And the Arabs don't seem to have thought less of Nasser after 1967, which was a much worse catastrophe than being beaten by some of the most powerful countries in the world. If anything, former colonies would just direct their ire at the West. The Iraqi revolution would occur two years early, with the King of Iraq killed by the mob, and other events would occur against the west and in favour of aligning towards the USSR. Most of the Muslim world would be lost, India would be more pro-Soviet early, and in Africa, communism and alignment with the USSR would be strongly associated with opposition to the colonial empires.

Not a pretty picture for the free world, all in all.
 

Hunter W.

Banned
The operation was somewhat poorly planned from the start. The assumption that the Israelis would advance towards Cairo and the British and French would seize the initiative was impossible to achieve. They also awfully underestimated the resolve of their opponents. So yes, they may have captured their various objectives but they still left with their tail between their legs, may have been a pyrrhic victory, but cost them dearly in terms of prestige.
 
Top