British victory at Suez?

Have just joined the discussion board and have always wondered how the Cold War would have turned out if the Anglo-French expeditionary force had defeated General Nasser in 1956. I know very little about the period, so answers would be welcomed to these questions

a.) Would decolonisation have been slowed down?
b.) If no, would Britain have retained control over some smaller/more strategic colonies such as Malaya and Aden?
c.) How would the European Union have developed?
d.) Would there have been a 1979 Revolution in Iran?
 
Firstly, Welcome to the Forum!

Are you suggest the AFEF actually conquers / re-conquers (depending on your point of view) all of Egypt or just that Eisenhower doesn't force them to withdraw?

The former point seems fairly unlikely: at best Britain and France hold down the populus for a few years before things degenerate into guerilla tactics. Perhaps they might try to install a new regime but that would probably entail severe repression.

Whatever the outcome of the former question, the issue of American intervention is key. OTL, I'd date the European recognition, particularly British, the Empire is doomed to 1956. (Eden wrote a nice note that basically acknowledges that it's not worth holding anymore when he went to the Bahamas to recover after the crisis). Eisenhower was fairly adamant in his opposition because of traditional American anti-colonialism (when practiced by other powers). I'm not sure, but I have to imagine that he thought that a continued attempt by Great Britain and France to hold their colonial possessions would distract both from European security concerns and foment potentially Soviet-sympathising rebels. He already had the budding problem of French Indochina. Plus, there's a chance that aggression against Egypt fans wider anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world, which threatens oil access for Europe (though not yet for the US).

However, it might be argued that freeing all the colonies on the scale and at the pace of OTL was too fast and left much of Africa and SE Asia without tested political institutions or developed infrastructures. But that's not necessarily a reason to let France and Britain steal parts of small countries.

As to your other questions, Britain can try to maintain more of its colonies, but I think it's pretty much a losing proposition. The scenario that most resembles this is that Britian pursues a longer exit strategy that involves ensuring stable regimes when it leaves. This has geo-political upsides, but costs a lot of money, which Britain doesn't have in the mid-20th century. The EU's development has already begun, but much of it's progress will be contingent on the outcome of latter events (and thereby subject to 'butterfly effects'). The EU, or something like it, is likely given US policy over the course of the Cold War (i.e. to get Europe to cooperate to thwart the Soviets and to prevent another European war, forever). An Iranian revolution is probably substantively altered / victim of two decades of butterflies.
 
In purely military terms Britain and France won or at lease would have done had they carried on. It wasn't so much the Soviet Union's threats that ended hostilities as the United States failing to support the pound during an economic crisis.

The effect of the war carrying on? Britain would have continued with the delusion of being a superpower a bit longer. Decolonisation was coming anyway Malaya was on the road to independence anyway as a means of heading off insurgents who largely only had support amongst the Chinese community in Malaya. Maybe Britain would have become bogged down in Vietnam. The East of Suez policy might have lasted longer but the British economy was weak. Aden may well have remained a base as Nasser wouldn't have been in a position to back the NLF. Nasser may have been toppled and Arab socialism delivered a fatal blow i.e no Iraq Coup and King Hussein may have retained Glub Pasha. I'm not sure that Iran would have been effected although with the collapse of Nasser arab monarchies may have been stronger but they were pretty despotic anyway.

The EU? Possibly stronger links between Britain and France and the survival of the 4th republic and a long retirment for De Gualle.

Maybe if Nasser had gone there would have been no 6 day war and no occupation of Gaza and the West Bank but the Palestinians would have had King Hussein to copntend with
 
Disagree - about the delusion of a Superpower bit at least.

I think that if Britain and France together with Israel had been more successful in removing Nasser then the forthcoming EEC (1957) might have had more British support on a Britain/France axis rather than a France/Germany axis. I doubt whether the two would bother engaging on colonial adventures but success in Egypt might give Britain and France more credibility on the world's stage, particularly as they are nuclear armed. Decolonialisation was inevitable but safeguarding the rights of white settlers in colonies would be seen as more paramount - there would certainly be ramifications in Algeria which could have consequences for South Africa.
 
On a potential for a France / Britain access for an EEC, I strongly disagree.

Firstly, a successful Suez means that Britain still believes that it can operate as a third superpower by using and maintaining Empire and that Britain has weathered or diffused some kind of challenge from the US (the non-support of the pound). Why would such a strong, global power seek European integration? Secondly, the EEC as we know it was an attempt by France and Germany to tie themselves together in order to avoid war. There's not enough time for the tenor of the agreement to mold into power projection. Also, OTL Eisenhower and later US Presidents had to apply strong pressure on Great Britain to induce them to enter the agreement, because Britain viewed the agreement as a contiental affair and clung to the idea that it should manage the Empire (until Macmillan).

The danger to me of a continued British and French presence in the Middle East acting against Nasser's Arab Socialism is to throw the Arab socialists into the arms of the Soviets much more strongly and much earlier than OTL. However, it might do interesting things if their enemies (i.e. religious groups) begin to approach the West for support. Then the Great Satan might actually have been Godless, if the term is used for the USSR.
 
Anthony Eden was off his nut at the time on barbiturates and genuinely thought Nasser was the reincarnation of Hitler. Post Suez, he'd have been quietly retired given the pressure of the post-1953 surgery he had on his gall-bladder. He was also a Churchillian whereas an increasing number of the Conservative Party elite were coming around to Europeanism.

I think Eden's retirement/removal would end any third Superpower nonsense, at least as we know the term superpower. Back then it wasn't about military projection or economics but nuclear arms and the ability to deploy them. There was the offer of political union with France in 1956 which was rejected as was a proposal to allow France to join the Commonwealth - a successful Suez campaign might just convince enough people to take that proposal through.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Welcome! Interesting first post.:)

You need to define win. As others have noted there are a very wide range of possible "victory" conditions. Depending on the definition you have anything from a slightly altered early 1960's in the Middle East up to a world that is nearly unrecognizable.
 
I suppose by win i mean the expulsion of the Egyptians from the Canal Zone and a strong British influence in Egypt for the forseeable future, perhaps toppling the Nasser regime?
Could this have granted some kind of reprieve for the British Empire in Africa until say the 1970's or 80's? And if yes how would the existence of direct Western control of much of Africa have affected the Cold War? Pre-Suez I believe there had been a wide variety of plans drawn up for a "new empire" based on making more use of African resources to help fund UK economic recovery while "westernising" natives.
Any thoughts??
 
I suppose by win i mean the expulsion of the Egyptians from the Canal Zone and a strong British influence in Egypt for the forseeable future, perhaps toppling the Nasser regime?

Expulsion of the Egyptians from the Canal Zone would have had the opposite effect. Sitting on someone else's "rightful" territory is a recipe for them to snipe at you. I am not saying that the Egyptian government would order attacks, but it is not to going to try too hard to stop them either.
 
I think Britain would remain a major power in the Mid East at the expense of increasing Soviet influence, British arms exports and power plays in the region would continue. I also think that Britain would continue to pay the price of power since it was reaping it's benefits, thus it would build the new fleet carriers in the 60s as well as the other things it started but didn't finish.
 
Have just joined the discussion board and have always wondered how the Cold War would have turned out if the Anglo-French expeditionary force had defeated General Nasser in 1956. I know very little about the period, so answers would be welcomed to these questions

a.) Would decolonisation have been slowed down?
b.) If no, would Britain have retained control over some smaller/more strategic colonies such as Malaya and Aden?
c.) How would the European Union have developed?
d.) Would there have been a 1979 Revolution in Iran?

a) Perhaps, resulting in bloodier wars of national liberation during 1960's to 1970's.

I think a worst case scenario would have been Britain and France
entangling themselves into colonies, putting Western European economies to disarray. UK and France enter into a route of becoming international pariahs. As both countries are vital for US foreign policy, the US reputation suffers as well and SU gets more goodwill in emerging countries.

In 1968, as the new president of France seems to consider withdrawal from colonies a military coup takes over. France enters a civil war and Britain enters into a even deeper economic slump. By mid-1970's Britain has radical socialist government while Soviet backed communists have won the civil war in France...
 
Top