How would Gaitskell have handled the Suez Crisis?

[Ski]

Lets say Atlee stood down as Labour lead after defeat in the 1951 election and Gaitskell became Labour leader. Then under Churchill, during the Mau Mau Uprising the army comes down much harder on the locals (leading to international condemnation against Britain) and in the Malay Emergency came down much harder on the Communists (leading to greater Sino-Soviet aid and a more 'Vietnam' style conflict). With Churchill's government growing unpopular Gaitskell led Labour to electoral victory in 1955.

So how does a relatively right-wing Labour leader handle the Suez Crisis in 1956?

 

[Fletch]

Lets say Atlee stood down as Labour lead after defeat in the 1951 election and Gaitskell became Labour leader. Then under Churchill, during the Mau Mau Uprising the army comes down much harder on the locals (leading to international condemnation against Britain) and in the Malay Emergency came down much harder on the Communists (leading to greater Sino-Soviet aid and a more 'Vietnam' style conflict). With Churchill's government growing unpopular Gaitskell led Labour to electoral victory in 1955.

So how does a relatively right-wing Labour leader handle the Suez Crisis in 1956?

Seeing as he opposed the madness in otl, I doubt there would be much difference in this atl. Suez was a folly, concieved by Eden and which has now been confirmed in a secret deal with the French and the Israelis. This would not have happened under Gaitskell.

In oter words, Nasser would have nationalised the Canal. Britain would have protested and then shiping would have started paying the fees.

 

[Ski]

I was hoping for an answer along those lines, but perhaps I should have also put how would Gaitskell's decisions to passively oppose the nationalisation of the canal affect the rest of his term and the remaining British colonial possessions.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Some minor humiliation for Britain on the international stage, but nothing, of course, to rival what happened in OTL. Britain's standing in the middle east in particular nosedives, so Gaitskell may have to deal with further provocation.

Regarding the survival of the Empire, this depends on what Gaitskell does to repair British prestige, which ITTL will be damaged but not shattered into a million pieces. If he is able to do so, then decolonisation probably takes place on a 1970-1985 timescale, which is likely to mean a much better organised former Empire than the cut and run strategy of OTL left. You might also see some smaller colonies such as the Gambia retained to act as millitary bases.

 

[abc123]

Some minor humiliation for Britain on the international stage, but nothing, of course, to rival what happened in OTL. Britain's standing in the middle east in particular nosedives, so Gaitskell may have to deal with further provocation.

Regarding the survival of the Empire, this depends on what Gaitskell does to repair British prestige, which ITTL will be damaged but not shattered into a million pieces. If he is able to do so, then decolonisation probably takes place on a 1970-1985 timescale, which is likely to mean a much better organised former Empire than the cut and run strategy of OTL left. You might also see some smaller colonies such as the Gambia retained to act as millitary bases.

No need for Gambia, but I think that it would be very smart to retain those colonies that today are commonwealth realms ( Jamaica, Bahamas, Carribean islands ) plus Malta, maybe Zanzibar, Singaport ( some kind of Compact of free association with the UK ).
Sarawak and Sabah as protectorates.
Same with Maledives.
No need for Aden, but retaining Socotra island is a good idea, no piracy in Somalia with that.

 

[perfectgeneral]

While Bahrain, Singapore and Hong Kong undoubtedly added to the coffers of the empire, they were both hard (expensive) to defend and politically sensitive. A clear profit/loss calculation would have to go into retaining empire (if it could be achieved politically through power sharing).

I think it would be straight forward to include Malta and Gibraltar into UK democracy (one seat in parliament). Much of the lost currency due to sun seeking holidays abroad would be retained if Malta was more accessible and Anglicised. You could say the same for The Gambia. Still a great winter sun location and Banjul/Bathurst is a useful base. Sierra Leone might see some economic benefit too.

I believe that Malta applied to join the UK at one point? I'd like to see an MP for the South Atlantic islands too.

Socotra I could see being a magnet for militancy in the same vein as Aden. Easier to defend, if you control immigration and visiting visas carefully. Why would we be policing this area?

The Caribbean islands might have been successfully federated before independence, who knows.

 

[abc123]

While Bahrain, Singapore and Hong Kong undoubtedly added to the coffers of the empire, they were both hard (expensive) to defend and politically sensitive. A clear profit/loss calculation would have to go into retaining empire (if it could be achieved politically through power sharing).

I think it would be straight forward to include Malta and Gibraltar into UK democracy (one seat in parliament). Much of the lost currency due to sun seeking holidays abroad would be retained if Malta was more accessible and Anglicised. You could say the same for The Gambia. Still a great winter sun location. I believe that Malta applied to join the UK at one point? I'd like to see an MP for the South Atlantic islands too.

Socotra I could see being a magnet for militancy in the same vein as Aden. Easier to defend, if you control immigration and visiting visas carefully. Why would we be policing this area?

The Caribbean islands might have been successfully federated before independence, who knows.

Look, give colonies all rights except defense and foreign affairs, even if they want some kind of teritorial defense and coast guard, to offset RN and Army from stupid tasks.

Bold: I can't believe my eyes...
Bab el Mandeb? Aneyone? Oil flow control? Empire route?

No need for independence for caribean islands, big autonomy for them is enough, they are too small to be really independent, and this way they have protection and good influence of greater country like UK.

 

[perfectgeneral]

If you must bold, be specific

Why would we be policing this area? All this patronising 'Anyone?' business makes you look childish.

 

[simonbp]

While Bahrain, Singapore and Hong Kong undoubtedly added to the coffers of the empire, they were both hard (expensive) to defend and politically sensitive. A clear profit/loss calculation would have to go into retaining empire (if it could be achieved politically through power sharing).

I think it would be straight forward to include Malta and Gibraltar into UK democracy (one seat in parliament). Much of the lost currency due to sun seeking holidays abroad would be retained if Malta was more accessible and Anglicised. You could say the same for The Gambia. Still a great winter sun location and Banjul/Bathurst is a useful base. Sierra Leone might see some economic benefit too.

I believe that Malta applied to join the UK at one point? I'd like to see an MP for the South Atlantic islands too.

So, essentially a situation like OTL French overseas departments, but including city-states like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Bahrain? That sounds both interesting and plausible...

 

[Ski]

Decolonisation of Africa

To what extent would Gaitskell be willing to hold onto colonial possessions in Africa (as self governing 'dominions') and how without France intervening alongside Britain in 1956, would her African possessions develop?

 

[abc123]

Why would we be policing this area? All this patronising 'Anyone?' business makes you look childish.

On childish questions I gave a childish answer.
Nothing personal.

Maybe because UK in 60-s was the PROTECTOR of Arabian peninsula. Same like USA today.

 

[abc123]

To what extent would Gaitskell be willing to hold onto colonial possessions in Africa (as self governing 'dominions') and how without France intervening alongside Britain in 1956, would her African possessions develop?

Well, sincerely, I dont see some good reason for keeping any of african/asian colonies if they don't want it. And even if they want it, there is no need for that. Maybe some contracts about military bases, but control of those countries can be accomplished by british TNC-s who will exploit natural resources of those states, and the cost of administration, garrisoning and development of these areas is too high to be sustainable.
Only insular possesions.

 

[Russell]

To what extent would Gaitskell be willing to hold onto colonial possessions in Africa (as self governing 'dominions') and how without France intervening alongside Britain in 1956, would her African possessions develop?

I doubt Britain would really hold onto her African colonies for much longer than OTL - they offered little real benefit and were only becoming a more contentious issue all the time with the rise of African nationalism - something a world without Suez is not going to change.

As for France, she may remain just that little bit more emboldened than OTL but ultimaately faces the same problems as Britain. She may hold for a few years longer in Algeria but sooner or later public pressure will force her to throw in the towel, along with the rest of her African Empire, albeit later than OTL.

The greatest effects on Britain I think could be a more measured decolonisation - none of the fly tipping of unwanted colonies that occured OTL. Decolonisation takes until the 70's, maybe even the 80's at the extreme end of the scale but smaller, more profitable colonies such as Malta, the West Indes, Singapore and Hong Kong may be persuaded/enticed into staying as part of either a dependancy or an overseas depatment, although Britain may have to adopt a more federal structure for that to happen.

Furthermore, without Suez and the resulting Anglo-European bonding and Commonwealth split, perhaps Britain chooses to build it's future economic development with the Commonwealth of Nations, not Europe. Here a slower and more measured decolonisation may play an important part?

Russell

 

[Russell]

Why would we be policing this area? All this patronising 'Anyone?' business makes you look childish.

Perfect General, just don't argue with him - it's not worth it.

Russell