Succesful Suez

Since my very first post on AH.com a year ago concerned this, I thought I'd revisit a topic. How do Britain and France obtain American support (or at least lack of active hostility) for a succesful invasion of the Canal Zone, and what are the likely affects of this in terms of Cold War politics, Israeli-Arab relations, decolonisation, and the post-Imperial economic troubles Britain faced in OTL.

It's a sweeping question, but I'm always intrigued by possibilites of a late surviving British Empire, and I don't visit the post-1900 forums all that often, so I'm rectifying this. :)
 
There was never the slightest possiblity of any 'engaged' America acquiescing in what amounted to an Anglo-French colonial takeover of Egypt. American anti-imperialism, lingering commercial jealousy, political calculation, the neccessity of upholding Cold War containment dogma - all of it renders such a possibility not just remote, but fanciful.

The only possible way you could do it would (possibly) be for the Taft wing of the Republican Party to take over, but that itself is appalingly far-fetched.

The best solution would be to have the whole thing never happen, which would be pretty simply done by having the US retain it's support for the Aswan Dam.
 
Last edited:

wormyguy

Banned
Well, about simultaneously with the American condemnations of the Anglo-French moves, and little talked about, the Warsaw Pact issued a not so veiled threat to "use all types of weapons of destruction upon London, Paris, and Tel Aviv should the imperialists persist in their aggression."

This isn't going to end well.
 
Since my very first post on AH.com a year ago concerned this, I thought I'd revisit a topic. How do Britain and France obtain American support (or at least lack of active hostility) for a succesful invasion of the Canal Zone, and what are the likely affects of this in terms of Cold War politics, Israeli-Arab relations, decolonisation, and the post-Imperial economic troubles Britain faced in OTL.

It's a sweeping question, but I'm always intrigued by possibilites of a late surviving British Empire, and I don't visit the post-1900 forums all that often, so I'm rectifying this. :)

The British Empire isn't going to survive, and the anti-colonial movement will continue.

As for American support, it has to become a public issue. Eisenhower screwed his allies because—in large part—he believed it help with his re-election. If it helps his re-election to back them, then he'll likely do that. In my timeline Reagan makes this an issue (anti-communism coupled with support of capitalism), Stevenson takes him up on it, and Eisenhower can read polling data.

The USSR was bluffing, as they had their own European problems and could not hope to make this an issue after their tanks rolled into Hungary.

At the end of the day the Anglo-French control of the Suez expires in something like ten years anyway, so let's say they sell a third of it to the Egyptians and move on with their lives. Nasser is screwed, though.
 
Suez was the key turning point for the decline of the British empire. Up to that point it had been transforming into a close partnership with the 'white' dominions and a number of alliances involving recent British colonies. Indeed Suez fell out of a disagreement over Egyptian support for CENTO 'the Bahgndad Pact', Britain refusing to sell arms to Egypt until Nassar stoped publicly opposing this pact. This pushed Nasser into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Some things I see coming out of the successful Suez.
A successful, for a time, CENTO involving significant British influence and arms sales.
Different 1957 Defence Review, avoiding the claim the manned aircraft were obsolete and wasting scarce resources on unacheiveable missles.
No winds of Cahnge speech/movement, slower decolonisation and longer lasting world influence.
More independent nuclear progamme.
Slower Soviet penetration of the Mid East, easier Cold War.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
How about closer economic and military ties between France and Britain?

Even if Eisenhower remains opposed, what if Eden stands his ground and take the economic hit of US sanctions, should they come? With the soviets in Hungary, does the US want to distance itself from European allies that much? Ike has to talk a good condemnation for the polls, but how far does he want to walk it?

A more militarily active western Europe might stem soviet ambitions. You could see it as a preoccupied France and Britain, but you could also see it as they are already on a war footing. Egypt won't take forever. This also puts Israel in more of a European camp than as a totally pro US state.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I said in an earlier thread I started on this topic:

Basically, the general conclusions were that the British and the French need to strike earlier so that the US doesn't have time to formulate articulated opposition to the plan, and/or that Nasser needs more overt links to the Eastern Bloc for the US to contemplate his overthrow.

Or, you have American citizens accidently killed by the Egyptians, which was a possibility at Haifa where an Egyptian destroyer was shelling the harbor while American citizens were getting evacuated. If a stray shell hits the evacuation, Eisenhower's opposition could easily whither and allow the French and the British to procede.

I have been reading up on the Suez Crisis, looking for ways to get a more successful end result for Britain and at least prolonging somewhat higher power status. This seems quite hard to achieve, as the lynchpin of any such POD has to involve US support or at least a lack of disapproval.

So, the first major goal must be to get Eisenhower to support the British position. Unless the POD is moved farther back, Britain will be very dependent economically on the US, so we need to get the US to feel that Nasser must be removed somehow. The best way I see for this to happen is if Nasser moves much closer to the Soviets openly. More Soviet arms shipments in addition to the first Czechoslovakian shipment, and/or more Soviet aid funding for domestic Egyptian projects will certainly alarm Eisenhower. If Nasser is viewed as an effective Soviet ally, getting US support in a Suez operation will be much easier.

However, even if Nasser has many more direct links to the Eastern Bloc, I still think that Eisenhower will still want the British to go through several diplomatic options first. This poses a problem, as Britain's legal standing in the nationalization crisis is weak as Egypt hasn't really violated any of the agreements pertaining to the canal by force nationalizing it. The British position is further undermined as they conducted a similar forced buyout with the coal industries under the Atlee government. So, we need more deadlock in the UN and a more confrontational Egypt to have the diplomatic option fall through. This is especcially where I would like people's ideas.

So, if we are able to get US and some international support for the British position in the Suez Crisis, we have several alternatives on the actual military plan. If the US is supporting due to a want to topple Nasser, the larger Musketeer operation that involved landings at Alexandria and other larger centers being implemented. Also, the need for the agreement with Israel will be removed if Eden is not searching for a stronger pretext for the operation. Removing Israeli help will certainly get on Frech nerves a bit if they try to push an agreement with Israel, but it will certainly help preserve British standing among the Arabs a bit more.

So, Israel will probably be off the table, and the French and British will probably be occupying most of Egypt's major population centers in this scenario. The war will certainly be bloodier and more difficult, but I believe that the French and British will be able to win the conventional struggle. Then the British and French are stuck in a quagmire though as any government put in the place of Nasser will probably be viewed as illegitimate by the people due to his popularity and a dislike of Britain and France. Britain and France may very well just topple Nasser and then pull out, maintaing forces around the canal and leaving Egyptians to sort out their own problems.

Anyway, enough of this. If anybody has ideas on how to make the Suez Crisis more successful, I am eager to hear them as the task seems daunting enough.
 
The problem with that is the RN's power projection capability was run down as a result of an immediate postwar descision to concentrate on defence against Soviet subs with escorts rather than detterence by carrier attacks on their base areas. As such the carriers and amphibs needed to be reactivated before they could attack Egypt, which took time.

So the PoD is the RN Admirals deciding in 1947-8 that the best way to deal with the Soviet navy in the coming decade is to bomb and commando raid their bases. This will mean that the RN maximises its carriers and amphib ships, so when Suez blows up the bulk of the combat power for the invasion is ready to go at the shortest notice. The Brits strike much sooner with much more international support.
 
My PoD would be Eden's operation to remove gallstones in 1953 be succesfull and have the surgeon not damaging his bile duct.

Therefore, up to and during the Suez Crisis, Eden is able to handle himself far better and make better decisions rather than be compromised by pain, fevers and the influence of amphetimines which included insomnia, restlessness and mood swings.

That butterflies alot on the British side of things.

So, Israel will probably be off the table, and the French and British will probably be occupying most of Egypt's major population centers in this scenario. The war will certainly be bloodier and more difficult, but I believe that the French and British will be able to win the conventional struggle. Then the British and French are stuck in a quagmire though as any government put in the place of Nasser will probably be viewed as illegitimate by the people due to his popularity and a dislike of Britain and France. Britain and France may very well just topple Nasser and then pull out, maintaing forces around the canal and leaving Egyptians to sort out their own problems.
Maybe restoring the monarchy and a parliament?
 
Top