Suez 1956: mission completed.

Given the situation in Hungary this might not be the best time for the Soviets to try deploying paratroops to Egypt...

Agreed. A lot of the talk of Russian intervention was a bluff. Even if it wasn't the US made it clear that they would intervene too. In the end the US would not allow Soviet troops to effectively invade the Middle East and attack his NATO allies, even if he didn't agree with them.
 

Deleted member 9338

Given the situation in Hungary this might not be the best time for the Soviets to try deploying paratroops to Egypt...

From what I have read, most of the Soviet paratroops were assigned to operations in Hungry.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The idea of Soviets intervening in Egypt is nonsense. Basically the entire leadership was opposed and there was no way to get troops there. Khrushchev only made the paratrooper and "volunteer" threat after it was clear that the crisis had resolved itself. Hungary was more important anyways. A Soviet humiliation over Suez due to Khrushchevite blundering could pave the way for him getting thrown out in '57.

Israel will not get the Sinai. That would be blatant land-grabbing that nobody would stand. They might get military control over Gaza and promises to demilitarize the Sinai, but that's it.

The UK and France aren't leaving until Nasser's out, and frankly they probably didn't need to march to Cairo to pull that off--Naguib, a handful of pashas, and even some of the Free Officers were playing vultures in the shadows.

The UK and the French stay in the CZ until the UN either deputizes them as a peacekeeping force (unlikely) or another one comes in (Canada?). Bear in mind that this is ultimately what the British and French wanted. The British had already pulled out of the CZ and are desperately trying to regain their cred in the Arab world after a campaign that was more anti-Nasser than anything else. The French had bigger fish to fry in Algeria and the Israeli military was reaching the end of its poorly-supplied tether.

As soon as a peacekeeping force gets there, the French will go home and the Israelis will withdraw. The Brits probably try to score an airbase or a at least a technical presence in the CZ. Egypt may be forced to join the Baghdad Pact. Arab Nationalism is going to be seeing some big butterflies.

The big news is that European neo-imperialism has received a second wind rather than the hat trick of defeats it suffered IOTL.
 
The Baghdad Pact survives and prospers, the Iraqi monarchi isn`t toppled, the fucken 1957 defence white paper doesn`t shaft the British aircraft industry, British high tech weapons sell widely in the Mid East, CVA01 & 02 get built.

Have I forgotten anything?
 
The Baghdad Pact survives and prospers, the Iraqi monarchi isn`t toppled, the fucken 1957 defence white paper doesn`t shaft the British aircraft industry, British high tech weapons sell widely in the Mid East, CVA01 & 02 get built.

Have I forgotten anything?

I agree but you have only listed positives.

A negative might be that on September 11th 2001 an airliner is hijacked by Arabs angry at British involvement in the Middle East and crash into Canary Wharf instead of the World Trade center.
 
I second a timeline.

France staying in Nato, maybe not blocking Britain's entry into the EU forerunner (although in this instance it's likely Britain might be looking elsewhere)
 
It needs to be remembered that a successful Suez doesnt in itself mean that Britain remains a superpower, Britain's decline was primarily down to economic uncompetitiveness caused by bad decisions taken by Government before Suez. What it might do is change the national mindset away from "managed decline" and a more self confident nation that might be more willing to take risks economically instead of trying to prop up dying industries by throwing money at them. Although he won't have to resign in disgrace I don't see Eden remaining PM for years afterwards, he was smacked off his head on benzedrine and his health may have failed at a later point. His successor may not have been Macmillan, maybe it's Butler or if he hangs on long enough he may give it to one of the Party's rising stars.

The other impact would have been a very close Anglo-French relationship, especially if they've given Eisenhower a two fingered salute, there's much potential for military co-operation especially for nuclear weapons. They could have jointly developed warheads and missiles, the French could also have decided to buy one of the V-Bombers for the Force de Frappe instead of developing the Mirage IV, Britain could have bought the Mirage III and instead of developing CVA-01, which was in truth not the best carrier design, the RN could have bought an enlarged version of the Clemencau class. Britain could also have adapted French economic planning and there would have been several other opportunities for technological co-operation.
 
The idea of Soviets intervening in Egypt is nonsense. Basically the entire leadership was opposed and there was no way to get troops there. Khrushchev only made the paratrooper and "volunteer" threat after it was clear that the crisis had resolved itself. Hungary was more important anyways. A Soviet humiliation over Suez due to Khrushchevite blundering could pave the way for him getting thrown out in '57.

Israel will not get the Sinai. That would be blatant land-grabbing that nobody would stand. They might get military control over Gaza and promises to demilitarize the Sinai, but that's it.

The UK and France aren't leaving until Nasser's out, and frankly they probably didn't need to march to Cairo to pull that off--Naguib, a handful of pashas, and even some of the Free Officers were playing vultures in the shadows.

The UK and the French stay in the CZ until the UN either deputizes them as a peacekeeping force (unlikely) or another one comes in (Canada?). Bear in mind that this is ultimately what the British and French wanted. The British had already pulled out of the CZ and are desperately trying to regain their cred in the Arab world after a campaign that was more anti-Nasser than anything else. The French had bigger fish to fry in Algeria and the Israeli military was reaching the end of its poorly-supplied tether.

As soon as a peacekeeping force gets there, the French will go home and the Israelis will withdraw. The Brits probably try to score an airbase or a at least a technical presence in the CZ. Egypt may be forced to join the Baghdad Pact. Arab Nationalism is going to be seeing some big butterflies.

The big news is that European neo-imperialism has received a second wind rather than the hat trick of defeats it suffered IOTL.

That alone could lead to some pretty dire outcomes. Suez was a blunder OTL, the Anglo-French might not realized how much their victory was due to good fortune and try to pull stunts elsewhere which horribly backfire.

The idea that an emboldened Israel & European powers thinking that they can remove goverments in trid world nations at whim would be better than OTL, is rather fanciful.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Could someone do a tl?
I have it happen in my Tail-Gunner TL, which I'll be re-launching sometime early next year.

How's that for a shameless plug? :cool:
That alone could lead to some pretty dire outcomes. Suez was a blunder OTL, the Anglo-French might not realized how much their victory was due to good fortune and try to pull stunts elsewhere which horribly backfire.
Yup. France, though, is going to have to come to terms with Algeria one way or the other. The big question here is what effect a successful Suez War will have on that particular issue.

The idea that an emboldened Israel & European powers thinking that they can remove goverments in trid world nations at whim would be better than OTL, is rather fanciful.
Is it? They did it pretty often IOTL, long after "Wind of change" and all that.

And Israel wouldn't be emboldened by a successful Suez. If anything, they'll be kept on a pretty tight leash by a Britain that doesn't want to see any Arab feathers ruffled.
 
I have it happen in my Tail-Gunner TL, which I'll be re-launching sometime early next year.

How's that for a shameless plug? :cool:


Well, thats good Tail-Gunner was one of the best TL's on the board.:)


Yup. France, though, is going to have to come to terms with Algeria one way or the other. The big question here is what effect a successful Suez War will have on that particular issue.

I cant see them turning things around, but they might try to cling on longer or crave out ''settler enclaves'' whilst leving the rest for the Arabs....


Is it? They did it pretty often IOTL, long after "Wind of change" and all that.

Well these things often ended badly & French unilateralism in Africa was (and is) pretty appalling OTL, it could be far worse ITTL


And Israel wouldn't be emboldened by a successful Suez. If anything, they'll be kept on a pretty tight leash by a Britain that doesn't want to see any Arab feathers ruffled.

I disagree. Simply because I dont see Israel ever giving half-a-damn what the British goverment wants. Israel has its own agenda which it has always ruthlessly followed. The Israeli's want the Arabs states to be weak & non-threatening, nothing Britain can do will alter that.

The Israeli's have helped remove one nationlist Arab rabble-rouser, they might try to remove or otherwise get rid of others they deem a threat.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Well, thats good Tail-Gunner was one of the best TL's on the board.:)
Aww, g'wan :eek: you're too kind.
I cant see them turning things around, but they might try to cling on longer or crave out ''settler enclaves'' whilst leving the rest for the Arabs....
Ugh. What a mess that would be.
Well these things often ended badly & French unilateralism in Africa was (and is) pretty appalling OTL, it could be far worse ITTL
Ah, I see what you're saying, and I agree 100%. And it would likely be worse all-around. Katanga and Kasai in particular could get very messy.
I disagree. Simply because I dont see Israel ever giving half-a-damn what the British goverment wants. Israel has its own agenda which it has always ruthlessly followed. The Israeli's want the Arabs states to be weak & non-threatening, nothing Britain can do will alter that.

The Israeli's have helped remove one nationlist Arab rabble-rouser, they might try to remove or otherwise get rid of others they deem a threat.
The Israelis are going to be incredibly leery about attacking British-backed, British-supplied neighbors. Syria, on the other hand...

And the Brits aren't going to like Arab rabble-rousers either, they'll just be focusing on the Leftist ones. Neither Israel nor Britain would want to see strong, independent Arab states. A strengthened Baghdad Pact could probably off the latter for another decade or so.
 
The Brits probably try to score an airbase or a at least a technical presence in the CZ. Egypt may be forced to join the Baghdad Pact. Arab Nationalism is going to be seeing some big butterflies.
How about something similar to what US had with the Panama Canal Zone but on say a 99 year lease like Hong Kong was? The Suez Canal Zone extends a couple of miles either side of the canal and is run by a Anglo-French administration with some form of co-operation with the Egyptian government with regards to running Ismailia, Port Said, Port Suez and the like. Egypt retains ownership of the Sinai but agrees to have it as a demilitarised area supervised by the UN, and as part of their ownership of the Canal Zone the Anglo-French administration has to build and maintain the bridges and tunnels over the canal and allow free transit for all non-military traffic.
 
How about something similar to what US had with the Panama Canal Zone but on say a 99 year lease like Hong Kong was? The Suez Canal Zone extends a couple of miles either side of the canal and is run by a Anglo-French administration with some form of co-operation with the Egyptian government with regards to running Ismailia, Port Said, Port Suez and the like. Egypt retains ownership of the Sinai but agrees to have it as a demilitarised area supervised by the UN, and as part of their ownership of the Canal Zone the Anglo-French administration has to build and maintain the bridges and tunnels over the canal and allow free transit for all non-military traffic.

Chances are it will backfire horribly in the long run. Egyptian public opinion will support populist leaders seeking revanche. Sinai and Suez will be Egypt's Alsace-Lorraine, just worse. And, since the Leftist way to national honor failed, you can expect an equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood agitation in the mid-sixties to succeed... Think of Egypt around 1970, led by Sayyid Qutb, maybe with Anwar al-Sadat at the head of the army...
uhm, sounds like recipe for big, big trouble all around Middle East.
 
This would be an interesting thought to develop on further.

Assuming the POD occurs, what happens in the Middle East for the next ten years? What happens to Israel?

Does the US get engaged so directly in the area when it has one or two proxies that sort of may do what it wants? How does this affect the developing US-Israeli relationship?
 
Chances are it will backfire horribly in the long run.
Oh I never said it would be a good thing. :D It would achieve the three powers general aims of the French and British maintaining control of the canal and keeping their influence and securing Israel's western flank giving them some breathing room whilst keeping a weather eye on Syria so it seemed possible. Where would be the fun in things if it all turned out perfectly though? ;)
 
Oh I never said it would be a good thing. :D It would achieve the three powers general aims of the French and British maintaining control of the canal and keeping their influence and securing Israel's western flank giving them some breathing room whilst keeping a weather eye on Syria so it seemed possible. Where would be the fun in things if it all turned out perfectly though? ;)

Got your point :D
 
Top