Suez, A European Adventure.

Good to see another update. Will the Anglo-French Union be taken more seriously then?
The countries are being drawn more together by foreign affairs, this is combined by a pro-european British Government. Everythings drawing them closer together.
 
There is that "Yes Minister" episope wher the Permant under secertary is explaning
"It has been Englands's policy for the past 500 years to oppose any power that could unite Europe,
It is just that Whe are now doing it inside the EU."

I don't see a French-British union doing all that much.
 
Britains armed forces where huge in the 1950's with some of the best fighters and tanks in the world and in alliance with France, Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand we could not have been broken by anyone.
 
Britains armed forces where huge in the 1950's with some of the best fighters and tanks in the world and in alliance with France, Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand we could not have been broken by anyone.

The British were in an alliance with France at Suez. The military forces of Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand were tiny. The reality of the situation is that post-WW2 the Americans were in a different league to Britain, economically and militarily.

From this and your other posts, I see you are very pro-British, I'm quite pro-British myself but we have to look at the situation realistically. Did you ever read Correlli Barnett's 'The Pride and Fall' trilogy, particularly 'The Audit of War'? Terrific books, written from a very pro-British PoV but they make clear that the British situation versus other powers WW2 onwards was very poor, and the roots of that decline go back to before WW1.
 
From this and your other posts, I see you are very pro-British, I'm quite pro-British myself but we have to look at the situation realistically. Did you ever read Corelli Barnett's 'Decline and Fall' trilogy, particularly 'The Audit of War'? Terrific books, written from a very pro-British PoV but they make clear that the British situation versus other powers WW2 onwards was very poor, and the roots of that decline go back to before WW1.


I must say those books are absolutely awful. A much needed tonic if one has extreme Britwank views but others of little value.

Firstly they are simply hard to read due to being so damn repetitive.

Secondly they are overwhelmingly anecdotal with relatively little useful macro data.

Thirdly they are in large part wrong, or at least the first two. I got bored during the third and cannot bear the thought of the fourth. The British economy was in many ways a success story in the 30s and compares well to Germany in that period and throughout the war in terms of productivity and efficiency - exactly the opposite of what Barnett implies. Some of his detailed figures (on for example comparative cost of the Me109 and the Spitfire)

Also he comes up with a load of meta-historical nonsense about a mass outbreak of idealism amongst the British elite.

Little j-c still wrong on his point I might add.
 
The British were in an alliance with France at Suez. The military forces of Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand were tiny. The reality of the situation is that post-WW2 the Americans were in a different league to Britain, economically and militarily.

From this and your other posts, I see you are very pro-British, I'm quite pro-British myself but we have to look at the situation realistically. Did you ever read Correlli Barnett's 'The Pride and Fall' trilogy, particularly 'The Audit of War'? Terrific books, written from a very pro-British PoV but they make clear that the British situation versus other powers WW2 onwards was very poor, and the roots of that decline go back to before WW1.

My view is a realistic view.
In 1956 the British armed forces where over 700,000 strong with Conscription still in place too.
The RAF and Royal Navy where both very powerful forces at the time.
 
I must say those books are absolutely awful. A much needed tonic if one has extreme Britwank views but others of little value.
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then? ;) I agree they are quite repetitive and anecdotal BTW.

My view is a realistic view.
In 1956 the British armed forces where over 700,000 strong with Conscription still in place too.
The RAF and Royal Navy where both very powerful forces at the time.

Are you claiming that the RAF was of comparable size to the USAF, that the Royal Navy was of comparable size to the USN, that the British Army was of comparable size to the US Army, that the British economy was of comparable size to the US economy?

If you are then you're wrong, I'm afraid.

If not, then what is the point you are trying to make?
 
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then? ;) I agree they are quite repetitive and anecdotal BTW.



Are you claiming that the RAF was of comparable size to the USAF, that the Royal Navy was of comparable size to the USN, that the British Army was of comparable size to the US Army, that the British economy was of comparable size to the US economy?

If you are then you're wrong, I'm afraid.

If not, then what is the point you are trying to make?

Im not saying any of that what I said is wrote above.
Are you saying the USA could have defeated the above and the French Israelis and Aussies?
 
Would you say Joe could benefit from reading them then? ;) I agree they are quite repetitive and anecdotal BTW.

I think he might benefit from reading anything.

Then again, perhaps not, new knowledge washes over some people.

Im not saying any of that what I said is wrote above.
Are you saying the USA could have defeated the above and the French Israelis and Aussies?

In any sustained confrontation, easily. In a short confrontation it may have actually been outnumbered in theory, but its readiness would be vastly superior.
 
I think he might benefit from reading anything.

Then again, perhaps not, new knowledge washes over some people.



In any sustained confrontation, easily. In a short confrontation it may have actually been outnumbered in theory, but its readiness would be vastly superior.

Instead of the juvanile insults that no doubt you wouldnt dare use in real life but get your release here why dont we have a look at the facts and figures of Army, Navy and Airforce strength from 1956 of the USA, UK and France.
 
Instead of the juvanile insults that no doubt you wouldnt dare use in real life but get your release here why dont we have a look at the facts and figures of Army, Navy and Airforce strength from 1956 of the USA, UK and France.

:rolleyes:

Why don't you present them to me?

However: if you think this is a question of numbers then you really do not understand what you are talking about. British forces were at low readiness in this period (as Suez demonstrated) and French forces depended on US equipment.

Britain and France would be crippled rapidly in any sustained confrontation with the US due to shortages of spares, credit and key resources.
 
Britains armed forces where huge in the 1950's with some of the best fighters and tanks in the world and in alliance with France, Australia, Rhodesia and New Zealand we could not have been broken by anyone.
Firstly, Australia and Canada actually opposed the British/French position during the Suez Crisis. Actually, the UK recieved a rebuke over the issue from Canada and Australia. I minor point, I know but the Commonwealth was split over Suez. Rhodesia as a colony never really had much say in the matter.

In addition to this, the US or the USSR would have defeated the France/Israel/UK alliance in a straight fight, but with losses to all sides. In terms of global power the US was a mile ahead of Britain at this point. To state otherwise is almost ASB. They(the UK and French Armed Forces) did however have the power to defeat the Egyptian Armed Forces though.

The premise of me writing this timeline was a conclusion which was drawn in a book by Barry Turner of the crisis that the UK could have held out under the financial pressure during the invasion, and that the situation wasnt as bad as Eden believed. This would be combined with the Americans believing that they needed the Anglo-French in the Western tent rather than out of it. I believe if they were to stick to the policy over a period of time it would drive the British and the French closer together.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, Australia and Canada actually opposed the British/French position during the Suez Crisis. Actually, the UK recieved a rebuke over the issue from Canada and Australia. I minor point, I know but the Commonwealth was split over Suez. Rhodesia as a colony never really had much say in the matter.

In addition to this, the US or the USSR would have defeated the France/Israel/UK alliance in a straight fight, but with losses to all sides. In terms of global power the US was a mile ahead of Britain at this point. To state otherwise is almost ASB. They did however have the power to defeat the Egyptian Armed Forces though.

The premise of me writing this timeline was a conclusion which was drawn in a book by Barry Turner of the crisis that the UK could have held out under the financial pressure during the invasion, and that the situation wasnt as bad as Eden believed. This would be combined with the Americans believing that they needed the Anglo-French in the Western tent rather than out of it. I believe if they were to stick to the policy over a period of time it would drive the British and the French closer together.

Where to people on this forum get such crap from?

Menzies declared Australia's support and maintained this untenable position at the United Nations in opposing a resolution censuring Britain and France for their action.
Bob Menzies Australian was 100% behind England at Suez as was New Zealand.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I've really enjoyed this TL so far (bickering aside)
A few questions left unanswered of yet:
  • So what is the new foreign policy of USA towards Britain and France?
  • Are they (USA) still willing to defend europe against soviet agression?
  • Are they going to run down the pound and franc over time?
  • Are Isreal going to get a place in the EEC?
  • Will collective defence see more european activity in the middle east?
 
Top