alternatehistory.com

I will continue with the Wilson wins in 1970 timeline later. Barry Turners book on the Suez Crisis has inspired me to start another timeline.

Before I begin, I want to explain in full the POD. It is based on the findings of his book, Suez 1956.

Suez 1956-Barry Turner said:
exert page 388.
But was there any reason to act precipitately? In the first two days of November the Bank of England lost nearly £20 million, and losses continued to mount up in the days that followed. Subsequently it was this setback which Macmillan claims persuaded him that the Suez Operation be called off. At the crucial cabinet meeting on 6 November, ‘He told the cabinet that there had been a serious run on the pound, viciously orchestrated by Washington. Britain’s gold reserves had fallen by £100 million over the past week or over one eighth of their total.’
it carries on...........
Suez 1956-Barry Turner said:
exert page 399
But unfortunately whatever panic was created Macmillan must take a large share of the blame. Unforgivably, the guardian of the nation’s finances had his figures wrong. The treasury could not have lost £100 million in the time specified because on the day following his dramatic announcement, Macmillan was told by his civil servants that the loss for the week was only £30.4 million. On the 16th, the treasury updated the figure to £71 million, while on the 20th Macmillan speculated that losses for the month would be £107 million.
Selwyn Lloyd stated that
‘I think the international situation would have been tenable until we got the canal, and then we would have been in a position to bargain for an agreement.’

The conclusion is also interesting...
Suez 1956-Barry Turner said:
exert page 400
Even had he got his figures right, Macmillan was almost certainly in a stronger position than he imagined. However tough the American stance, it was unlikely to be sustained to the point of allowing the downfall of sterling. The effect on the world markets, with so many countries holding sterling reserves, could easily have produced harmful fallout for the American economy. At the time of a Suez induced devaluation of sterling would have served Britain well. Apart from making exports more competitive, it would have increased the cost of imports, a welcome corrective for a country with a serious balance of payments problem. The price of oil would have to go up but, contrary to popular conception, cheap energy is not the sole detriment of economic growth. If there were many good reasons for ending the Suez adventure, the fear of financial Armageddon was not one of them. But tied as it was to nineteenth century economics, the British government was putty for America to mould as it pleased.
What if Eden had stayed the course on Suez? What consequences would this have for Britains relations with the US? What about the Franco-British understanding? Could this affect Europe? What about the Commonwealth?

I am very interested in doing a timeline on this subject.
Top