Suez Victory- what happens to colonial Africa and Europe?

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
This might also butterfly away most of Afghanistan's modern misery (or at least replace it with an entirely different modern misery) if Iran and Pakistan are able to get it admitted to CENTO.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
This might also butterfly away most of Afghanistan's modern misery (or at least replace it with an entirely different modern misery) if Iran and Pakistan are able to get it admitted to CENTO.
This is, of course, assuming the Baghdad Pact becomes an effective military alliance rather than staying the paper tiger it was in OTL. Personally, my money's on the latter. Britain doesn't have the capability to deploy significant forces outside of a handful of areas (they'll focus on the Canal Zone, Iraq, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Aden), and even those will be stretched pretty thin.

And you can bet that, if the British try to get too directly involved, the militaries of the various member states will start grumbling, which will not help the likely hornets' nest of dissatisfaction and instability that will plague a Middle East still under British influence into the 1960s and possibly (though not likely) beyond.
 
Last edited:
Abdul,

Could you elaborate on the nature of the fiscal mismanagement and how the Powers forced this on Egypt, the arbitration by the French King, etc?

I remember reading that the Egyptian government sold its shares to the British government after experiencing fiscal problems, but I had a college professor who said the British not innocent in 1875, although he didn't go into much detail.

It's a really long explanation, but I'll cover a few features.

The arbitration occurred because the Canal Company had run out of money for the construction, so forced Egypt into arbitration. Napoleon III ruled that Egypt had to pay the company damaged for lands to which the company had no legal right - and the price of this land, which was desert at the time, was set at some future rate when it had been irrigated and under cultivation, by a canal the Egyptian gov't would built to the Canal Zone. The amount, 3.8M pounds, was exactly the amount of the shortfall in the budget. Essentially, Egypt was robbed at gunpoint "legally" by France. Egypt then had to borrow the amount (from France) at very high interest.

Mixed courts were forced on Egypt, essentially international bodies of foreign judges, to handle commercial cases, in which they always ruled in favor of foreigners against Egyptians, to the point that a European could get a debt owed to an Egyptian overturned, and under these conditions, it was impossible for natives to have any chance in commercial activity, which became totally foreign-dominated.

Foreigners were also not subject to any taxation or any aspect of Egyptian law (which was essentially Ottoman law).

As the financial situation got worse, Dual Control was established, in which a non-removable and non-accountable minister each from Britain and France entered the government, one in charge of revenues, and the other, expenses. This also internationalized Egypt's rail system and ports, meaning they came under foreign receivership and their revenues were used to pay creditors.

This resulted in taxes being raised to a crushing level, while most of Egypt's money was syphoned off to foreign bondholders.

When a European power went bankrupt, as did most of them, their debts were restructured and payment that the country could afford arranged for. Very small or weak powers often had financial control commissions which oversaw this, like Greece, Serbia, and the Ottomans. But Egypt's debt was actually arbitrarily increased, and the burden made totally crushing. Eventually, foreign control destroyed the prestige and legitimacy of the Khedive (hereditary governor), and led to a revolt which established a parliamentary regime, which the British couldn't stomach, as they preferred a puppet autocrat, so they destroyed Alexandria and then occupied the country.
 
Back to the subject...

Whilst the Pasha has a point, it's historical and not at the POD and thereafter.

Britain having the sense to strongly influence the Gulf and Suez would have a massive effect on Britain's balance of payments, as oil contracts and profits would go to the City of London rather than Wall Street. That's quite a significant change and could affect Anglo-American relations. The Commonwealth would be an economic power on the world stage, rather than a club of dubious presidential Swiss accounts.

Don't be so hidebound by current events - Iraq and Afghanistan are important currently because of 9/11, so don't think that they're inevitable. Why not assess the effects of America and Britain using Agent Orange on opium poppy fields in the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan, or doing the same to coca plantations in Columbia? That's as likely as a 9/11, with crooks being too ready to produce drugs.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Iraq and Afghanistan are important currently because of 9/11, so don't think that they're inevitable.
Actually, Iraq is bound to blow up sometime. The monarchy was...less than popular, the officer corps was disgruntled, the Communists and other Leftist and pan-Arab agitators were rather active and had many sympathizers.

Even if Britain helps Faisal II keep a lid on things, the place is still probably going to be a far cry from a cakewalk.

With regards to Afghanistan, a Soviet Union frustrated by British domination of the Middle East into the '60s may actually go into Afghanistan sooner. Or not. But in the long term, yeah, I'm going to say Moscow will probably be eyeing Kabul hungrily.

Why not assess the effects of America and Britain using Agent Orange on . . . Columbia?
That'll teach those meddlesome college students :p:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Whoops...Colombia!

:DNice one, Wolfpaw...ROFL.

However (with one bound, Jack was free) Britain might have the advantage (as in the (1920s and 1930s) of air power in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, I could see British, Persian and Indian interests joined, in keeping Russia out. The Afghan government might find British air power welcome. Pakistan would be the wild card - the Kashmir problem might call for British 'influence'.

Those students in Columbia Uni should think themselves lucky - back in the 1970s or 1980s, a typo in 'The Times' suggested that capital punishment should be re-introduced in English schools. My father's riposte (alas, not selected) was that it was too good for them.:D
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
However (with one bound, Jack was free) Britain might have the advantage (as in the (1920s and 1930s) of air power in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, I could see British, Persian and Indian interests joined, in keeping Russia out. The Afghan government might find British air power welcome. Pakistan would be the wild card - the Kashmir problem might call for British 'influence'.
I'd say India would be more the wild card than Pakistan. Firstly because Pakistan is actually a member of the Baghdad Pact and has a massive interest in seeing Afghanistan stay Soviet-free, especially given Moscow's not-so-secret desire to gain access to warm water ports.

India, on the other hand, is not a member of the Baghdad Pact and is far more concerned over Chinese than the Soviets cavorting about the Hindu Kush, especially given the Sino-Soviet split and the warming in Soviet-Indian relations during the Cold War.

Also there's the fact that India was very close and immensely supportive of Nasser's regime and offered to mediate the conflict. In fact, Egyptian-Indian closeness was one of the reasons why their offer was rebuffed. If the Suez War ends in a Tripartite victory, you can expect India to be mighty pissed for a good long while. If anybody's going to resent a rebirth of European interventionism, especially against openly anti-imperialist nations, it's going to be India.
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Kashmir is probably what would end up revealing the Baghdad Pact to be a paper tiger, since the British and Americans are not going to be willing to alienate the Indians even more. CENTO might fare better ITTL if Pakistan isn't a member.

Focusing on a Black September equivalent. Jordan is an even bigger pressure cooker in this timeline with more British support for the government and more Palestinians in Jordan if it holds onto the West Bank. You could see a much more protracted and messier Black September equivalent. Syria and Israel could be bogged down trying to intervene in a Jordanian civil war, assuming Syria still goes Ba'athist and Israel still has that military capability and isn't reigned in by the UK/US in this timeline. Israel may have little choice but to intervene if the PLO (or its equivalent) is spilling over the border in even greater numbers than OTL and using Israel as a staging point in a Jordanian civil war, in an ironic inversion of OTL.

Iraq could even be involved, provided it's still in the British camp by that point. Alternatively, the Syrians may have helped the Ba'athists seize power in Iraq and avoided a split between the two Ba'ath parties because of the greater threat posed by British influence, thus increasing their cooperation during a Black September equivalent. A successful Suez could put Iraq more unambiguously in the Soviet camp in terms of middle east power plays.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'd be interested to see if Britain can even sustain its dominance over the Middle East as late as the '70s. Honestly, I see the anti-Baghdad Pact backlash occuring in the mid-60s. Or would a longer British hold over the region accelerate events like Black September?

What do you all think?
 
Britain maintained a fairly large influence in the Gulf until 1970 or so. I don't think she had the resources to assume the position the US has, and I don't think even a successful invasion of Egypt is going to go better than the US invasion of Iraq. Invading Egypt will actually cause the rest of the Arab world to become incredibly hostile.

Whilst the Pasha has a point, it's historical and not at the POD and thereafter.

Britain having the sense to strongly influence the Gulf and Suez would have a massive effect on Britain's balance of payments, as oil contracts and profits would go to the City of London rather than Wall Street. That's quite a significant change and could affect Anglo-American relations. The Commonwealth would be an economic power on the world stage, rather than a club of dubious presidential Swiss accounts.

Don't be so hidebound by current events - Iraq and Afghanistan are important currently because of 9/11, so don't think that they're inevitable. Why not assess the effects of America and Britain using Agent Orange on opium poppy fields in the Golden Triangle and Afghanistan, or doing the same to coca plantations in Columbia? That's as likely as a 9/11, with crooks being too ready to produce drugs.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
I'd be interested to see if Britain can even sustain its dominance over the Middle East as late as the '70s. Honestly, I see the anti-Baghdad Pact backlash occuring in the mid-60s. Or would a longer British hold over the region accelerate events like Black September?

What do you all think?

That's rather what I was thinking. Resentment towards British meddling and Jordanian control of the West Bank will greatly accelerate things towards a Black September equivalent. I see it occurring even before OTL 1969-1970 PLO-Israeli war of attrition. Unlike OTL, I don't think the Black September equivalent will require Israeli raids into Jordan to suddenly convince the Jordanians that the PLO equivalent does nothing but bite the hand that feeds it. What's more, why conduct raids from Jordanian territory when the PLO equivalent now has the numbers to capture the Jordanian state? ITTL, Jordan could effectively become 'Palestinian' and make life far more difficult for Israel.

Such a timeline has the potential for the Palestinians ending up far better off in the long run, even if they don't end up retaking Palestine. If they manage to peacefully co-exist, the Israeli-Jordanian relationship might not be that different from OTL, though their roles might be reversed. I suppose the presumed break in the British-Jordanian relationship would mean no more access to British military equipment though.

Alternatively, an existential threat to Israel from a neighbour that Britain could no longer reign in will make Israel more disobediant towards Britain, and soon the whole house of cards of the Pax Britannica in the Middle East falls down.
 
Top