The outcome would have been, beside US economic pressure, was the Oil embargo. With Suez closed from wrecks, Persian Gulf Oil had a longer trip to make, and in the interim, the US wasn't selling the UK oil to make up that deficit. It seems the Dutch weren't helping, either
Suez: What if Eden Ignores Ike?
An excellent point. I know that Britain had not protected it's financial position as France did; I doubt if there were stockpiles of oil...but I don't know. Does anyone have statistics on this to hand?
Wasn't petrol rationing re-introduced for a while?
Ramontxo
Donor
Ejem if you don't mean the Fuerza Aerea Argentina or the Fleet Air Arm you must mean the RAF Black Buck operations...
Ejem if you don't mean the Fuerza Aerea Argentina or the Fleet Air Arm you must mean the RAF Black Buck operations...
Nope; I mean the guys who flew those Skyhawks, Super Entendards and Mirages. At the extreme limit of strike radius and I mean as in BINGO with only 2 minutes NRTB status over San Carlos in those 1950s Skyhawks and early 1960s era derated French aircraft and they still came on like they were Japanese. The Black Buck was a notable RAF achievement in that it supposedly suppressed the Stanley runway, but it was a stunt, as in not essential. And it failed.
1. The US does not need ME oil or finance. Europe does.
2. You are joking about Vietnam? The US operated across the PACIFIC with her SLOCs. The British were a big fat zero in that calculus.
McP.
Last edited:
Ramontxo
Donor
Sorry, it was a joke as both th RN air arm and the Argentina Republic air force are both the FAA I concur in the Black Buck being essentially a public relations op...
There were plenty of rebellions by Ireland, India, etc. before Suez that failed. A national uprising does not guarantee a win.
I suspect the native Americans, as well as Mexico, would strongly disagree.
I have already introduced Shrodinger's pigeon.
This time, the pigeon is the UK. It all depends on the relative point of view. IOW Ireland, India, and the native Americans do not factor into the UK being packed off by the Franco-American alliance originally and the Americans subsequently having developed an animus against European imperialist powers as part of their geopolitical viewpoint and national historic strategic vision. You think Lincoln and Palmerston saw eye to eye? What about Lloyd George and Wilson? How about FDR and Churchill? How about Eisenhower and Eden? You see the trends clearly? US interests were in conflict with UK interests in each case and the US acted strictly in its viewpoint and UK interests were not considered at all.
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
Nope; I mean the guys who flew those Skyhawks, Super Entendards and Mirages. At the extreme limit of strike radius and I mean as in BINGO with only 2 minutes NRTB status over San Carlos in those 1950s Skyhawks and early 1960s era derated French aircraft and they still came on like they were Japanese. The Black Buck was a notable RAF achievement in that it supposedly suppressed the Stanley runway, but it was a stunt, as in not essential. And it failed.
1. The US does not need ME oil or finance. Europe does.
2. You are joking about Vietnam? The US operated across the PACIFIC with her SLOCs. The British were a big fat zero in that calculus.
McP.
Failed . . . in what way?
Did it stop the airfield being resupplied . . . of course not.
Did it force the FAA to station it's best jets on the mainland in case the RAF decided to bomb their homeland . . . yes . . . so it didn't fail on that aim!
As for your saying
2. You are joking about Vietnam? The US operated across the PACIFIC with her SLOCs. The British were a big fat zero in that calculus.
You do know the the USMC and the RM have two different doctrines regarding their operations?
The USMC have to do everything top to bottom and are required to take beach heads that are heavily defended.
The RM are where expected at the time to land troops on a lightly even undefended beach as part of a larger NATO led operation.
So again your points are invalid.
I think you need to take your anti Brit 'chip' off your shoulder and read some material regarding the Falklands.
"The Royal Navy & The Falklands War" by David Brown
"The Razors Edge" By Hugh Bicheno
"100 Days" by Sandy Woodward RN
These should suffice.
Err....the ME buys US Tbonds with the dollars from the sale of oil and thus supports the Petrodollar. China also holds huge amounts of US debt but has recently been selling....Obviously it won't want the dollar to crash...Nope; I mean the guys who flew those Skyhawks, Super Entendards and Mirages. At the extreme limit of strike radius and I mean as in BINGO with only 2 minutes NRTB status over San Carlos in those 1950s Skyhawks and early 1960s era derated French aircraft and they still came on like they were Japanese. The Black Buck was a notable RAF achievement in that it supposedly suppressed the Stanley runway, but it was a stunt, as in not essential. And it failed.
1. The US does not need ME oil or finance. Europe does.
2. You are joking about Vietnam? The US operated across the PACIFIC with her SLOCs. The British were a big fat zero in that calculus.
McP.
Yes the British refused to send troops to Vietnam...not even the proverbial company of Black Watch but the USA certainly did not want Britain to withdraw from East of Suez...
Did not disable the runway.
You are making my argument for me.
Stanley did not have the runway length to operate Mirages. So that claim is bogus.
As for your saying
This has nothing to do with your claim that the US needed the UK operating east of Suez to make it possible for the US to operate in Vietnam. If nothing else the 1972 Arab Israeli was and the India Pakistan war shows that your statement is not factual. The US stood off a Soviet bluff, knocked heads together in those two wars was in the midst of sacking a President and still operated in Vietnam.
The USMC is not that stupid. They try to use misdirection and a bit of sleight of hand (Inchon) many times. The only time head on assault into defended beach frontage is used is when the immediate URGENT objective is the airfield and the fleet cannot risk sitting duck time on station. THEN you see the bum's rush to grab the airfield at all costs.
See what I wrote about the USMC.
Not a Brit chip. Just a "objective look" as a non-British observer at a bungled military operation that should not have had to be so harem scarem or even necessary with a little forethought.
I've read them. WHY do you think I know where to pick this operation apart?
Radars, were not well used, SAM coverage was not optimum, fleet air defense doctrine was wrong, ASW was wrong, SAS operations were laid on by maniacs who were clueless about helo limits and the weather they would face, and planning for bad luck was not factored at all into the operation since an Atlantic Conveyor mission critical fail should never have occurred (Split the loads so you have something of the airlift lost surviving.). The San Carlos mistake is minor when all of it is added up.
About the only thing from my PoV that was well done is the British use of subs. THAT was well done.
McP.
Last edited:
Petrodollar. The ME needs US credit. And I've already answered that other. (^^^).
Why do we keep getting these threads, where people not only seem to think Anglo-French success at Suez was possible, but that it was the least bit desirable? When your main justification for something is tu quoque, which is what I've seen in this incarnation, you know you're advocating something wrong, you just wish it could be done anyways out of pride or stubbornness.
Simple answer to the original question: the UK goes bankrupt and ceases being a significant international economic or political player about 15 years earlier than actually happened, conceivable oil stockpiles are largely irrelevant.
In the period 1945-1968 (and beyond) the pound was continually experiencing exchange rate crises, there was one about every 2-3 years. There were a couple of reasons for this this. Firstly there was the issue of sterling balances: the British had paid for lots of stuff in pounds during WW2 (a privilege they got from the sterling area), so many countries had large amounts of sterling which would be converted into other currencies if there was any threat of sterling devaluation. These were valued at about £3.5bn in 1945 (about 35% of GDP) and are completely separate from the debt owed to the US (which was in $). Originally this money was owed to countries like India, Egypt and Argentina, largely poor countries which would bitterly resent being defaulted on by a wealthy country. The second factor was that the UK typically ran its economy slightly too hot, with unemployment slightly too low and inflation slightly too high. Whilst possibly good in the short run, this meant that, combined with a fixed exchange rate, UK goods became increasingly overpriced and the British were unable to export enough to run the current account surplus needed to pay off the sterling balances, instead what tended to happen was that some countries got repaid by borrowing from others and the holders of sterling increasingly became Middle Eastern Oil exporters.
So why does this affect the Suez crisis? Currency crises are not linear events, they happen like a bank run, if nobody else wants to convert their money from £ into say $ then you can get your money, but if everyone tries to do it at once then only those at the front of the queue will get their money, giving rise to self fulfilling prophecies. It was exactly such a crisis that suez triggered: trouble in the middle east threatened to raise the global price of oil, the blocking of the Suez canal would raise the price of a large share of British imports and exports (not just oil), military mobilization would reduce UK exports. All of these would threaten the UKs balance of payments so people ran to be at the front of the queue without the US needing to do anything. Just like with a bank run, in a temporary currency crisis the solution is for a lender of last resort to loan you the money to tide you over, this is the IMFs role. An IMF loan would need US approval and it is here that the US was critical. The US didn't need to do anything to force the UK to stop, mere inaction was enough. France didn't have the issue of large quantities of francs being held by foreigners, so France wasn't as vulnerable as the UK to US displeasure.
Once the UK agreed to stop the operation an IMF loan was fairly rapidly agreed. The alternative in 1956 was for Britain to default on its debts to foreigners on a large scale, ending its position as a global economic/political power far more decisively than happened OTL (plus ending its close relationship with the US, possibly forever). Going back before 1956, if the UK had run larger balance of payments surpluses (and stored them either as foreign exchange reserves or possibly in the form of oil) from 1945 it might not have been in the same position, but to make a significant dent in the sterling balances this would have meant (over most of 1945-56 at least) higher unemployment and a lower standard of living, which given rationing continued until 1954 in OTL was fairly unthinkable at the time.
This is assuming that Suez was a good idea in any case, even setting aside the moral dimension. The best plausible scenario is one where a successful operation would merely have returned the British to the pre-1954 position, i.e. fighting an unsustainable static guerilla war in the canal zone. The British (and French) simply underestimated the strength of Egyptian nationalism.
WILDGEESE
Gone Fishin'
Reread my post . . . I never said anything about that.
Again re-read my post . . . I stated that the USMC is capable of doing that . . . the RM isn't. I didn't state that they would want to.
Bogus claim . . . again re-read my post. I never stated that the Black Bucks stopped FAA jets operating from Stanley. I stated that Black Bucks stopped the best FAA jets from engaging RN/RAF aircraft due to defending the mainland from a possible Black Buck strike.
My claim . . . what claim?? . . . yet again re-read my post . . . . I've never made any claim about Suez . . . I was replying to your absurd quotes about the Falkland conflict!
Well! . . . in that case I suggest you re-read them again to correct your views.
With your miss-quoting of my posts you're coming across as having a slight case of dyslexia!
What measures could Britain have undertaken during the 3 month lead-up to the fighting to better withstand this level of financial pressure?
I've seen a number of justifications for Suez from Britain, France and Israel. IIRC Israel was looking to go to war with Egypt over fedayeen raids and Egypt harassing Israeli shipping in the canal, France over control of the canal and Egyptian support of Algerian rebels and Britain for control of the canal and Egyptian opposition to the Baghdad Pact. Eliminating these things is desirable for the 3 parties, regardless of whether going to war in the way it was done IOTL is the best way to go about.
But those grievances re: Egyptian raids and harassment are never cited by the OPs of these threads. They just British control of the Canal to continue. Or, more cynically, for Britain and France to successfully spite the US in this matter, regardless of the larger consequences.
MickCZ said it, and it was addressed to him.
Not the point. The Royal Marines and associated British forces did not operate in a situation that demanded they be mindful that SPEED of execution to seize the airfield was what mattered. What they did showed that they did not understand at all what they were supposed to do. The airfield is the terminus of an air bridge and it is a potential launch pad for Pucara CAS against the operation. This is not GALIPOLI, this is assaulting an island with an AIRBASE.
And since both the RAF and the Argentine air force knew:
1. British threat of strike via Vulcans was nonexistent. (18 hours flight into an air force with modern radar and decent fighters without British fighter escort or SEAD within reach? AYK?)
2. British bombing of the Argentine metropole means war with the United States and the OAS, (Yes, that was what Washington told London, when Thatcher asked Reagan about it, the Americans South and North have a treaty about that thing.)
3. If you cannot base a Mirage on East Island because the runway length is too short (and the Argentines wanted too, Black Buck had nothing to do with the impossibility which is the main reason) it was nonsensical that you claimed Black Buck would be the reason they did not.
4. Finally it took everything the RAF had to mount these paltry raids. And they achieved NOTHING.
MickCZ said it, and it was addressed to him.
Your own people admit what I wrote. So maybe the reading is not needed on my end.
I'm not the one with that problem.
McP.
Found someone to lend them at least £2+bn on a long term basis, but this would be so transparent as to be impossible for the reasons nobody was willing to lend them the money on a short term basis during the crisis, plus it would destroy the cover story of intervention to separate Egypt and Israel. Plausible effective measure would either mean a different economic policy going back at least to the Conservatives returning to office (probably even earlier), or getting US support somehow.
Nasser could have talked to France and that should have been the approach. Israel and the UK? Forget it. Too much baggage in that mail car.