Suez: What if Eden Ignores Ike?

[MickCz]

Already answered with a bit of RTL history and economics. Britain was actually a hindrance to US objectives.

BTW. ..the USA has both a trade and fiscal deficit...it needs financing by others buying it's debt.
The position is unsustainable long term...hence Trump's seeking to address the trade deficit by tariffs. The USA cannot afford to be the world's consumer of last resort. It grew powerful by protectionism...incidentally also one of the causes of the Civil War...

 

[McPherson]

Again is this the same CAS that would be rendered next to useless for the same reason as above?

I tell you what . . . come back when you've looked at a map of the Falklands . . . and read the ROE regarding the conflict!

??? The Harrier has standoff.

Also you should have used Black Buck that way?

IOW, I am aware of what could have and should have been done. Assertions to the contrary. YMMV. Mine does not.

 

[McPherson]

BTW. ..the USA has both a trade and fiscal deficit...it needs financing by others buying it's debt.
The position is unsustainable long term...hence Trump's seeking to address the trade deficit by tariffs. The USA cannot afford to be the world's consumer of last resort. It grew powerful by protectionism...incidentally also one of the causes of the Civil War...

The US has had such for much of her history. So what? Creditor/Debtor international trade is something that forms a kind of mutual suicide pact if you are a dependent importer. The US is a self contained economic unit. I believe I mentioned this already?

 

[McPherson]

A hindrance or not, the USA wanted Britain to stay East of Suez; the policy in the 60s had changed from that of the 50s....and yes, because of the Vietnam morass: Darby..British Defence Policy East of Suez 1946-1968..Oxford University Press.

I prefer Amy Hawkins. She has a better grasp of the RTL situation.

 

[MickCz]

The US has had such for much of her history. So what? Creditor/Debtor international trade is something that forms a kind of mutual suicide pact if you are a dependent importer. The US is a self contained economic unit. I believe I mentioned this already?

Yes...the USA could be a self contained unit...but isn't! And no...you didn't!
The obvious thing for it to do is become one....it has become energy self sufficient...but with regard to manufactured goods very far from....to the detriment of the American blue collar worker.. .a large proportion of the electorate.

It will need to give up its imperial ambitions. Global hegemony is not possible...even for the USA.
Prior to Trump the USA was following the British Empire (actually it wasn't an Empire ...it was a trading system...read Addison...) down the road to hell...err...decline.
Obliged for your reference to Amy Hawkins...I will read with interest...
Incidentally, I am not trying to turn this into a Britwank. ..but I think the British ruling class, and it was/is a class, made a bloody mess of things.
Britain could /should have made a better fist of things.
It is sad to see the USA following the same path...

 

[WILDGEESE]

1. The water is too shallow and easy to clear at Choiseul and if you didn't plan for the mundane, you've no business being there.
2. At Choiseul Sound? By helicopter. I said so.

Well done . . . you magically moved Choiseul Sound which is nowhere near Stanley Airfield. The said airfield that you said should be taken!

3. If you had not prepared for SEAD, you've no business being there.

You mean the same SEAD, artillery, air support and NGS that would be rendered next to useless due to the fact that the Argies moved their weapons into Stanley itself, in between homes knowing full well that British forces wouldn't attack for fear of injuring or killing Falkland Islanders?

4. You mean land based Exocet? WTH are you doing with your CAS?

Again you mean the same CAS that would be rendered useless for the same reason as above?

I'll tell you what come back later when you've looked at a map of the Falklands and studied the ROE of the conflict!

 

[WILDGEESE]

??? The Harrier has standoff.

I'll ask again

How do you expect this CAS (stand off or not) to work when the Argie's have based their weapons between civilian buildings and avoid injuring or even killing civilians?

Also you should have used Black Buck that way?

Same question again!

Unlike you own nation us Brit's are not the type to go in and just 'mallet' everything to a pulp just for the sake of taking out one man.

You do know that there's the UN to think about in regards to the conduct of waging war?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Your own people admit what I wrote. So maybe the reading is not needed on my end.


McP.

When does Adm Parry say that the LZ was wrong?

I actually watched it yesterday (and have just watched it again) and I did not recall him once criticising the choice of LZ in fact at 36 mins he gives the main reason for landing at San Carlos

He did mention the problems associated with it but it's a littoral battle the issue with Aircraft being able to attack from over land was never going to change wherever they landed on East Falklands.

At the end of the day I would trust Gen Moore's opinion and choice over yours!

I have to ask what LZ would you have chosen?

 

[MickCz]

I prefer Amy Hawkins. She has a better grasp of the RTL situation.

Yes...read the Amy Hawkins article...bit thin on academic analysis...long on emotional monologue...

 

[Dan1988]

I have re-read the article. It specifically states that it is probable that if the British had pressed on and Nasser removed, and the USA been presented with a fait accomplit US interests would have dictated acquiescence in the outcome.

Whilst obviously speculation, one presumes the author had studied the position and come to a rational conclusion. The points I made therefore stand.

Then, if the US was smart they'd use the CIA to back Nasser up to retaking power, and maybe even relenting on the conditions for the Aswan Dam. In that case Nasser could be the "good ally" akin to what some could have wished Fidel Castro could have been and what Mexico under the PRI had become. The Egyptian people would not stand for having their government overthrown even if the British thought otherwise. So something would have to give there considering how unpopular Faruq's regime was.

 

[Riain]

Britain had consistently failed to meet the troop limits from at least 1945 until they actually withdrew. Egypt was entirely within its right to nationalise what was a company incorporated under Egyptian law, especially as it promised compensation to shareholders. Its limits on Israeli shipping was arguably justifiable as it was at war with Israel just as Britain stopped some shipping using the canal during the world wars (although this is debatable and I'm not a lawyer). The original canal concession was only for 99 years to a company registered under Egyptian law, expiring in 1968, so transferring control back to the Egyptian government in 1968 wasn't a concession by the UK. For comparison the US Panama canal agreement was originally indefinite and gave the US lots of rights that the UK just didn't have, so that handing the Panama canal over was a concession.

Britain justified the operation by reference to the right to ensure free passage through the canal in response to the Israel invasion. This fooled nobody and the operation was almost universally condemned as a transparent infringement of Egyptian sovereignty and international agreements in an attempt to assert British (and French) power over the Egyptian government.

I don't doubt any of the legalities you point out, however I will point out that Nasser was playing with the big boys and the big boys don't take kindly to being fucked around. While Britain and France overreached with the US, Nasser certainly overreached by causing an alliance of great powers against him.

 

[MickCz]

Then, if the US was smart they'd use the CIA to back Nasser up to retaking power, and maybe even relenting on the conditions for the Aswan Dam. In that case Nasser could be the "good ally" akin to what some could have wished Fidel Castro could have been and what Mexico under the PRI had become. The Egyptian people would not stand for having their government overthrown even if the British thought otherwise. So something would have to give there considering how unpopular Faruq's regime was.

So...the USA backs Egypt under a populist, nationalist leader against a major NATO ally...Surely this is the catalyst for all sorts of popular nationalism which the USA doesn't want...Korea, Vietnam, Middle East oil states...the ramifications are unpredictable.
No...the USA got it right for its contemporary policy; Britain brought to heel..and then helped financially...

 

[michael1]

I don't doubt any of the legalities you point out, however I will point out that Nasser was playing with the big boys and the big boys don't take kindly to being fucked around. While Britain and France overreached with the US, Nasser certainly overreached by causing an alliance of great powers against him.

From what happened in the OTL it's pretty clear to me that he didn't overreach, but judged the balance of forces and world opinion correctly as regards Britain and France (although not necessarily Israel)

 

[sendô]

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.

You've written an awful lot of anti-British rubbish in this thread - supposedly about Suez - mainly about the Falklands, a conflict which for all the diplomatic failings pre-conflict was surprisingly well fought by a nation supposedly no longer capable of out of area lone action, for someone who doesn't have an anti British chip.

Especially the absurd suggestion that San Carlos water was a terrible choice for a landing at that court martials should have ensued - despite the fact that no key ships (landing craft) were lost, and that the British were able to unload the RM, the Paras and their weaponry without being counter attacked - you know, the most important things in a landing.

I think you need to go away and read some actual history on the Falklands War. Max Hastings wrote a particularly good book in 1983 - and yes, he was actually there.

 

[MickCz]

You've written an awful lot of anti-British rubbish in this thread - supposedly about Suez - mainly about the Falklands, a conflict which for all the diplomatic failings pre-conflict was surprisingly well fought by a nation supposedly no longer capable of out of area lone action, for someone who doesn't have an anti British chip.

Especially the absurd suggestion that San Carlos water was a terrible choice for a landing at that court martials should have ensued - despite the fact that no key ships (landing craft) were lost, and that the British were able to unload the RM, the Paras and their weaponry without being counter attacked - you know, the most important things in a landing.

I think you need to go away and read some actual history on the Falklands War. Max Hastings wrote a particularly good book in 1983 - and yes, he was actually there.

Yes, Eden and Suez was rather hijacked by Falklands and Thatcher.
The former was an utter cock up politically, not militarily....the latter being a success on both counts.
The Reagan /Thatcher relationship was the right place, right time for the UK....and the West generally...and of course Gorbachev was equally important.
It's a pity those giants have been succeeded by such little people...