Suez What-if

MrHola

Banned
In 1956 Britain, France and Israel responded to Nassar's nationalization and restriction of the Suez Canal by attacking Egypt. Britain and France wanted the Canal back, and Israel did not want Nassar in a postion to buy more arms from Canal revenues.

The Eisenhower Administration reacted to this by demanding that Britain, France and Isreal cease the attack and withdraw from the Canal area. Here is the WI. Suppose Britain and France refuse the demand of the US and succeed in wresting control of the Canal from Nassar.

What happens? How might the US respond to this refusal? Could the US do anything to force the matter? If not, the Canal is no longer in Egyptian hands, but is put under the control of an Authority which is friendly to the British and the French. What are the long term consequences of this refusal?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, Eisenhower later said that his refusal to back the British and the French at Suez was the greatest foreign policy blunder of his presidency. Perhaps a better WI would be one in which Eisenhower gives tacit permission to the British and the French to go forward.

Butif he calls on them to withdraw and they refuse, we have serious problems of unity within NATO.
 
The biggest difference I could see arising from a successful Suez is Britain willing to play power politics and willing to pay the price of power. Of course Britian will be eventually overpowered as a player by the superpowers, but if they decided not to withdraw from the game they could play a larger part for longer.

I could see CVA 01 & 02 being built, TSR2 or something like it going into production, extensive high end military exports to the Mid East through the 60s supporting a larger British military-industrial complex. This extra generation of influence could have large effects on the Cold War.
 
Didn't the US have Britain by the balls over loans or something? I think Eisenhower may withdraw economic aid to the UK if they choose to ignore his demands.
 
Didn't the US have Britain by the balls over loans or something? I think Eisenhower may withdraw economic aid to the UK if they choose to ignore his demands.
No, not economic aid, I don't think Britain was receiving economic aid from the United States when the Suez Crisis happened.

Eisenhower threatened to sell the US' pound sterling reserves which would've caused a collapse of the pound sterling and the British economy.
 
The biggest difference I could see arising from a successful Suez is Britain willing to play power politics and willing to pay the price of power. Of course Britian will be eventually overpowered as a player by the superpowers, but if they decided not to withdraw from the game they could play a larger part for longer.

I could see CVA 01 & 02 being built, TSR2 or something like it going into production, extensive high end military exports to the Mid East through the 60s supporting a larger British military-industrial complex. This extra generation of influence could have large effects on the Cold War.

The British economy was going into decline, I don't see how spending more money on empire building would slow this down. All this would do is drive a wedge between themselves and their greatest benefactor, the United States, and weaken Nato.

The Soviets used the incident to claim the moral highground in OTL. In this scenario they stand to gain a great deal more prestige in the Middle East. The whole region would be drawn closer to the East Bloc. What's to prevent Nasser from hosting Soviet airbases and naval ports in Egypt, or Libya and Algeria from doing the same? How much "control" of the Suez would the British and French have when Soviet naval ships have home ports in the Med and Red Sea?

It would only be a matter of time before the Soviets armed Egypt well enough to make a foreign occupation of the canal untenable. All they need to do is mine it and shoot at mine sweepers. No merchant shipping is going to want to sail through that gauntlet.

Eisenhower was prepared to use the US Navy to cut British and French access to Egypt. Had this happened there would be no way they could continue their operation, and this is why they quit. But if it really had to go that far, then Nato unity would be in ruins.
 

MrHola

Banned
But what if Eisenhower backs off, deciding that the whole Suez debacle isn't worth ruining America's relations with it's closest allies?
 
A serious factor in the leadup to Suez was British power politiking in the Mid East. Nasser wanted to buy arms (big ticket stuff like jets fighters and tanks) from Britain in 1955 and Britain, being the player it was at the time, attached strings to any deal that Egypt must cease public opposition to the Britsh backed 'Baghdad Pact', a plan to firm up a Britsh backed anti Soviet bloc centred on Iraq. Nasser wanted to be the centre of gravity in the ME, not Iraq, so he rejected these condition and eventually wound up buying MiG 15s from the Soviets through the Chzechs. This was the Soviets initial foothold in the Mid East.

So when 'Britain the player' decided that Nasser needs putting back in his box they gathered a couple of allies to spread the risk/cost and confidently waded in. The failure at the hands of the US was a major setback in British confidence. They stoped being a player, their plans in the region failed due to their loss of prestige, they stopped pulling strings and putting conditions on arms exports to benefit British interests. The ME became of market for everyone other than the Brits.

If they had succeeded the ME would have been a British power-political playground for another decade at least. The Baghdad pact would have come to fruition, using British experience and finesse in dealing with 'clients' to do what the US does with economic power. The ME would become awash with high end British armaments, Lightnings, Cheiftans etc. and supported by British companies and military advisors, whose support would conditional on these clients going in the general direction of British policy.

At home it would be decided that to continue the reap the benefits of world leadership (Britain's exports to the Mid East and favourable importing terms help kick along the Brit economy post Suez) the money must be allocated to maintian a power projection capability. The govt, without the loss of confidence of OTL Suez, leaves the aircraft industry alone, and their booming export industry in the late 50s keeps them healthy and happy anyway. The RAF issues AST339, and the first TSR2 enters RAF service in 1968 and RAAF in 1969, entering combat in Vietnam in 1970. So on and so forth.....
 
Top