Suppose after the Suez Crisis Britain turned more to Europe and away from the USA

In 1956 Britain was the key player in the Mid East not the US. One background reason for Suez was because Nasser opposed the British led Baghdad Pact, he didn't want the Mid East centre of gravity moving from Cairo to Baghdad. If the both sides dug in their heels Britain and France could default on their loans and go back to being independent powers, and then where would the US be? There is nothing set in stone about economic dependence on the US, it was done because it suited all parties and was easy.


You don't get it, not only would they be pissing off the biggest economic power in the world, they would also be pissing off everybody else too, even the Canadians were pissed, Saudi Arabia cut off oil to both countries, and nobody wanted to make up the difference by increasing oil shipments, including other NATO members. This is aside from the fact that defaulting on federal debt would effectively ruin their ability to deal with other countries financially, and if the US pulled backing of the pound it would effectively destroy british domestic policy. The welfare state would have been aborted in the womb, long before the thatcherites came into being. It would be political suicide for the Eden government at the very least.
 

Typo

Banned
In 1956 Britain was the key player in the Mid East not the US. One background reason for Suez was because Nasser opposed the British led Baghdad Pact, he didn't want the Mid East centre of gravity moving from Cairo to Baghdad. If the both sides dug in their heels Britain and France could default on their loans and go back to being independent powers, and then where would the US be? There is nothing set in stone about economic dependence on the US, it was done because it suited all parties and was easy.
I don't think you understand how severe defaulting on loans is.

Why do France and UK benefit from building their own power block at this point, even if it's viable?
 
wow, there's quite a lot of posts on this :p

Personally, I would see a greater Western European co-operation and a bigger drive for economical independence from the USA. I can't help but feel that its likely that a more federalised European Europe would be created in light of the new situation.
 
wow, there's quite a lot of posts on this :p

Personally, I would see a greater Western European co-operation and a bigger drive for economical independence from the USA. I can't help but feel that its likely that a more federalised European Europe would be created in light of the new situation.

kaeim

I think its quite likely. If the US hostility had been even more extreme in its reaction you might have given Britain no choice but to look for another way. Defaulting on debt is unlikely but Britain could have made some other policy changes to reduce its expenditure and put more effort into supporting its own economy. Both sides would be hurt in the short term but standing up to the US on such a matter might revitalise British national identity. Plus if push came to shove would Eisenhower really stab his most important ally in the back because it stood up to a 3rd world dictator who had attacked an important western interest?

In terms of the political difficulties what if the allies stick with the initial plan of going straight for Cairo and deposing Nasser rather than the rather idiotic approach of leaving Egypt and its resources largely untouched and just going to drive the Egyptians back from the canal. You could see a much shorter and more successful conflict in which case other Arab nations would probably keep a low profile rather than jumping on the bandwagon when the allies made a mess of it.

As for DeGaulle possibly you get things developing as OTL but the extremists assassination attempt succeeds. Or if Britain and France has started building up a European bloc with some economic and political success then there is no interest in him going ultra-nationalist. To a degree this was probably more objecting to American domination of the alliance and a close Anglo-French bloc coming from a dispute over Suez would mean his hostility would be solely directed towards the US.

Steve
 
France and England won't be enjoying economic success if Eisenhower makes it official policy of the US to withdraw from NATO in ten years, as he stated the US should have done by 1970.

Now they have to launch an arms build-up adequate to make up for the loss of the US(and Canada most likely) which they probably can not do unless they lift all restrictions or at least all conventional restrictions on Germany and Italy.


stevep, you mean, why would Eisenhower knife in the back the British, French, Israelis AND the Hungarians(in a different but simultaneous crisis) over Nassar, exactly as he did OTL?:confused:
 
Steve, allow me to take issue with the errors in your statement.

Ahem...when I actually find any errors to take issue with.:eek:





Ol' Ike managed to royally screw the pooch in 1956.:(
 
Top