US gives the Ok to Britain, France in the Suez Crisis

DukeofSwabia

What would be the effect of the US either acceding to or diplomatically supporting Britain, France and Israel after the breakout of the conflict. This can be in either true Neutrality (not putting any pressure on either side), covertly backing the coalition, opely backing, or anything in between.

I understand the US would likely need a different President than IKE, but focus on the geopolitical effects over the US domestic effects of a different President.
 

Riain

Banned
The Suez crisis caused a massive loss of confidence in the UK, it directly caused the fall of the PM and major Cabinet reshuffle that put Sandys as Minister of Defence, and therefore the dogmatic 1957 Defence White Paper.

With US not sandbagging the operation the British, French and Israeli governments are able to achieve some sort of acceptable deal with Nasser; not attacking Israel, supporting attacks in Algeria, financing the Aswan dam, supplying Egypt with the arms Nasser wanted, keeping the Canal privately owned etc. As such there would not be a crisis in the UK, the PM would not fall and Cabinet would not be reshuffled.

There would still need to be a major look at Defence in about 1957, but it wouldn't be done in a mood of crisis and defeat by the dogmatic and missile obsessed Sandys, so wouldn't likely be so damaging to Britians aviation industry and defence capabilities.
 

Seandineen

If the US backed the three great nations openly. Nasser, would go. A regency for young Faud? Maybe the prime minister pulls a sadat, two decades earlier?
 

Citycat

Egypt remains in the Western camp, instead of being lost to the USSR for 20+ years. Maybe there would be an earlier Egypt-Israel peace treaty. The Suez Canal wouldn't be closed, which would benefit the West. Eqypt may or may not be better off today if it adopts a free market economy and trades with the West, instead of Nassar's socialism. France might not fall out with the US and remain in the NATO command structure. The UK might support the US in the Vietnam War. Britain was adept at counter-guerilla warfare as they showed in Malaya. This might have benefited the US, although not sure if this would be enough to tip the balance towards the South Vietnamese.
 
Last edited:
theg*ddam*hoi2fan

theg*ddam*hoi2fan

DukeofSwabia said:
What would be the effect of the US either acceding to or diplomatically supporting Britain, France and Israel after the breakout of the conflict. This can be in either true Neutrality (not putting any pressure on either side), covertly backing the coalition, opely backing, or anything in between.

I understand the US would likely need a different President than IKE, but focus on the geopolitical effects over the US domestic effects of a different President.
Click to expand...
This TL had that in its latter chapters, with President MacArthur…

Patton in Korea/MacArthur in the White House

On December 23, 1950, a tragedy occurred in a land that had suffered a tragic six months. Korea, once colonised, now divided, was again a battlefield as the great powers fought for control of East Asia. Having consumed the lives of thousands of soldiers, and untold numbers of local civilians...
www.alternatehistory.com
 

michael1

Depends on the degree of "support". The UK abandoned the plan because the blocking of the canal meant a negative shock to its vulnerable balance of payments and the US vetoed the IMF loan needed to tide it over. Assuming the only change is that the US approves the loan, then the UK, France and Israel occupy the canal zone and Nasser remains in power in Cairo as there is absolutely no evidence that this would lead to a coup against him or his resignation. The UK then faces a guerilla war against the occupation. This is pretty much the position it was in during 1952-54 that it found unsustainable. Eventually the allies either withdraw with similar terms to OTL (but additional loss of life) or they move against Cairo in an attempt to topple Nasser. Best case scenario they catch him, manage to find a stooge to replace him and withdraw. The stooge will then be toppled soon after by angry and resentful nationalists. Worst case they fail to find a stooge who will allow them to withdraw with an agreement better than the one they got in OTL.

Basically it was a really stupid idea for the British (less so for France and Israel as they had other concerns than control of the canal). The only way to retain control over the canal was to occupy the country by force. This had been proved repeatedly since WW1. The only exception was in the short window when it looked like if the British left the Italians/Germans would take over.

Of course, if the US was willing to provide massive financial support such that the Egyptians were to be reconciled to foreign control of the canal then things might be different, but I don't see this happening. An alternative of the US paying for an indefinite occupation of Cairo is even less unlikely (and is likely to be unsustainable anyway, see Algeria and many other examples)
 

paperclipknight

Citycat said:
This might have benefited the US, although not sure if this would be enough to tip the balance towards the South Vietnamese.
Click to expand...
Can’t see much change in the overall result of the war even with British anti guerrilla expertise. However it would likely further benefiting the Britain’s armed forces & defence industry by being involved post a less disastrous (although inevitable) 1957 White Paper:

The RN will likely being supporting USN carrier operations in any British involvement which results in:
  1. Blackburn buccaneer getting high praise after being used as a strike plane due to its ability to fly under SAM/RADAR leading to RAF purchase, export sales & potential of S.3 model, meaning no TSR2
  2. If not already replaced by the SR.177; the Sea Vixen, Scimitar etc will be found to be woefully undercooked for 60’s warfare thus swiftly canned & replaced with either the aforementioned or the F8 Crusader
  3. No 1966 WP as Britain will actually be involved East of Suez so CVA-01 & Type 82’s won’t be canned
  4. Like the Americans, war experience finds dogfighting ability useful and as a result the AFVG/UKVG gets developed as an Anglo-French Bombcat/F-15E with subsequent exports.
  5. Because of points 1) & 4) the Jaguar remains a trainer
And depending on the extent of land operations
  1. The Chieftain doesn’t get issued with abysmal reliability so capitalises on the Leopard export sales it missed out on
  2. Development or Licence production of British attack helicopters
 

TRH

Peg Leg Pom said:
The entire Arab world become Soviet clients/puppets.
Click to expand...

Also, the venture is likely to fail even without the US opposed. For starters, it won't depose Nasser because marching into Cairo to remove him was never part of the plan. The idea was that the bombing campaign and the loss of the canal would lead the Egyptian people to overthrow Nasser themselves. But considering Nasser survived effectively losing the canal in 1967 IOTL, I really don't see that being enough. And bombing campaigns against civilian populations tend to harden their resolve if anything.

So Nasser's not going anywhere. And in the meantime he also called for a "People's War" to harry the French and British in the canal zone, with civilians and soldiers in civilian clothing conducting hit and run attacks, leaving them with the choice of responding aggressively and causing significant civilian casualties in the process (something Eden was plainly terrified of given his micromanagement of the bombing campaign to limit civilian casualties), or reacting sluggishly and bogging down as a result. At best, the operation would be a festering sore point. It wouldn't be a smashing success and it absolutely wouldn't keep Egypt in the West's camp.
 
Gabingston

Gabingston

Is it considered necroing to bring back this thread?
EDIT: Wrong thread, was just reading a thread on Germany's demographics in a no World Wars TL.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Avrorrange said:
Did we not get that outcome anyway except in areas that had monarchies?I don’t think these monarchies will ever go to the Reds.
Click to expand...
The Jordanian monarchy nearly fell a few years after Suez and only survived with British support. Libya fell at the end of the 60's despite British support. With even more anger at the western powers both could fall by the end of the 50's.
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

Peg Leg Pom said:
The Jordanian monarchy nearly fell a few years after Suez and only survived with British support. Libya fell at the end of the 60's despite British support. With even more anger at the western powers both could fall by the end of the 50's.
Click to expand...
Did the collapse of British influence in the region as a consequence of Suez also not lead to a total collapse of pro-British regimes like the Iraqi monarchy in the region?
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

TRH said:
And yet you think the region's other monarchies are bulletproof?
Click to expand...
I meant the ones that didn’t go red IOTL probably wouldn’t go red. The Iraqi monarchy being a foreign imposed polity was always a bit weak and highly dependent on British support.
 
Last edited:

TRH

Avrorrange said:
I meant the ones that didn’t go red IOTL probably would go red.
Click to expand...

That was quite unclear. I thought you were saying the exact opposite, that the ones that didn’t go red IOTL never would, therefore additional reputational damage for the West in the Middle East would be costless.
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

TRH said:
That was quite unclear. I thought you were saying the exact opposite, that the ones that didn’t go red IOTL never would, therefore additional reputational damage for the West in the Middle East would be costless.
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant the ones that didn’t go red iotl wouldn’t go red. Can’t really see the Gulf oil states going red. A successful intervention might also serve as a deterrent. The message of the Suez was that the West could be beaten.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top