WI: Anglo - French Victory in the Suez Crisis

[Emperor Palpatine]

In OTL, the British decision to withdraw implicitly meant that France had to withdraw as well since this was a British eld operation and air superiority depended on the use of British airfields in Cyprus. What forced Britain to agree to a pullout was US refusal to provide loans or oil and Britain at the time couldn't get any oil from the Middle East because Nasser had blocked the canal.

In light of the above, what if Eden ignores US pressure and has Anglo - French forces push on and capture the Canal. The task force can then clear it for British shipping to pass through. This means Middle Eastern oil can flow through the canal to Britain and ease pressure on the pound. I'm aware that some of the Arab oil states had imposed an oil embargo on Britain, however, not all of them had so in the event of a British recapture of the canal there would be oil coming through.

 

[TFSmith121]

Then Britain is bankrupt and can't afford to sustain

In OTL, the British decision to withdraw implicitly meant that France had to withdraw as well since this was a British eld operation and air superiority depended on the use of British airfields in Cyprus. What forced Britain to agree to a pullout was US refusal to provide loans or oil and Britain at the time couldn't get any oil from the Middle East because Nasser had blocked the canal.

In light of the above, what if Eden ignores US pressure and has Anglo - French forces push on and capture the Canal. The task force can then clear it for British shipping to pass through. This means Middle Eastern oil can flow through the canal to Britain and ease pressure on the pound. I'm aware that some of the Arab oil states had imposed an oil embargo on Britain, however, not all of them had so in the event of a British recapture of the canal there would be oil coming through.

Then Britain is bankrupt and can't afford to sustain itself, much less an occupation force fighting a nationalist insurgency in Egypt.

Other than that, great plan.

Best,

 

[TRH]

The whole thing proves immensely unpopular, and Eden's government falls. It's just not gonna work, there's no feasible endgame.

 

[oudi14]

What if Eisenhower tells John Foster Dulles to throw himself under a bus, and the gives full support to the invasion? I know they were right at the cusp of an election, but I would think the average American voter at the time could have cared less about being nice to Nasser and Egypt. Plus the world was already all freaked out about Hungary.

 

[TFSmith121]

Kind of difficult to argue Hungary as unwarranted aggression

What if Eisenhower tells John Foster Dulles to throw himself under a bus, and the gives full support to the invasion? I know they were right at the cusp of an election, but I would think the average American voter at the time could have cared less about being nice to Nasser and Egypt. Plus the world was already all freaked out about Hungary.

Kind of difficult to argue Hungary as unwarranted aggression and accept MUSKETEER, isn't it?

In addition, the US knew the British and French couldn't manage an occupation, and the Egyptians were going to, and did, fight.

Plus, Eisenhower had seen the measure of both the British and French in 1942-45 ... he knew they couldn't do it.

Given the political dynamics of the Cold War in the 1950s, the British and French had nowhere to turn; the Arab world did, and there was a chance of keeping the Arab nationalists non-alligned, if not allied. Telling the British and French to accept reality was worth that chance.

Best,

 

[Zheng He]

What is the status of British drilling for North Sea oil at the time. Were they not getting much from that source yet?

 

[TFSmith121]

Not until 10 years later

What is the status of British drilling for North Sea oil at the time. Were they not getting much from that source yet?

Not until ten years later. The first gas wells came in in '65 and oil wasn't found until 1969.

The same amount of money spent on MUSKETEER would have paid much dividends in the North Sea.

Best,

 

[Ingsoc]

Then Britain is bankrupt and can't afford to sustain itself, much less an occupation force fighting a nationalist insurgency in Egypt.

Other than that, great plan.

Best,

Well, in answer the OP's question, Britain France and Israel did win the Suez battle. A very complex set of circumstances, and everything came off without a hitch - legitimately impressive. The aftermath, however...

Ok, I don't buy that Eisenhower would have burned his NATO allies. He threatened, sure, but I doubt he'd have done it. I know he wasn't into empire and had elections round the corner, but push come to shove I doubt he'd have done it.

The bigger problem is that it was seen as a grasping war of aggression in both Britain and France at the time. The fact they backed down in the face of American threats only added insult and humiliation to what would have been perceived as an underhanded, shameful victory had it have come off.
Also, I'm going from memory here but didn't Macmillan exaggerate the immediacy of the Sterling crisis Britain faced to usher Eden to the door and himself into Number 10?

 

[TFSmith121]

The British and French were barely ashore at Port Said

Well, in answer the OP's question, Britain France and Israel did win the Suez battle. A very complex set of circumstances, and everything came off without a hitch - legitimately impressive. The aftermath, however...

Ok, I don't buy that Eisenhower would have burned his NATO allies. He threatened, sure, but I doubt he'd have done it. I know he wasn't into empire and had elections round the corner, but push come to shove I doubt he'd have done it.

The bigger problem is that it was seen as a grasping war of aggression in both Britain and France at the time. The fact they backed down in the face of American threats only added insult and humiliation to what would have been perceived as an underhanded, shameful victory had it have come off.
Also, I'm going from memory here but didn't Macmillan exaggerate the immediacy of the Sterling crisis Britain faced to usher Eden to the door and himself into Number 10?

The British and French were barely ashore at Port Said and the mobile forces didn't even control of third of the length of the canal; the IDF hadn't closed up to the Canal on the east bank, much less crossed, and IIRC, both Ismailia and Port Suez were still in Egpytian hands and they had sunk something like 40 ships in the canal when the ceasefire was called.

If control of the canal was the objective, that was pretty far from complete, and two Allied divisions and whatever the Isrealis could contribute wouldn't be enough for the Canal, much less the rest of Egypt.

Best,

 

[Admiral Beez]

What about the oil in Nigeria? The British did not leave Nigeria until the 1960s, so they could presumably stay and invest in that oil field, and ignore the Middle East

 

[TFSmith121]

Surveying for commercially viable fields had started, but

What about the oil in Nigeria? The British did not leave Nigeria until the 1960s, so they could presumably stay and invest in that oil field, and ignore the Middle East

Surveying for commercially viable fields had started, but the first useful wells weren't developed and in production until the late '50s, after Suez.

Best,

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Then Britain is bankrupt and can't afford to sustain itself, much less an occupation force fighting a nationalist insurgency in Egypt.

Other than that, great plan.

Best,

The country had $ 1000 million invested in assets in the US as a rainy day fund.
Additionally during the worst points of the crisis, the Bank of England still had over $1.5 thousand million in reserves. Using this would have meant the liquidation of the sterling bloc, of course, but it would have prevented bankruptcy.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

The British and French were barely ashore at Port Said and the mobile forces didn't even control of third of the length of the canal; the IDF hadn't closed up to the Canal on the east bank, much less crossed, and IIRC, both Ismailia and Port Suez were still in Egpytian hands and they had sunk something like 40 ships in the canal when the ceasefire was called.

If control of the canal was the objective, that was pretty far from complete, and two Allied divisions and whatever the Isrealis could contribute wouldn't be enough for the Canal, much less the rest of Egypt.

Best,

At the time of the cease fire, the task force was within hours of the canal.

 

[TFSmith121]

And if the US freezes those funds?

The country had $ 1000 million invested in assets in the US as a rainy day fund. Additionally during the worst points of the crisis, the Bank of England still had over $1.5 thousand million in reserves. Using this would have meant the liquidation of the sterling bloc, of course, but it would have prevented bankruptcy.

And if the US freezes those funds?

By 1950, the GNP of the powers (1964 USD) amounted to the US with a GNP of $381 billion; the UK and France together had $121 billion. By 1980, the US had one of $2.6 trillion; the UK and France had a combined GNP of $1.076 trillion.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Port Said is the northern terminus of the Canal;

At the time of the cease fire, the task force was within hours of the canal.

Port Said/Port Fuad is the northern terminus of the Canal; Port Suez/Port Tewfik is the southern. The Canal is 120 miles long, and the Anglo-French forces were barely outside the southern suburbs of Port Said.

If the goal was to seize control of the Canal, MUSKETEER was a failure.

Best,

 

[Autocrat]

It's quite obvious that the British, French, and Israelis were militarily stronger and could have accomplished all objectives, so I don't understand where the idea that the militarily failed came from. I especially don't understand how Eisenhower's experience in WWII made him think the British army and French army weak, because the British fought quite admirably in the Europwan theatre and especially North Africa during Eisenhower's tenure as commander. The French meanwhile he never saw much of in combat due on them already having lost, so he couldn't even have observed the

 

[TFSmith121]

Does the words "French First Army" ring a bell?

It's quite obvious that the British, French, and Israelis were militarily stronger and could have accomplished all objectives, so I don't understand where the idea that the militarily failed came from. I especially don't understand how Eisenhower's experience in WWII made him think the British army and French army weak, because the British fought quite admirably in the Europwan theatre and especially North Africa during Eisenhower's tenure as commander. The French meanwhile he never saw much of in combat due on them already having lost, so he couldn't even have observed the

Does the words "French First Army" ring a bell? de Lettre de Tassigny, perhaps?

http://ww2db.com/images/person_delattredetassigny3.jpg

DDE had also commanded NATO from 1950-51, of course.

If the goal of the operation was to seize the Canal from one end to the other, the British and French had fallen a little short (about 100 miles) of that by the time the ceasefire was imposed.

Best,

 

[Minchandre]

Does the words "French First Army" ring a bell? de Lettre de Tassigny, perhaps?



DDE had also commanded NATO from 1950-51, of course.

If the goal of the operation was to seize the Canal from one end to the other, the British and French had fallen a little short (about 100 miles) of that by the time the ceasefire was imposed.

Best,

I feel like you're imposing an incredibly unfair victory criterion. Yes, the British and French were not a position to be physically in control of the canal by the ceasefire - but that was less due to stiff Egyptian resistance and more due to the realities of the distances involved. And it's not like Egypt was "actively holding" all 120 of those miles, either; the vast majority of the Egyptian presence was in and around Port Sa'id. Taking that city would have effectively, if not literally, granted the canal to the Anglo-French-[Israeli] forces.

 

[TFSmith121]

And then the raids begin, supported by an Egyptian

I feel like you're imposing an incredibly unfair victory criterion. Yes, the British and French were not a position to be physically in control of the canal by the ceasefire - but that was less due to stiff Egyptian resistance and more due to the realities of the distances involved. And it's not like Egypt was "actively holding" all 120 of those miles, either; the vast majority of the Egyptian presence was in and around Port Sa'id. Taking that city would have effectively, if not literally, granted the canal to the Anglo-French-[Israeli] forces.

And then the commando/guerilla/insurgency attacks begin in the "Canal Zone", supported by an Egyptian nationalist government that controls every city worth the name in a nation of 24 million people. It wasn't 1882, after all.

The Canal can't be controlled without controlling all of Egypt; the British, French, and Israelis combined could not raise the forces to occupy Egypt.

Eisenhower knew it was militarily impossible, economically pointless, and diplomatically insane; best thing that ever happened to the British, French, and Israelis was when he forced the cease-fire.

Best,

 

[galveston bay]

Anglo-French victory required Nasser to collapse and be killed, exiled, or simply driven from power. He never faced a serious threat of that. It also required the UN to completely ignore the tide of history, which in World War II decisively ended the justification for colonial interventions (and Suez was definitely that). It required the US, specifically Eisenhower, to pretend it didn't think the Anglo-French intervention was not a colonial intervention.

It required the Soviets to pretend it was ok that all of its efforts to gain friends in the Middle East could be stopped by what the Soviets viewed as declining second rate powers.

Too many problems here for this to work. Even if the military operation goes letter perfect and completely according to plan, the diplomatic fallout in the UN and elsewhere means that the Anglo-French cannot stay.

Nasser, Eisenhower and Kruschev all understood that. The Israelis seemed to understand it.

It was a blunder and never should have gotten past the planning stage.