WI: Same state controls Suez and Panama Canals

If the same state were to control both major canals, how might that influence geopolitics and world trade? Throw in other maritime chokepoints, too, if you think of anything compelling about them.
 
The easiest way to do this would probably be with Britain, swooping into Panama in a scenario where America remains weaker and more isolationist.
 
The most likely candidate to control both canals would probably be Britain. If Britain controlled the Panama Canal (in addition to Suez), it probably wouldn't be too different from OTL, since Victorian and Edwardian Britain both promoted a laissez faire, free trading global economy, so wouldn't interfere too much as long as Britain controls the sealanes.

Even during war time it wouldn't make much difference from OTL (assuming the UK has the same enemies), since enemy nations like Germany would have little influence, trade dependency or power projection in the Panama Canal and would be blockaded by the RN anyway.

If another power controlled both canals, then things would be very different.

The US might be able to control both canals post WWII, i.e. they make an agreement with the UK or Egypt over Suez, so they control both. This would lead to more tension with the USSR during the Cold War and anti-American Arab nationalists swaying even further towards the Communist camp.

France had an influence over both canals, but you would have to butterfly away British naval supremacy to enable them to control them.

Any other country controlling the two canals would require significant PODs going back a long way.
 
Last edited:
The easiest way to do this would probably be with Britain, swooping into Panama in a scenario where America remains weaker and more isolationist.
Or Britain already more or less there if the Scottish Darien colony hadn't failed quite so badly.
 
France builds the Panama canal, preserves its shares in the Suez one after it builds it.
Control on both
 
Top