WI: Suez without the UK?

If the UK unequivocally decides to not resort to a military response during the Suez crisis, either as a result of different Conservative leadership or a Labour government, what would happen next?

Would France and Israel be willing to go ahead without Britain? If so how does that play out?

How would this affect future British foreign policy and international image?

What are the immediate and long-term consequences for the British government that decides not to intervene?
 
Last edited:
This presupposes a more level-headed PM. So a healthy Eden not pumped up on amphetamines or a very ill one out of office.

It also means accepting somewhat earlier that after 1947 the empire was done for. Ample space for PODs. Do we still go with a Tory PM?
 
You see here that noise?

That was the chorus of the pound sterling collapsing, the British financial system screaming bloodly murder at the government, and people upset due to food and energy shortages.

It is one thing to do such an action. It is another to do it when another nation can cripple your economy with but a single action. The US threathened to sell their pound sterling bonds in response. And since the Bretton Woods System is in place, this basically means the pound sterling gets hit hard. The UK had to basically accept political defeat in the crisis for risk economic meltdown.
 
You see here that noise?

That was the chorus of the pound sterling collapsing, the British financial system screaming bloodly murder at the government, and people upset due to food and energy shortages.

It is one thing to do such an action. It is another to do it when another nation can cripple your economy with but a single action. The US threathened to sell their pound sterling bonds in response. And since the Bretton Woods System is in place, this basically means the pound sterling gets hit hard. The UK had to basically accept political defeat in the crisis for risk economic meltdown.

Why would that be the response to them deciding not to invade Egypt?
 
The consequences would include whoever was PM (most probably Butler if Conservative and Bevan if Labour, Gaitskell only started opposing Suez once it had failed) being seen as a weak and vacillating appeaser and ousted the next year in the general election. If not before in Cabinet coup. Quietly poisonous relations with France from 1956 onwards. No Concorde, no Jaguar, no Gazelle and probably no EEC entry in 1973 either. OTL Macmillan initiated the trend towards European integration in the early sixties. TTL it would be so unrealistic a prospect (opposed by the French political class rather than by de Gaulle) that the Europhiles would not rise to or continue to hold positions of authority in the FCO and foreign policy objectives would be aimed at trade and alliances with the wider world. Faster erosion of British prestige in the Middle East (OTL Britain, France and Israel were winning when the Americans blew the whistle and Arab leaders and military commanders well aware of this, had to bear in mind that next time the Americans might not call them off). Probably some of the defence cuts of the sixties and seventies might not have gone ahead due to need to display military strength after show of weakness-can't see the 1957 Defence White paper appearing on schedule with political disruption and 1957 being a bit of a Jingo election. No Macmillan years, no Polaris agreement and continued independent British nuclear deterrent. Probably if Labour came to office in 1957, George Brown out of the running by Gaitskell's death and Wilson never gets to be party leader (probably Callaghan, possibly Robens).
 
Top