WI: US backs Israel, France, Britain in Suez Crisis?

Wolfpaw

Banned
Bumping this. Any thoughts on how the situation in France may play out in a post-Suez Victory scenario?
 
Bumping this. Any thoughts on how the situation in France may play out in a post-Suez Victory scenario?

I imagine that France isn't going to take the anti-American turn that it did IOTL at least to the same degree. As was said earlier the Algeria Crisis is till going to happen but without Nasser it could well be delayed by a year or so and it will probably play out in a different way so perhaps the Fourth Republic manages to survive for longer? Another consequence of a clear victory at Suez is that perhaps France, like Britain, has more appetite for overseas adventures at the expense of deepening Europe beyond the ECSC? Also is more effort put into making the French Community a success?

Wolfpaw I read earlier on the thread that you've produced a paper about the detailed plans the British and French had for the aftermath of a Suez victory,that's something I've always been interested in. Were they planning to just seize the entire canal, force the Egyptians to recognise their control and then withdraw or were they planning on a new occupation of the Canal Zone? If that was the plan then I have difficulty seeing how they could have managed it when the British had only a year or two earlier been forced out by an insurgent campaign, surely they must have realised that continuing to occupy the Canal after being forced out and then re-invading would result in a very angry reaction from people in Egypt? Just what was the plan for after the invasion?
 
If the British and French continue to occupy the CZ, would not Israel keep the Sinai. If Israel holds the Sinai, it makes CZ occupation that much easier for UK/France, because the only threat is on the western side of the canal. Israel holding the Sinai can make them oil independent, and I would expect they would do what the could to encourage Arab emigration from Gaza.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I imagine that France isn't going to take the anti-American turn that it did IOTL at least to the same degree. As was said earlier the Algeria Crisis is till going to happen but without Nasser it could well be delayed by a year or so and it will probably play out in a different way so perhaps the Fourth Republic manages to survive for longer?
I expect that it would, but there seems to have been a stunning dearth of leadership in the Fourth Republic. Mendès France and Faure have torn the Radicals apart and the SFIO is in borderline rudderless--I can't imagine Mollet will last much longer.

A France emboldened by a toppled Nasser probably means that Algeria gets much worse before it gets better, and its already broken pretty much every government it's confronted.

Another consequence of a clear victory at Suez is that perhaps France, like Britain, has more appetite for overseas adventures at the expense of deepening Europe beyond the ECSC? Also is more effort put into making the French Community a success?
But where would they? Algeria is the pressing issue, and I have trouble seeing the French willing to put up with much else, especially with decolonization precedents already having been set in Tunisia and Morocco. A successful Suez recoups French pride from Dien Bien Phu, but it'll only worsen the Algeria situation, which will continue to be the center of French politics. And Suez was more or less tolerated because everybody understood it to be a temporary police action, not an ulcer.

Ultimately France lacks the resources or will to strengthen its empire, and the voices for European integration were only growing louder. And a Commonwealth-oriented UK means a UK that isn't there to meddle in Continental affairs...
Wolfpaw I read earlier on the thread that you've produced a paper about the detailed plans the British and French had for the aftermath of a Suez victory,that's something I've always been interested in. Were they planning to just seize the entire canal, force the Egyptians to recognise their control and then withdraw or were they planning on a new occupation of the Canal Zone? If that was the plan then I have difficulty seeing how they could have managed it when the British had only a year or two earlier been forced out by an insurgent campaign, surely they must have realised that continuing to occupy the Canal after being forced out and then re-invading would result in a very angry reaction from people in Egypt? Just what was the plan for after the invasion?
Invade the CZ, demand Nasser's removal. If he doesn't resign, on to Cairo to take him down one way or the other. An anti-Nasser (not necessarily pro-Intervention) government takes control, ceasefire, Anglo-French forces withdraw to the CZ and enforce a 10-mile quarantine of the Canal on either shore.

There were three options the Brits were considering based on how smoothly things worked out in their favor.

  • Case A: UK keeps control of CZ and 5000 technical personnel there.

    Case B: UK leaves a small staff to supervise CZ installations.

    Case C: Only a few inspectors would be left.
Egypt would also join the Baghdad Pact. The monarchy wouldn't be restored, but a shadow government was ready to step in IOTL in case the Anglo-French moved on Cairo.
If the British and French continue to occupy the CZ, would not Israel keep the Sinai. If Israel holds the Sinai, it makes CZ occupation that much easier for UK/France, because the only threat is on the western side of the canal. Israel holding the Sinai can make them oil independent, and I would expect they would do what the could to encourage Arab emigration from Gaza.
Israel will not be given the Sinai. Britain had already alienated enough Arabs by booting out Nasser, and they're not about to commit PR seppuku by giving Israel more land. Britain valued relations with the Arabs far more than good relations with the Israelis and had no interest whatever in seeing Israel gain territory in the ME. Hell, the British wouldn't even be in the same room as the Israelis during the lead up to Suez--the French had to run from room to room relaying things :eek:

As the UK extends its influence over the ME it will more and more be seen as the bulwark against communism and revolution, which is good for the powers-that-be
 
Last edited:
Wolfpaw;5193856[SIZE=3 said:
Israel will not be given the Sinai. Britain had already alienated enough Arabs by booting out Nasser, and they're not about to commit PR seppuku by giving Israel more land. Britain valued relations with the Arabs far more than good relations with the Israelis and had no interest whatever in seeing Israel gain territory in the ME. Hell, the British wouldn't even be in the same room as the Israelis during the lead up to Suez--the French had to run from room to room relaying things :eek:
[/SIZE]

I'm not sure how Israel wouldn't keep the Sinai; it was basically their payment for their part in the scheme. The UK would have to buy them out (unlikely) or force them out (also unlikely - Israel is fighting close to home and would probably have French support).

And, frankly, it's not like any Arabs care about the Sinai at this point. It has a population of a couple tens of thousands, mostly Bedouins. It has no industry. t has some pride-related significance to Egypt, but Egypt's going to be so offended from Britain seizing the Suez that a little patch of desert to which they now have no land border isn't going to salve their ego much.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Israel was forced out of the Sinai IOTL despite having complete military control due to the UN resolution. Britain and France publicly justified their intervention as a police action to separate the combatants (Egypt and Israel) and "protect the Canal."

The Israeli "payment' was wiping out the Fedayeen that kept attacking Israel from bases in Egyptian Gaza. The British and French are there to stay "until the job is done", as Eden put it, which meant a friendly government in Cairo and Israeli troops off Egyptian soil.

Whether or not Israel has French support (iffy at best), it won't have British or international support to continue its occupation of the Sinai. What they get is a promise by Britain to keep the lid on the Fedayeen, maybe by demilitarizing Gaza and the Sinai and stabilizing things with a bigger Baghdad Pact.

Again, nobody will tolerate a prolonged Israeli occupation of the Sinai, Britain least of all. This is all assuming, of course, that Israel can maintain such an operation; they were stretching their logistics and matériel to the breaking point as it was.
 
Last edited:
Israel's payment was removing the fedayeen from the Gaza Strip, weakening Nassar and forging closer ties to France and Great Britain, starting with the armaments rushed to Israel by France.

Israel has no claim on the Sinai and neither the British nor French will offer insult to the entire Arab League by suggesting otherwise. If Israel is so foolish as to try to keep the Sinai it will find itself in the position of facing war with Egypt and any allies Egypt has while even Israel's supporters agree that Israel is at fault and must withdraw from the Sinai.



Wolfpaw, you forgot to mention that the British and French tried to separate themselves to such a degree that their ultimatum to both sides would have required Israel to advance another 30+ miles before having to stop, a point which the Egyptians noticed immediately.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Wolfpaw, you forgot to mention that the British and French tried to separate themselves to such a degree that their ultimatum to both sides would have required Israel to advance another 30+ miles before having to stop, a point which the Egyptians noticed immediately.
Yet another dead giveaway of the backroom collusion of the Triapartite powers; Britain was keeping to the original schedule of the Israeli attack that they professed to know nothing about :rolleyes:
 

Gwax23

Banned
I dont see why it would be an impossibility for Israel to keep the Sinai. With a bigger success then OTL with US support. Egypt who was basically the leader of any Arab Coalition against Israel is in no position to start another war to reclaim a worthless strip of desert.

Sure the Brits probably wouldnt like it but they wouldnt go out of their way to denounce it or get the land handed over to the Egyptians.

In a couple of years the area would have a jewish majority and provides Israel with a much more secure southern border/barrier/buffer plus the Oil which would be too good a prize to give up especially when they all knew that another war would come in the next decade.

The brits could do nothing to assure no more cross border raids from the Sinai/Gaza into Israel IOTL the raids and attacks continued. Israel put the most men on the line and was directly threatened during the conflict it has a just cause for the land.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Sure the Brits probably wouldnt like it but they wouldnt go out of their way to denounce it or get the land handed over to the Egyptians.
Yes, they will. Of all Western nations, Britain will be calling Egyptian retention of the Sinai. International opinion would be unanimously opposed to Israel keeping the Sinai, as was the case IOTL. Even the US wouldn't go out that far for Israel this early in their relationship.
In a couple of years the area would have a jewish majority and provides Israel with a much more secure southern border/barrier/buffer plus the Oil which would be too good a prize to give up especially when they all knew that another war would come in the next decade.
They can achieve a buffer by having a demilitarized Sinai and/or one occupied by UN Peacekeepers. The Brits weren't interested in occupying much beyond the CZ, and OTL saw the introduction of the very peacekeepers the Anglo-French wanted in the long-term.

And why on earth would Egypt or Britain allow Israel to take over its energy deposits? "Just try and stop my blatant resource-grab" is not how to make friends, which is exactly what Israel desperately needs.
The brits could do nothing to assure no more cross border raids from the Sinai/Gaza into Israel IOTL the raids and attacks continued.
See above.
Israel put the most men on the line and was directly threatened during the conflict it has a just cause for the land.
Nonsense.
 
Wolfpaw;5207629And why on earth would Egypt or Britain allow Israel to take over its energy deposits? "Just try and stop my blatant resource-grab" is not how to make friends said:
I'm almost completely certain that the energy resources in the Sinai weren't known in 1956
 
Top