Bumping this. Any thoughts on how the situation in France may play out in a post-Suez Victory scenario?
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.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?
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.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?
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.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?
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 thingsIf 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;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
[/SIZE]
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 aboutWolfpaw, 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.
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.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.
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.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.
See above.The brits could do nothing to assure no more cross border raids from the Sinai/Gaza into Israel IOTL the raids and attacks continued.
Nonsense.Israel put the most men on the line and was directly threatened during the conflict it has a just cause for the land.
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
They knew about some oil deposits in the Gulf of Suez since the 1930s, but I'm not sure how much more they were tapping.I'm almost completely certain that the energy resources in the Sinai weren't known in 1956