WI US did not yank back allies at Suez in '56

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
WI US did not pull back allies in Suez?


Can UK & France even keep the Canal operating? Can Nasser import arms through Alexandria?

A range of possible consequences, what do you think is most likely:

A) Nasser overthrown. Somebody comes in who makes a deal w/ the west. The "EdenWank"


B) The USSR militarily intervenes. Sending volunteers, naval, nuclear war.
"The KhrushchevWank"

C) Nasser does prolonged guerrilla resistance. Has moral support of Arab and East Bloc, but alignments are not very upset. (Saudi and Libya remain pro-US, etc). UK/France withdraw after a few years in frustration (definitely by 62’, probably much sooner), and Nasser cannot address Israel in Sinai until he is done with UK and France in Suez.

D) Because fighting continues in Egypt, Jordan and Syria join in on Nasser’s side attacking Israel, Israel wins a swift victory, gaining 1967 borders, and UK is in a quandary. Israel begins doing the activities of ’67. Gush Emunim and settlements start. Peace Process as we know it starts, but involving UK and France.

E) Jordan and Syria attack Israel, but Israel is less capable in 1956 than 1967, and the Arab Legion is stronger. Israel gains some or all of West Bank and Jerusalem (maybe only up to ridges) but Palestinian population largely flees or is driven out in fighting.

F) Jordan and Iraq and maybe eventually Gulf States have pro-Nasser or pro-communist revolutions. In Jordan’s case, this leads to war and loss of the West Bank in ;56 or '57.

G) Maybe something like D, E or F occurs, but the Arabs arm up for another round in the late 1950s early 1960s. This begins an earlier, less effective, oil embargo. More alternate fields are developed. Alternate technologies funded in the 1960s, on par with space program.

H) Most of the Arab Middle East goes pro-Soviet, more sensitivity to energy issue in US from mid-50s onward.
 
A possible consequence of this could be increased sympathy and support for Nasser throughout the Middle East and also from the Soviet Union. Nasser's brand of Arab socialism might have replaced islamic fundementalism and fostered a closer relationship between the Middle East and the Soviet Union.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I could see that -

If Nasser survives and is fighting a resistance against blatant neo-colonialism, and the USSR's bloc is the only great power supporting him, then he can get more regional synmpathy.

In OTL, Saudi Arabia and other conservative monarchies promoted Islamic fundamentalism as an antidote to Arab socialism, maybe in this TL, the two do not become opposed?


How might the details fill out - do we have other middle east countries breaking with or fighting against the Franco-UK-Israeli alliance? And how can the USSR help if at all? And how long can the tripartite powers keep fighting in Egypt?
 
Well, with direct military support from France and Britain, I think Israel would become even more confident and annex more territory from its neighbours. A sucessfull intervention in Suez would most likely result in Britain and France allowing Israel to occupy Sinai for a start. A 'Greater Israel' would be beneficial to the West, as it would allow Western powers to maintain a very strong military presence in the region in order to protect their oil interests.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The support could be mutual -

Israeli occupation of Sinai would largely shield the Anglo-French occupied canal zone from attacks from the east.

Also, unlike in the 1967 war, which closed the Canal for 7 years, this alt '56 war would have the canal occupied by the same powers on *both* sides.

As far as greater Israeli confidence leading to further expansion - that's an interesting one. If other Arab states attack Israel out of a desire to have solidarity with Nasser and mass opinion, then Israel would occupy their territory. However, if Jordan is deterred rather than provoked, the UK and US may really lean on Israel to not broaden the war against their erstwhile Hashemite clients.
 
The war ends with a whimper rather than a bang. Nasser resigns as boss, but merely steps back. Egypt supports the Baghdad Pact and CENTO is created. Soviet penetration of the ME is nipped in the bud, and Britain maintains it's leadership in the area. Military and other exprts to the region continue unabated. The 1957 defence white paper doesn't declare manned aircraft obsolete, instead it praises the power projection capavbilities of conventional forces and their utility to enhance British interests. The Brit aviation industry isn't gutted by forced amalgamations, the Blue steel Mk2 is developed, and deployed on the HP Victor Mk3. China turns to Britian and France in 1961 to purchase the latest weapons in the wake of their split woith the SU, the Brit and French arms industries recieve a major boost from large exports to China throughout the 60s. CVA01 and 2 are laid down from 1964, the TSR2 is bought into service in 1968, and exported to Australia in 1970. The HMS Centaur is leased to Australia in 1965, as an interim measure until the HMS Hermes is handed to the RAN in 1973.

ra, ra, ra.

1982 Britain announces that it will withdraw permament military forces from east of Suez by 1988, as a result of the recent fracturing of SEATO and CENTO.

How's that????
 
Israeli occupation of Sinai would largely shield the Anglo-French occupied canal zone from attacks from the east.

Also, unlike in the 1967 war, which closed the Canal for 7 years, this alt '56 war would have the canal occupied by the same powers on *both* sides.

As far as greater Israeli confidence leading to further expansion - that's an interesting one. If other Arab states attack Israel out of a desire to have solidarity with Nasser and mass opinion, then Israel would occupy their territory. However, if Jordan is deterred rather than provoked, the UK and US may really lean on Israel to not broaden the war against their erstwhile Hashemite clients.

Have you been paying attention to Iraq lately? Try that with Egypt. This would be a huge disaster, and the Mid East would be an even greater mess than it is.
 

Hnau

Banned
South Dakota is not all of the USA. Very low population. Now let's see China invade it and start building settlements and see if any Americans object.

Egypt is not the USA.

However, I can see this leading to NATO members throwing out the UK and France (as they threatened to do), as well as a continued oil embargo against the two countries. The British pound would suffer quite a bit. I wonder if they'd compromise with Egypt just over the economic downfall they were facing.
 
wen Anglo-French and Israel are succesfull with Suez
its put the Arab-israel war some years ahead !

Nasser has to something, other wise he lose his support in Arab world.

i think first is gona be guerrilla resistance that the easy way, until Nasser can organise more

like Arad League start a sea blocade of Suez, until the Anglo-French war fleet show up.

it can be that Nasser form the United Arab Republic bigger and stronger
(OTL The union began in 1958 and existed until 1961 when Syria seceded from the union.)
a United Arab Republic with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq (Lebanon also?)
with help from USSR with Weapons

the United Arab Republic can attact Israel and Suez in 1962 (they need some years to buildup there force)
so we got a Yom Kippur War alrady in october 1962 while in Cuba start the Missile Crisis.
and Anglo-French Partnership declare to defend they allied Israel even with nuclear weapons?
poor US-President who solve those Problem in October 1962

Riain proposal is good base of wat happen over next Decades

with a succesfull Suez the Anglo-French Partnership can get deeper
a Anglo-French Friendship like Franco-German Partnership in 1963
even France let England join the European Communities (OTL France veto that)
more joinventure between France and England like:
Satellit launcher (Blue Streak + Diamant) or Vulcain Bomber with Diamant rocket
Supersonic Aircraft OTL Concorde, only years ahead
joinventure in Military aircraft like Mirage IV for RAF or TSR.2 for France "Force De Frappe"
even for development of new nuclear weapons or Stationing of Blue Streak ICBM on french soil ?

alot of historans say that lost of Anglo-French in suez, it was end of Europe big nation as a Superpower
and making United States and Soviet Union to only Superpowers of Cold war.

but a victory had change that
is likely that a Anglo-French Partnership had withdrew from integrated NATO Command !
like Franch dit in 1966 only here years bevor...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Have you been paying attention to Iraq lately?

Well, who is it going to be an "Iraq" for - the Israelis or the Anglo-French?

The historical occupation of the Sinai from '67 to '82 was not an "Iraq" for Israel, a domestically divisive conflict featuring ubiquitous daily violence. Nope Sinai was more quiet on a daily basis. It was a military buffer that was costly to defend against the Egyptians, and it ended up as a territorial bargaining chip.

The Israelis did build settlements in the Sinai, but this was not significant for regional politics, and they were demolished when the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was agreed to.

More plausible would be the Anglo-French experiencing an "Iraq" in territory they occupied. If they occupy the Nile Delta they are in for nasty urban insurgency. If they are in just the Canal Zone they can also face insurgency in built-up areas, but it can probably be coped militarily with as long as they have the political will and financial means, at far lower cost than many other decolonization wars. In OTL France was two years into its own "Iraq" over in Algeria and kept that going till '62.

I'm interested in timelines for how long the Anglo-French could hold out, absent either direct US support, or direct US pressure. In OTL the US preempted a long-drawn out occupation by its diplomatic and sharp financial pressures.

---Douglas, so to your knowledge it was the intention of Anglo-French forces to occupy the entirety of Egypt?

I would agree with Pasha that this would be an Iraq, and something that the Anglo-French could not sustain as long as the US sustained itself in Iraq from
'03 to '08.

--
Calgacus asked about bankruptcy for the British. The financial strength of the UK is a factor i am uncertain about. In OTL's crisis it could not be measured because Eisenhower deliberately exploited the UK's financial viability.

The central PoD of this whole thing is that he does not do this. Eisenhower, whatever he thinks of the wisdom of the British move, decides that it would be worse to undercut the US's two closest allies, in other words, either he actively thinks Suez was a good idea, or, if not, he thinks that its up to the British and French to learn their own limits in the Middle East, not the US's job to rub those limits in their faces.

Of course this has costs one can anticipate in the Middle East, but Ike had been similarly tone-deaf to non-European opinion before, and in the ATL, he puts not alienating the UK and France as # 1 priority.


If that's the attitude that Washington is taking, should we really anticipate other NATO members in Europe like Germany and Italy and the Low Countries coming down hard on Britain and France as Hnau suggests?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Also - of Washington is taking a policy of neither actively endorsing

nor actively pressuring the Anglo-French-Israeli coalition, but eventually the coalition backs down, will their be less ill-feeling between France and the Anglo-Americans?
 
Top