Suez...what if

[chiglet]

What if Ike had okayed the Anglo/French/Israeli spat with the Egyptians over the "Nationalisation" of the Suez Canal, Where would we .... AND the Middle East be now, I wonder?

[Milo Minderbinder]

Israel would control Sinai and the Egyptians would be revolting

[Dysonsphere]

Israel would control Sinai and the Egyptians would be revolting


And there is a very tempting answer to that, however if you want to know vist Alternate History Discussion Board (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/) its been covered there somewhere. By the way well worth reading through the site some well thought out ideas.

[Pontius Navigator]

Without the benefit of reading the alternative history, I would say probably not a lot.

It was only the Canal Zone and not Egypt that was the objective. There would have been a massive and continuing drain on resources. We would have pulled out of the Far East much earlier, and then ME would be where it is now.

Really Suez was a minor skirmish.

[Lonewolf_50]

Milo, they are revolting now, more or less. :p

[Heathrow Harry]

Another bloody little "police exercise" with National Service squaddies being killed every other day by patriots - look at Cyrprus or Aden for the likely result

Sure as hell it would have made our reputation stink through the world - as it was we were just written of as incompetent

[Pontius Navigator]

You might also ask Vietnam, what if?

At least with Kuwait we restored the status quo antebellum and in Malaya and Malaysia we managed to sustain the status quo. In Grenada the US also managed to restore the status quo as indeed we did in Belize and the Falklands.

The difference might be whether the indigenous peoples are both friendly and remain friendly.

[Squirrel 41]

It's instructive to look at why the UK pulled out of the Suez base in 1954; the base was essentially indefensible, and the thousands of troops were subject to continuous hit and run attacks, as well as problems with fresh water. This led to the withdrawal, with the base passing to Egyptian "civilian contractors" who placed it into care and maintenance (... with the same level of care and maintenance as the RAF would understand...)

This was the real answer to Mountbatten's initial post-nationalisation solution of sending a full Commando attack on the canal (which even Mountbatten conceded would take a maximum of two-thirds of the Canal in the initial attack) - the issue wasn't taking the Canal, it was how you hung on to it (presumably for years) whilst being under constant attack from Egyptian irregulars, whilst shipping in water from Cyprus (for an 80k man garrison).

The only hope was that the humiliation of defeat would cause Nasser to be overthrown - but the problem was that this would almost certainly have resulted in a more militant regime, making the problem worse. Even Eden had worked out that recolonising Egypt was a non-starter.

So there were no good options in '56. But Eden managed to make it much, much worse than any of the options.

S41

[Lonewolf_50]

I just found something sent to me back in 2011, when Egypt was all aglow over giving Mubarak the elbow.
============================================
A 14 year old boy got a horse on his birthday.
Everybody in the village syas, "How wonderful! The boy got a horse"

The Zen master says, "We'll see."

Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg.
Everyone in the village says, "How terrible."

The Zen master says, "We'll see."

A war breaks out and all the young men in the village have to go off and fight... except the boy, who can't be in the army because his leg's all messed up.
Everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."

The Zen master says, "We'll see."

Breaking news about the protests in Egypt covered by global media.
"The Egyptians will soon be enjoying the Freedom that US citizens love so much."
Everybody at the UN says "How wonderful."

The Zen master says, "We'll see."
============================================
The Suez for the moment is reasonably secure.

Will it remain so?

I remember it being closed for about six years after the 1967 war. Or was that after the 1973 war? Memory fuzzy.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It was '67, as I had to travel back OZ-UK via Panama in '68 as a consequence (having travelled via Suez in '66).


.

[langleybaston]

PN I think it is antebellum ....... before, not against ...... war?

I remember the Suez humiliation well, my father had guarded the canal and shipping with his barrage balloon for 3 years in the war and was as livid about the incompetence as that gentle man could get.

[Lonewolf_50]

Did a little checking, the closure was 1967 through about 1975. As you say, after the 1967 war.

I recall from my childhood seeing news coverage of the ships that were stuck in the canal.

I had no recollection that the ships stuck in there were called the yellow fleet, but there ya go, a bit of Google sorted that out for me.

[Romulus]

Ike not re-elected

No run on the pound

Britain-Israel relationship strengthened

Western solidarity demonstrated and Soviet posture modified accordingly.

Growth of Soviet influence in mid East does not occur

Nasser and his ilk never achieve rise to power

PLO growth and subsequent terrorist activities heavily curtailed

Growth of Franco German nuclear weaponry not required as USA continues as unshakeable ally rather than being seen as willing to trade off key Western allies for short term politics

UK goes into Vietnam rather than abstaining as revenge (assuming Vietnam happens)

[brickhistory]

Growth of Franco German nuclear weaponry not required


Did I miss the memo that Germany developed nukes?

USA continues as unshakeable ally rather than being seen as willing to trade off key Western allies for short term politics

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked. A nation seeing to its own national interests as determined by politicians. Whatever next?

UK goes into Vietnam rather than abstaining as revenge (assuming Vietnam happens)


Err, something about 'unshakeable?' No irony there.

Or a nation deciding that its national interests didn't lie in Vietnam.

[Pontius Navigator]

Or a nation deciding that its national interests didn't lie in Vietnam.

The SEATO zone boundary was 105 degrees East. We were already engaged in Malaysia.

[GreenKnight121]

Nasser and his ilk never achieve rise to powerYou are rather a bit late for this to happen... he was already in power!

Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein was Prime Minister of Egypt from 25 February 1954 – 8 March 1954 & 18 April 1954 – 29 September 1962... and the second President of Egypt from 23 June 1956* until his death in 1970. A colonel in the Egyptian army, Nasser led the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 along with Muhammad Naguib, the first president, which overthrew the monarchy of Egypt and Sudan.

* Note that Naguib had been under military arrest from October 1955 until his removal in January 1955. Nasser was appointed "President pending an election"... the "official" 23 June 1956 date is merely when he was sworn in after winning the election. Nasser had been President in fact, as well as PM, since January 1955.


On 26 July 1956 Nasser ordered the nationalization of the Suez Canal, and the British/French invasion of the Canal commenced on 31 October 1956.

By his standing up to Britain and France, no matter the outcome, Nasser was enthroned as leader of the "independent Arab Nations" movement.

[dat581]

Would the main difference between the Malayan Emergency and the Vietnam war be the attitude of the locals? Of coarse the Americans fought the war in a different way to the Brits and commonwealth troops did in Malaya. Friendly Malays helping out instead of helping the enemy.

[brickhistory]

The SEATO zone boundary was 105 degrees East. We were already engaged in Malaysia


Indeed. With sometimes methods that were as if not more brutal than anything related to our meddling in Vietnam. I wrote a story about Brigand ops in the conflict (leather air brakes, are you serious?!).

But you won, so there's the difference.

My point was, the UK decided, for its own national interests, to not participate in Vietnam.

Which is how the game is played and to assume otherwise is even more whimsical than this thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

Dat and Brick,

You are confusing the Malayan Emergency with the Indonesian Confrontation. One was coincident with the French Indochina conflict and that latter with the Vietnam war.

There were parallels between the Malayan Emergency and the Vietnam war as both countries - Malaya and South Vietnam - were in conflict with the Chicom and the Vietcong. We helped the one and you helped the other,

[brickhistory]

I get a pass on not knowing (ancient) geography.

I'm American...:}





And yes, you are correct. I botched the two - Malaya and Malaysia and stand sheepishly corrected. The latter was Sukarno and P-51s/DC-3s and the like vs. RAF Javelins and the like, no?

[Archimedes]

Ike not re-elected

No run on the pound

Britain-Israel relationship strengthened

Western solidarity demonstrated and Soviet posture modified accordingly.

Growth of Soviet influence in mid East does not occur

Nasser and his ilk never achieve rise to power

PLO growth and subsequent terrorist activities heavily curtailed

Growth of Franco German nuclear weaponry not required as USA continues as unshakeable ally rather than being seen as willing to trade off key Western allies for short term politics

UK goes into Vietnam rather than abstaining as revenge (assuming Vietnam happens)

Ike won by a landslide in 1956. The chances of Suez denying him victory even had he supported the Anglo-French effort are very, very slim. Ike even carried Louisiana (I think it was), which was the first time that the state had managed to bring itself to vote en masse for a Republican since just after the Civil War.

Britain didn't 'abstain' from Vietnam out of 'revenge' for Suez - not least since the government in power from 1964-1970 was the party which had opposed. In 1964 and 1965, it would've been impossible for Harold Wilson to commit troops, even if he'd wanted to, since he had a majority of 3 in the House of Commons, and although the Commons doesn't really have a say, the attitude of his party would have been such as to ensure that he'd have lost any vote on the issue, possibly including a confidence motion. After 1966, even with a majority of 96 (IIRC), sending troops to Vietnam would've split his party in two, and there is some evidence that Wilson had reached the conclusion that the war wasn't going to be won - perhaps aided by the fact that Sir Robert Thompson of Defeating Commuinst Insurgency fame had sent a memo to the Foreign Office explaining in some detail why the North was going to defeat the South no matter what the US did...

Rihannon Vickers did a good article on this in The Journal of Cold War Studies in 2008, which includes the observation that the US embassy in London reported that:

According to the embassy, the British reaction to U.S. policy resulted primarily from three factors: first, an underlying fear that the conflict might lead to a Third World War; second, a widespread sense that “it is high time for vigorous expressions [of ] criticism [of ] U.S. policy in order to influence it”; and third, the “persistence of [a] relatively small but well-organized and vociferous group [of ] left-wingers and pacifists who [are] adept at exacerbating these fears and frustrations.ª

While I suspect that there were a fair few in Britain who regarded not getting involved in Vietnam as payback for Suez, the overwhelming reason - as brick suggests - was perceived British national interest, which included not being seen as a poodle to the US.



ª Rhiannon Vickers, 'Harold Wilson, the British Labour Party, and the War in Vietnam', The Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol 10 No. 2,(2008), pp-51-52

[Pontius Navigator]

Brick, and RAAF F86 and RAF Hunters.

[Schiller]

And RN Buccs.

[Pontius Navigator]

Schiller, would that be the Bucc fighter or the Bucc helicopter?

As we were talking fighters you should have said RN Sea Vixen. This leads to a little tale.

Sea Vixen visiting Butterworth set out to depart at night. Asked if required runway lights declined and called rolling. Shortly after called abort and returning to dispersal which was below and out of sight of the control tower in the blackout.

No further calls or amplification - good comsec. An ATC Assistant was sent to find out what was going on only to find the crew and 3 shore hands hosing mud off the aircraft. They had lined up on the ORP and run out of runway after 700 feet.

Once the evidence had been removed they taxied and departed.

We also had Gannets flying a barrier patrol.

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking for something else I found a scrap book that my aunt had kept. During WW2 she had been based at Tel El Kebir. In her scrapbook was a feature article by a respected broadsheet newspaper, the Daily Mail.

When we pulled out of Egypt we left stores at TEK which Nasser promised to safeguard and reopen if Russia became a threat. The stores included 50,000 tons of ammunition and 300,000 tons of guns, vehicles and other stores.

I haven't read the whole article but we obviously place a huge misguided trust in Colonel Nasser.