US doesn't pressure Britain France and Israel to withdraw troops from Egypt

joeyanonymous

What would have happened if the United States had allowed Britain France and Israel
to go ahead with their invasion of Egypt during the Suez Crisis instead of pressuring them to stop as in OTL?
 

Citycat

Nasser might get overthrown from the humiliation of losing control of the Suez Canal. This would lead to less Soviet influence in the Middle East. If a pro-Western government comes to power in Egypt, you basically fast track what happened IOTL in the late 1970s to this TL in 1956. The Soviets don't gain 20 years of influence in the Middle East like IOTL.

The Western Alliance would likely be stronger, the US would appear more trustworthy, and maybe the French withdrawal from the NATO Command is avoided. Britain might support the US in the Vietnam War.
 

Lalli

Citycat said:
Nasser might get overthrown from the humiliation of losing control of the Suez Canal. This would lead to less Soviet influence in the Middle East. If a pro-Western government comes to power in Egypt, you basically fast track what happened IOTL in the late 1970s to this TL in 1956. The Soviets don't gain 20 years of influence in the Middle East like IOTL.

The Western Alliance would likely be stronger, the US would appear more trustworthy, and maybe the French withdrawal from the NATO Command is avoided. Britain might support the US in the Vietnam War.
Click to expand...

And this would has to affects on British politics when Eden has not resign in disgrace.
 
VadisDeProfundis

VadisDeProfundis

Would that invasion really be successful? After all, the British, the French and the Israelis don't just have to thoroughly beat the Egyptian Army (which would most likely fold easily I suppose), they have to ensure a stable transition to a government that is friendlier to them. Such a government would probably be perceived as what it is, ie a puppet government installed by foreign intervention.

Wouldn't it be likelier that this would have been a *big* resource sink for the Anglo-French and the Israelis? France is at this time also fighting a war in Algeria, and both Britain and France have to deal with various insurgencies across their still existing colonial empires. Would they really have been able to commit to, for instance, an expensive occupation of Egypt in order to pacify possible rebel or anti colonial groups, that would have the full backing of the USSR and various Arab states?
 

aaronupright

Champagne corks pop for weeks in the Kremlin as the Americans do an amazing blunder. Considering just how much hay the CCCP made due to American internal politics, especially Jim Crow, I can't even imagine the level they would make if the US became an actual active participant in colonial ventures. In an era of decolonization.
It would be a fuck up greater than Iraq 2003.
 
Hydra1234

Hydra1234

Yeah, I don't see Nasser getting couped. Basically every book on the crisis and Nasser indicated that he had an iron grip over the military, and his reforms were generally regarded as popular both by the ruling class and the general population (although these are educated guesses given that true popular support is impossible to measure in a dictatorship). The obvious parallel here is Saddam Hussein, who still retained power after getting utterly crushed in the Gulf War and even losing control of Iraqi airspace, and Nasser himself also survived a similar humiliation in the aftermath of the Six Day War.

Moreover, the Anglo-French-Israeli plan to break the morale of the Egyptians was basically strategic bombing, a strategy that has repeatedly backfired in multiple wars (in terms of harming morale at least) and only galvanized a population towards total war, which was something that Nasser was actually preparing for with his "people's war". I believe the limited bombings of Cairo IOTL already resulted in pro-Nasser demonstrations, let alone what would happen if the conflict continue and escalated. The land-based part of Anglo-French counterinsurgency tactics, based on Malaya and Algeria, were basically a "burn them all" approach involving concentration camps and razing settlements, another move that would only radicalize the Egyptians, not to mention the repercussions internationally as the war drags on longer and more media of dead civilians hit the streets of basically all Cold-War factions.

The Soviets, while folding on their nuclear bluff, would undoubtedly send covert aid to Egypt, augmenting Egypt's capabilities and/or forcing a significant escalation with a total blockade of Egypt.

Given all this, it's likely that if the US sits out, the war degenerates into a Vietnam-war equivalent that alienates the entire Third World and becomes a massive resource sink, or the US eventually gives into public and Soviet pressure and sends an ultimatum like OTL, resulting in an OTL outcome, but with higher casualties and costs.
 

fhaessig

One interesting effect: The french nuke project is either cancelled or delayed (it was started just after Suez and kept alive by every French government afterward, whatever tendency, as every french saw they the only way to matter in the world was to have nukes. This might not be so obviousl IITL, so France might not be willing to sink so much money and ressources in that project
 

Eric C Johnson

I think some times the what of a thread becomes so dominating as to swamp the how, and I think the "how can the British-French persuade the United States to adopt a neutral stance" is well worth considering.

The first problem is that nationalization of the Suez was completely legal, provided the Egyptians paid full and fair compensation. Therein lay the rub. Although offering it, Nasser had no intentions of paying compensation, he wanted revenues to pay for the Aswan Dam. Nor had compensation been paid for previous nationalization of foreign property in Egypt. Rather than concocting a plot with the Israelis, PM Anthony Eden and Premier Guy Mollet should have remained focused on the compensation issue.

The "how" would play out as follows. After Nasser announces the seizure of the Suez on 26 July 1956, Eden and Mollet confer, and announce a joint appeal to the United Nations to resolve the dispute, with a 90-day deadline for doing so. Appealing the the UN keeps British public support high for Eden while his unprepared armed forces scramble to cough up troops and equipment. The British also embargo two destroyers, El Qaher (ex-HMS Myngs) and El Fateh (ex-HMS Zenith) sold to Egypt instead of allowing them to sail unarmed as a goodwill gesture on 28 August. The French sell Israel warplanes and munitions as OTL.

The United Nations cannot resolve the issue, and two camps emerge of newly independent states such as India, Indonesia, and long-time fans of nationalization such as the Communist bloc and some Latin American nations taking the side of Egypt. Most Western nations, although not necessarily supportive of military action, support the British/French claims to compensation. This is how the United States is neutralized. In an election year, President Eisenhower cannot be seen in the American business and labour circles as supporting non-payment of debts.

After the 90-day ultimatum expires, the Israeli attack on the Sinai goes forward on 29 October as in the OTL. The British and French dryly note Egypt has more than one enemy, and renew their ultimatum. Upon Egyptian refusal, the joint attack on the Suez commences on 1 November.
 

aaronupright

Eric C Johnson said:
After the 90-day ultimatum expires, the Israeli attack on the Sinai goes forward on 29 October as in the OTL. The British and French dryly note Egypt has more than one enemy, and renew their ultimatum. Upon Egyptian refusal, the joint attack on the Suez commences on 1 November.
Click to expand...
And OTL begins....
walmart said:
I fail to see how the common trope of a more western allied Arab world would occur.
Click to expand...
You need a pre 1800 POD, maybe even a pre 640AD one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top