raharris1973
Well-known member
The Suez War of 1956 was interesting little affair going on near simultaneously with the Hungarian revolt and with plenty some military (for the Egyptians) and diplomatic and political (for the British, French, and Americans) embarrassment to go around.
Key leaders in the crises were Egypt's Nasser, who came out smelling like a rose for surviving it, Britain's Anthony Eden who went down in political flames for politically failing in getting his objectives and having to back out short of winning any victory and political concessions, French Premier, Guy Mollet, Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion, US President Eisenhower who sailed to reelection but had depressed, deflated (Britain) or alienated (France) allies afterward, and Khrushchev, who voiced solidarity with Nasser and threatened hellfire on the British, French, Israeli intervenors, enjoying the distraction from Hungary, and from more quiet tensions with Poland. He was able to avoid having to put his threats/warnings to the test since public US-allied divisions, escalating to US Treasury non-support of the British pound, sufficed to get 'compliance' to what the Soviets were demanding.
But how similarly or differently might things have played out with different leaders in charge of relevant countries in the crisis and up to Suez Canal nationalization?
I will keep a few leaders constant:
Nasser - He and his policy of pushing out the British fast and nationalizing the canal are essential, so he's staying.
Ben-Gurion - Let's keep the Israeli leadership the same, and it would be hard to change in any case given the foundational conditions of the country from the 48 war. And, if you somehow had a decision maker with a potentially radically different approach in charge like Moshe Sharett (which I am not saying is even realistic), you may not even have an Israeli Sinai invasion as a pretext for the Anglo-French invasion.
France's Guy Mollet - I am mainly suggesting keeping him the same because I know little about French coalition politics of 1956, and who the potential alternatives were, and what difference they might make. But if somebody does have a suggestion, go ahead and offer it up. However, I have the very strong feeling that France's role was crucial for 'setting' up the Suez adventure because France, was the only 'glue' between the Israelis and British, who were not on good terms otherwise.
So where I ask for alternatives, it will about the other players, the British, the Americans, and the Soviets:
Confronted with a sudden nationalization of the Suez Canal, how similarly or differently would the British government reaction have been if it were
headed by:
a) Winston Churchill, instead of Anthony Eden, in 1956? - [maybe because some earlier event had allowed Churchill to hold power this long, a more adroit, sympathetic handling of the smog crisis or something]
b) Clement Attlee, instead of Anthony Eden, in 1956? - Because of a Labor Party win in 1951, because of whatever reasons
Would either of them have been willing or able to avoid a compulsion to take military action to reclaim the Suez Canal?
Would either of them have done in it in a substantially different way, perhaps unilaterally, and not in a semi-transparent conspiracy?
If committed to military action, would either of them been able to salvage the situation or defy the superpowers any better than Eden?
For the Americans -
What if the American President facing this crisis was instead of Eisenhower:
a) a reelected Harry S. Truman [this would take a miracle, likely, at least, a short victorious Korean War, which China avoids participation in, and perhaps MacArthur dies in]
b) a President William S. Knowland [who succeeds to the Presidency after Robert Taft narrowly wins the Presidency in the 1952 election, being the GOP nominee, instead of Eisenhower, is nominated, and then dies in 1953 or 1954]
c) a President Adlai Stevenson [who is narrowly elected President over GOP nominee Robert Taft, whom voters insufficiently trust to uphold social security, labor rights, and internationalist foreign policy, despite their fatigue with and disappointment with the Democratic Party and President Truman]
d) a President Richard Nixon [who succeeds President Eisenhower after a fatal heart attack in 1955]
For the Soviet Union -
What if the Soviet CPSU General Secretary dealing with the Suez Crisis [and any Hungary crisis, which might or might not be happening, depending on that person's policies], instead of Khrushchev is:
a) A still living and working Joseph Stalin
b) Georgi Malenkov
c) Vyacheslav Molotov
d) Lavrenti Beria
Key leaders in the crises were Egypt's Nasser, who came out smelling like a rose for surviving it, Britain's Anthony Eden who went down in political flames for politically failing in getting his objectives and having to back out short of winning any victory and political concessions, French Premier, Guy Mollet, Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion, US President Eisenhower who sailed to reelection but had depressed, deflated (Britain) or alienated (France) allies afterward, and Khrushchev, who voiced solidarity with Nasser and threatened hellfire on the British, French, Israeli intervenors, enjoying the distraction from Hungary, and from more quiet tensions with Poland. He was able to avoid having to put his threats/warnings to the test since public US-allied divisions, escalating to US Treasury non-support of the British pound, sufficed to get 'compliance' to what the Soviets were demanding.
But how similarly or differently might things have played out with different leaders in charge of relevant countries in the crisis and up to Suez Canal nationalization?
I will keep a few leaders constant:
Nasser - He and his policy of pushing out the British fast and nationalizing the canal are essential, so he's staying.
Ben-Gurion - Let's keep the Israeli leadership the same, and it would be hard to change in any case given the foundational conditions of the country from the 48 war. And, if you somehow had a decision maker with a potentially radically different approach in charge like Moshe Sharett (which I am not saying is even realistic), you may not even have an Israeli Sinai invasion as a pretext for the Anglo-French invasion.
France's Guy Mollet - I am mainly suggesting keeping him the same because I know little about French coalition politics of 1956, and who the potential alternatives were, and what difference they might make. But if somebody does have a suggestion, go ahead and offer it up. However, I have the very strong feeling that France's role was crucial for 'setting' up the Suez adventure because France, was the only 'glue' between the Israelis and British, who were not on good terms otherwise.
So where I ask for alternatives, it will about the other players, the British, the Americans, and the Soviets:
Confronted with a sudden nationalization of the Suez Canal, how similarly or differently would the British government reaction have been if it were
headed by:
a) Winston Churchill, instead of Anthony Eden, in 1956? - [maybe because some earlier event had allowed Churchill to hold power this long, a more adroit, sympathetic handling of the smog crisis or something]
b) Clement Attlee, instead of Anthony Eden, in 1956? - Because of a Labor Party win in 1951, because of whatever reasons
Would either of them have been willing or able to avoid a compulsion to take military action to reclaim the Suez Canal?
Would either of them have done in it in a substantially different way, perhaps unilaterally, and not in a semi-transparent conspiracy?
If committed to military action, would either of them been able to salvage the situation or defy the superpowers any better than Eden?
For the Americans -
What if the American President facing this crisis was instead of Eisenhower:
a) a reelected Harry S. Truman [this would take a miracle, likely, at least, a short victorious Korean War, which China avoids participation in, and perhaps MacArthur dies in]
b) a President William S. Knowland [who succeeds to the Presidency after Robert Taft narrowly wins the Presidency in the 1952 election, being the GOP nominee, instead of Eisenhower, is nominated, and then dies in 1953 or 1954]
c) a President Adlai Stevenson [who is narrowly elected President over GOP nominee Robert Taft, whom voters insufficiently trust to uphold social security, labor rights, and internationalist foreign policy, despite their fatigue with and disappointment with the Democratic Party and President Truman]
d) a President Richard Nixon [who succeeds President Eisenhower after a fatal heart attack in 1955]
For the Soviet Union -
What if the Soviet CPSU General Secretary dealing with the Suez Crisis [and any Hungary crisis, which might or might not be happening, depending on that person's policies], instead of Khrushchev is:
a) A still living and working Joseph Stalin
b) Georgi Malenkov
c) Vyacheslav Molotov
d) Lavrenti Beria
