• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
And so passes Mr. Republican, a thoroughly principled man.

Looking forward to the meeting with Eden. Guess the Americans can learn a lot from the British approach in Malaya.
 
El Pip: It all depends. He's the Prime Minister in TTL's 1953 instead of OTL Churchill. Would that give him better doctors because of it? If he gets a better doctor, then perhaps he can avoid his unfortunate problem.
Based on the only other example from the same peroid (Neville Chamberlains' cancer) being PM could get him worse treatment. As I understand his doctor's deliberately kept the diagnosis from him as it the tumour was inoperable and untreatable and they didn't want to 'needlessly burden him further'.

Still gallstones are amongst the simplest operation in the world and it was nothing more than bad luck the operation went wrong, just by being PM he'll probably end up in a different hospital so he should be fine, unless of course he's doomed to be an unlucky PM TTL as well as OTL.
 
Motivated by El Pips comments, I just read the Wiki article on Anthony Eden, in particular his medical troubles. Apparently the man was on a heavy dose of Amphetamines during the whole Suez crisis. Basically the man was on Speed when he ran Britain's might into the ground. That explains something about his bad judgement... :eek:o
 
El Pip: Reminds me of FDR. He was suffering from severe health problems that should have sidelined him in the 1944 election and his doctor deliberately kept the diagnosis from him.

Given how I have portrayed Eden in the update that is coming today, I would say that his gallstone problem doesn't appear to be getting in the way.

Leviathan07: If I can avert the Suez crisis, Eden might be okay.
 
Jape: Thanks. As for the next update, here it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visiting Europe
On September 30th, Stevenson arrived in Rome, Italy for his first European visit as President. It had been ten years since the United States invaded Fascist Italy and overthrew the Mussolini regime. Since the end of World War Two, the Italian political scene had been unstable. The Communists at one point came close to winning power in national elections. Prime Minister Giuseppe Pella warned Stevenson of the lassitude of the Democratic center, the potential resurgence of the Fascist Right, and the “unbelievable” bitterness of the Communists who had been imprisoned by the Fascists. The President reassured him that the United States would continue to support the Italian effort to stabilize their internal politics. While in Rome, Stevenson also had a private audience with Pope Pius XII – who urged his American visitor to stand firm against the Communists.
0pius_1.jpg

From Rome, the President next traveled to Vienna, Austria to make a Voice of America radio broadcast aimed at the citizens of the Soviet satellite countries:
“I want particularly to tell my listeners in Eastern Europe of the warm admiration with which Americans learned of the recent brave conduct of the workers in many cities of those Republics. In my own home state of Illinois, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans of Slovak, Polish, and Hungarian origin who have a very intimate interest in the fate of their relatives in their former homeland. Beyond this, we Americans – we all have a direct interest in the cause of freedom everywhere.”
818014fcc134e3a3_landing-1.jpg

After Austria came the Federal Republic of Germany. A major stop here was Berlin. Once the capital of the powerful Third Reich, Berlin in late 1953 was a forward-looking city that wanted to forget about its' Nazi past. With the German capital now in Cologne, almost no government business was being conducted in Berlin. The Reichstag, once the seat of the German Parliament until a mysterious fire in February 1933 gutted the place, had been transformed into an office building and art gallery. Stevenson visited the Reichstag (accompanied by an American army officer who in early July 1944 was one of the soldiers who helped raise the Stars and Stripes over the building), along with the Brandenburg Gate (built in the late 18th Century as a Prussian sign of peace). Motoring eastward, the Commander-in-Chief was shown the Oder River. A natural barrier between Democratic Germany and Communist Poland, the Oder River had been transformed into a visual symbol of the Iron Curtain. On the other side of the river, Red Army troops stood poised to shoot anyone who tried to escape across the river to freedom.
germany_river_map-1.gif

While in Germany, a reporter asked Stevenson about Eden’s recent proposal for a four-power conference with Molotov that would be conducted without a fixed agenda. The President responded that he always believed in keeping the door open to negotiation but thought a four-power conference at this time might be unproductive since “General Secretary Molotov has so far shown no desire to back away from Stalinist policies.”
Leaving Germany, he flew across the border to Paris, France. While in the French capital, he met with Prime Minister Laniel and discussed – among other things – Vietnam. At the time, Navarre was busy reorganizing his forces and the Prime Minister expressed his confidence that the General could get the job done. He thanked Stevenson for providing France with aid and vowed to subdue the Viet Minh despite the growing public weariness towards the First Indochina War. In turn, Stevenson promised to continue “doing my part to keep the Russians out of Southeast Asia.”
While in Paris, the President found himself mobbed by intellectuals who saw him as being the most intellectual Chief Executive the United States ever had. Every notable French intellectual wanted to meet him. Schlesinger – who was part of the American entourage for the European trip – later remarked that “no American since Benjamin Franklin had been besieged by that many admirers.”
69c829b20ac8ea8a_landing-1.jpg

A quick flight over the English Channel brought the President to the country he most looked forward to visiting: the United Kingdom. He loved England, and enjoyed himself here more than anywhere else. He attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace held by Queen Elizabeth II in his honor. Her Majesty even invited Stevenson to sit with her in her private box at the races; of course he snatched the invitation right up. After attending the races, the President dined with Sir Winston Churchill and his wife at their Chartwell estate in Kent. At age seventy-eight, the former Prime Minister was old and ill (he was recovering from a severe stroke he suffered a few months earlier)…but still possessed his legendary vigor and lucidness. When asked for an assessment of Churchill later on, Stevenson quipped, “he was only half the man he was but he was four times a man.”
After being voted out of office in the 1948 General Election, Churchill retired from politics and focused instead on his twin pleasures: painting and writing. However, he still had his opinions which he shared with his American visitor:
-The best hope for peace lay with America’s hydrogen bomb
-He would have preferred a regional grouping of states rather than universalism
-McCarthyism – a pressing problem for Stevenson back home – would be undone by Democracy’s power to correct wrongs
-France would be almost useless in the postwar world and that they couldn’t hold onto Indochina no matter what
-The solution to all problems lay at the center – in Moscow
-The way to keep the British onboard as a close ally would be through trade
606b37c4f8730fa8_landing-1.jpg

After listening to Churchill, Stevenson returned to London for the most important meeting of the entire European trip: Anthony Eden. The Prime Minister greeted his American counterpart outside his official residence/office at 10 Downing Street. After shaking hands and posing for the cameras outside the main door, the two leaders stepped inside for their long-awaited meeting.
c8d98477ef69b240_landing-1.jpg

From all accounts, Stevenson and Eden got along. They spoke at length about foreign policy (domestic policy was largely ignored because the economically-inexperienced Prime Minister left such matters to lieutenants like Chancellor of the Exchequer Rab Butler). Eden was having a rough time as Prime Minister and freely admitted so. The British Empire – once the dominating force in the world – was collapsing and there seemed little he could do to reverse it:
-Libya had just broken away from British control and was now an independent nation.
-In the African colony of Kenya, Eden had been forced to send thousands of British troops there to try to put down an anti-colonial rebellion being conducted by a Kikuyu (a Kenyan ethnic group)-dominated group called the Mau-Mau. So far, the British found themselves unable to stem the tide of the insurgency.
-Then there was the emergency in Malaya. When Eden took office in May 1952, he inherited from Clement Attlee a guerilla war waging between the Commonwealth and the Malayan Communist Party over control of the Asian colony. To combat the Communist guerillas, the British were waging a counter-insurgency focused on winning over the civilian population’s hearts and minds. They were also driving the enemy into the jungles and cutting off their resources. Compared to Kenya, the British were doing rather well in Malaya – but Eden nonetheless preferred not to have the emergency.
malayan-emergency-1.jpg

When the discussion turned to the Middle East, Eden politely but firmly warned Stevenson to – to use a modern phrase – “butt out”. The Middle East was the British sphere of influence, and they would behave in that region as they saw fit. “You Americans,” the Prime Minister reminded the President, “Have the Monroe Doctrine, in which Central and South America falls under your jurisdiction. We have our own Monroe Doctrine, which applies to the Middle East. We have been operating in that region for a long time, and we therefore have a better understanding of how to deal with the Arabs than you do – with all due respect, of course.”
Eden dismissed the idea that his country had overstayed their welcome, arguing that his country’s very presence was making a strong contribution to the modernization of the region. While listening to the pro-British arguments, Stevenson could hear Acheson’s words in the back of his mind:
“For the British, influence is everything. This is especially true now, with their global power waning. London no longer leads the world and they know it. That is why the British will cling onto whatever influence they can exert.”
Just as Acheson predicted, Eden flat-out rejected the idea of handing the Suez Canal over to Egypt. “Suez is strategically important to us,” he emphatically proclaimed, “It’s a major component of our military and economic lifeblood. The Egyptians can agitate all they want, but we are not walking away from the Suez Canal under any circumstances.”
At the same time he was being firm, Eden also indicated that he was willing to leave the door open to “reasonable” negotiations with the Naguib government over Suez. He was also willing to help fund the construction of the Aswan Dam if the Americans really were serious about going through with it. “We are fully committed to the project,” the President assured him. On the topic of Cyprus, Stevenson was told that the British stood by their decision to give the island to Greece and would oppose Turkish efforts to take the island for themselves. “If you are wise,” Eden warned, “You will respect our decision and stay out of this matter.”
50394156-1.jpg

The meeting ended with Eden’s proposal for a four-power conference with the Soviets. Having worked alongside Molotov in the past, the Prime Minister believed he understood the General Secretary better than the President did. Even if nothing constructive came out of this meeting, Eden believed it would at least open the door to further talks. Stevenson cast his doubts:
“There is no reliable evidence that Russia is willing to consider abandoning her goal of world domination. The non-Communist world, I should point out, is by no means a harmonious household and includes every variety of attitudes. With all due respect, I don’t share your sentiment to meet the Russians ‘half-way’ because we don’t exactly know what this ‘half-way’ is.”
After speaking at the University of Oxford about Anglo-American relations, the President’s first European trip was over. As his Lockheed VC-121E Constellation (flying with the new call sign “Air Force One”) made its’ way across the Atlantic, Stevenson made an assessment of his foreign policy options for 1954. Frankly, Eden had locked him into a tight box. Trying to get the British to reduce their influence in the Middle East would be fruitless, since the Prime Minister made it crystal-clear that his country was there to stay. That would disappoint the Arabs, who wanted the Americans to lean on their Anglo ally. Fortunately, there would be some wiggle room with regards to Egypt. Eden pledged his support in funding the Aswan High Dam project and was willing to talk to Cairo about Suez (simply handing control of the Canal over to them would be off the table, of course). Israel would have to be prodded into going along with repatriating the Arab refugees and fixing boundaries – and accepting the fact that American aid would no longer go solely to her. As for Cyprus, Stevenson would have to reject Acheson’s advice and recognize Greek control over the island; butting heads with the British by supporting rival Turkish claims was not something he was prepared to do.
Lockheed_VC-121E_Super_Constellation-1.jpg

The Presidential airplane touched down at Idlewild Airport in New York City (the Chief Executive planned to continue on to Libertyville to rest before heading back to D.C.). When Stevenson stepped off the plane, he found CIA Director William Preston Lane waiting for him on the tarmac. As they made their way to the Presidential car, Lane informed his boss that “I came here because something serious has happened that I need to brief you on.”
Once they climbed into the car, Stevenson was handed an intelligence report. Putting on his reading glasses, the President read the report. His mood instantly grew grim. “This is indeed serious,” he agreed.
 
Also is it my imagination or have you painted Eden as a total twit? Not a criticism I don't really know much about the man bar his drug dependency
I think it's more your own prejudices; left leaning chap dislikes Conservative Prime Minister non-shocker. ;)

Pre-op he was a very pragmatic politician, a very high opinion of his skills at foreign affairs but shaky on home matters and lacking any real domestic convictions beyond old school Tory paternalism. Post-op he was racked with pain, infection and speed so could (and did) do pretty much anything, none of it particularly well.

Still I do wonder what you think was particularly twit like about his policies there? Damned if I can see what's so foolish about just handing over the Suez Canal for free or letting the American's have free reign in the Middle East. On a related note is swapping British influence for US influence really a good deal for the Arabs? Given the US Jewish lobby I doubt it.

Also top marks for Churchill in noting that France would be useless. If only he'd had that epiphany in 1940!
 
On a related note is swapping British influence for US influence really a good deal for the Arabs? Given the US Jewish lobby I doubt it.

This is 1953, Israel has only been around for 5 years or so, it's totally not clear yet to anyone that there is a persistent pro-Israel lobby group that will dominate US near east policy from the 1970s onward. In 1953, the big topics were decolonization and economic development and in both those areas (the former more than the latter) the US were seen as friendly towards Arab interests. For anyone save the few leftover European colonial powers, the Suez was a crystal clear case of decolonization needing to be applied. Which is why US/USSR came down hard on UK and France when they invaded Egypt, and why most of the world cheered them for doing so.
 
Could it be possible that Eden gets an overdose that send hims to a premature retirement and have Winnie back?
 
the Suez was a crystal clear case of decolonization needing to be applied. Which is why US/USSR came down hard on UK and France when they invaded Egypt, and why most of the world cheered them for doing so.
Whatever the merits of decolonisation I would suggest there is a difference between decolonisation and theft and Suez sure as buggery wasn't decolonisation. Suez was Nasser seizing the canal company without compensation for reasons of prestige and economic and strategic advantage.

I'm not saying those aren't excellent reasons to act, but don't give theft a moral veneer it doesn't deserve.
 
Whatever the merits of decolonisation I would suggest there is a difference between decolonisation and theft and Suez sure as buggery wasn't decolonisation. Suez was Nasser seizing the canal company without compensation for reasons of prestige and economic and strategic advantage.

I'm not saying those aren't excellent reasons to act, but don't give theft a moral veneer it doesn't deserve.
Egypt was a colony of the British Empire and as such any British concessions taken from them through treaty was an act performed in a colonial relationship. Egypt acted within its rights when it repudiated those treaties following their independence.

By Egyptian law, seizing the Canal company was a legal act. International law says nothing about nationalization of property, to my knowledge. You can debate the issue from the point of international politics - it was a hostile act against British interests, for sure, and guaranteed to cause a crisis in Egyptian-British relations by all expectations, but none of that gave Britain the legal justification to invade the country. The invasion ran against every principle of the UN charter, to which the UK was a signatory, and which expressly outlawed military aggression as a way to resolve international conflicts. Of course it would cause an outcry among among the nations of the world, most of which were in similar situations as Egypt - a large part of its country still belonging to foreigners - and who were eager to see a precedent established for the primacy of national interests over colonial-era ownership titles. Egotism on part of the ex-colonial nations, of course, but views held by a majority have a tendency to become binding principles.
 
Egypt was a colony of the British Empire and as such any British concessions taken from them through treaty was an act performed in a colonial relationship. Egypt acted within its rights when it repudiated those treaties following their independence.
No that is quite spectacularly incorrect.

Egypt was not a colony of the British Empire at the time the canal was built and the construction concession was not given to Britain but to a French firm. The Egyptian government had a large stake in the canal company which (due to an entirely internal financial crisis) they quite legally sold to the British government for £4million in 1875 (that's 1875 pounds, so a few billion in today's money). I don't even thing the Egyptian government's debts were to British banks so you can't even try and claim economic warfare.

Yes Egypt did become a colony of Britain, but the canal had been sold to Britain years before that point. Unless your trying to claim that decolonisation means undoing events that occurred before colonial influences it was just theft.
 
Jape: I have taken an cue from Draco and ended the update with a cliffhanger.

My intention with Eden was to paint him as being firm on the Middle East. Did I paint him as being too firm?

El Pip: Or here in America, Left-wing sportcasters complaining about a Conservative President being tough on terrorists.

Did I portray Eden accurately, El Pip?

At least he is standing his ground against the Americans, which I would imagine would make certain people happy.

Thanks. Just pointing out the obvious.

Leviathan07: Good point.

Kurt_Steiner: Do you really want a 78-year-old Prime Minister plagued by health problems?

El Pip: You certainly have a strong opinion about Suez.

Leviathan07: Reminds me of Mexico's nationalization of America's oil production in the 1930s.

El Pip: This is an interesting debate.
 
Kurt_Steiner: Do you really want a 78-year-old Prime Minister plagued by health problems?

Sounds like Ike. (Who is one of my favorite Presidents btw)
 
No that is quite spectacularly incorrect.

Egypt was not a colony of the British Empire at the time the canal was built and the construction concession was not given to Britain but to a French firm. The Egyptian government had a large stake in the canal company which (due to an entirely internal financial crisis) they quite legally sold to the British government for £4million in 1875 (that's 1875 pounds, so a few billion in today's money). I don't even thing the Egyptian government's debts were to British banks so you can't even try and claim economic warfare.

Yes Egypt did become a colony of Britain, but the canal had been sold to Britain years before that point. Unless your trying to claim that decolonisation means undoing events that occurred before colonial influences it was just theft.
True, the canal predated Egypt being turned into a protectorate, however 60 years of subsequent British colonial rule are so inseparably linked to that very piece of Egyptian infrastructure that you can't possibly separate the issue of canal ownership from decolonization. The canal is the reason why Egypt was turned into a colony.

Call it theft but there's nothing in the UN charta that prohibits nationalizations. Attacking other countries to protect your investments however is considered "waging a war of aggression" and it's banned under all international laws. Property rights are subject to the laws of a country, and the right to change those laws trumps all rights that other countries have under international law. You have of course the right to protest, to sue the government in the courts of that country, to conduct economic warfare or to blackmail them diplomatically, but you may not just invade another country and demand that your property be restored. Too bad if you don't have the leverage to force them by peaceful means... welcome to the modern world...
 
Last edited:
True, the canal predated Egypt being turned into a protectorate, however 60 years of subsequent British colonial rule are so inseparably linked to that very piece of Egyptian infrastructure that you can't possibly separate the issue of canal ownership from decolonization.
Of course you can. The Egyptians had sold the canal long before Egypt became a protectorate. Not a concession, not a lease but an outright once-and-forever sale of their stake in the Suez Canal Company. You may say this was a bad choice by the Egyptian government (I'd agree) but that doesn't change the fact it had nothing at all to do with colonialism, if only for the excellent reason they weren't a European colony at the time!

To put it simply the Egyptians had decided in 1875 on the ownership of the canal - they sold it it to Britain. The intervening colonial period had bugger all to do with, a non-colonial Egypt had decided to sell the canal, just because a later generation regretted it doesn't mean they could steal it back. A counter-example - Is Russia permitted to annex Alaska because they sold it a bit cheap?

However I suspect we will not agree on this point and I've certainly run out of new points to make on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I can empathise with Eden, he wouldn't want to give any ground to Egypt without some kind of visible return on Britain's part. To his mind, the British presence is entirely justified and even beneficial, though of course the Arabs that have had to live with that have a rather different opinion. I really think that while Stevenson has a little bit of room with Britain on the Middle East, it's going to take some exterior element to push the British towards an outcome ultimately acceptable to the Arabs...

On that subject, could the serious matter be Nasser taking over? Or some other thing like the French being trapped in Dien Bien Phu?! By god if it is make sure to bomb the crap out of the Viet Minh, the 'No more Koreas' mantra Ike followed on this issue shouldn't apply ITTL
 
I think a negotiated transfer of Suez would lead to the best deal possible for Britain. Their hold on Suez is tenuous at best, but with a negotiated transfer, Britain could get some compensation and can leave with its head held high. Eden can then show with Cyprus the British lion still has its fangs, keeping Greece firmly in their camp.