Did France and England have any hope of maintaining their overseas

>>2435937
no, Britain was almost nuked over the whole Suez canal thing and the US was ready to clean their hands of them Not to mention that the soviets were willing to arm just about anyone. The political climate simply did not allow for colonies.

Some of them, yes. But there would be no point. The constant need to fight for then meant they were a net drain on the home country more than anything else. A perfect example would be French Algeria, where the French technically won a military victory but later abandoned it anyway because they figured there'd just be another costly revolt in a few years.

>>2435980
>this
the Suez Crisis was really the final nail in the coffin of Britain and France as global powers, having little direct authority when not backed up the US.

Also maintaining colonies became more and more expensive as nationalism was on the rise. to put it short, it was easy to put down African/Asian natives with spears/15th century muskets, once revolutionary armies started forming like the Viet Minh and the Algerian FLN, keeping those colonies was costing them more money in military expense than the revenue they got from them.

>>2436002
I often wonder if the UK and France could've ignored the US at the suez.

They were definitely in the right. Nasser was fucking evil and the Canal shouldn't have been nationalized. The problem was Russia was also breathing down their neck, and Eisenhower could destroy their economies at the drop of a hat.