Was there a leaflet run OTL?
Afaik, not even over the Falklands. What would be the point?...
Was there a leaflet run OTL?
“The British are coming!Afaik, not even over the Falklands. What would be the point?...
And they're really pissed.“The British are coming!
The British are coming!
The British are coming!“
“The British are coming!
The British are coming!
The British are coming!“
Sorry I just don't get this. Argentina invaded Sovereign UK territory, and at this point in the thread has had ample opportunity to admit their mistake and leave the Islands.There's always time to worry about it, and it should always be thought of. Don't forget multiple South American nations were, if not activelly, at least passively and politicaly on the side of Argentina. There were background talks in the UN.
If the UK starts to up the body count on operations that the political /social world might very well see as unnecessary ("we thought you wanted just to free the islands. Now you bomb Argentina?!"), not only the preassure on the UK will increase, the other SA nations might pitch in to help "defend against more european colonialism"). And, if as some here have writen, the UK attacks Buenos Aires then there will be serious trouble, casualties or not. Regardless of the actual results, Argentina can come up with stories of "dead civilians bombed (children!!)", civilians attacked, we shot down a bomber, etc...
The UK owns the space and water above and around the Falklands, which is their objective. Sticking to their mandate will allow them to difuse further international problems, regardless of short term military issues.
While I do broadly agree with you, you're overlooking one big thing in your comparison. The Soviet Union isn't some piddling third world dictatorship that would have trouble pouring piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed under the heel. They're the Soviet Union. A highly developed and advanced military, economic and diplomatic power. Who also holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has enough nuclear weapons to end all life on Earth several times over all by itself.Sorry I just don't get this. Argentina invaded Sovereign UK territory, and at this point in the thread has had ample opportunity to admit their mistake and leave the Islands.
How is it un reasonable for the UK to attack military targets within Argentina so long as there is a valid military rationale for doing so ?
I agree with the comments expressed by others.. If some countries don't like this.. to bad.
Edit to add:
I can't imagine a NATO nation wanting to set a precedent that as a matter of policy reasonably proportional military action shouldn't be taken against the home land of a country that invades your territory and refuses to leave. I can just imagine how the front line NATO states might have reacted to this type of logic in the early 1980's.
I'm not totally sure I'm fully following your example, but it occured to me that a number of NATO nations owned (and still own) islands that could conceivably have been seized by the Warsaw Pact.While I do broadly agree with you, you're overlooking one big thing in your comparison. The Soviet Union isn't some piddling third world dictatorship that would have trouble pouring piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed under the heel. They're the Soviet Union. A highly developed and advanced military, economic and diplomatic power. Who also holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has enough nuclear weapons to end all life on Earth several times over all by itself.
Sorry, been a long day. Spent the entire day with my kids at SeaWorld in Orlando. What I meant was, you really can't compare the UK's reaction, and the restraint they showed, when dealing with Argentina (an arguably third world country) and what the UK's reaction would be to the USSR attacking a NATO countryI'm not totally sure I'm fully following your example, but it occured to me that a number of NATO nations owned (and still own) islands that could conceivably have been seized by the Warsaw Pact.
I can't imagine many NATO nations being happy with a precedent being set that it somehow wasn't ok to attack nations that seized islands and refused to give them back.
No worries, that makes a lot of sense. I agree the UK chose to show restraint but in my view that was a choice the UK made for their own reasons.Sorry, been a long day. Spent the entire day with my kids at SeaWorld in Orlando. What I meant was, you really can't compare the UK's reaction, and the restraint they showed, when dealing with Argentina (an arguably third world country) and what the UK's reaction would be to the USSR attacking a NATO country
While not a perfect comparison, would anybody expect the US to exercise similar restraint if Cuba somehow occupied Puerto Rico in the early 80s?
In 1982, Thatcher though having a good relationship politically with Regan did not have the whole hearted support of the rest of the US Government. Politically America would not have been pleased if Britain had stomped all over the mainland military capability of a major anti communist regime in South America. I believe that the aid that was given to the British by the US came with a number of caveats, one of which was "no strikes on mainland Argentina' without Uncle Sam's approval. IMVHO that approval would only be given if for military reasons there were no other options open to the British Government other than failing to regain the Falkland Islands.
Sorry I just don't get this. Argentina invaded Sovereign UK territory, and at this point in the thread has had ample opportunity to admit their mistake and leave the Islands.
How is it un reasonable for the UK to attack military targets within Argentina so long as there is a valid military rationale for doing so ?
Kirkpatrick was a nut with a bee in her bonnet about maintaining a south American anti communist alliance above all else. However Britain is America's stone aircraft carrier in the cold war at this point. They need Britain more than Argentina so backing (the missiles, offer of Iwa Jima) will be forthcoming. That said escalation could lead to Chile invading and a more general south American war starting. If the war (as seems clear) can be won without escalation its probably for the best.No! I am talking about political and intelligence aid/assistance, IIRC at the time the support of the USA at the UN was at best ambivalent under Jean Kirkpatrick. Partly due to this and other political considerations the actions taken by the UK Government in recapturing the Falkland Islands that the USA would find acceptable most definitely put caveats on their political support for the UK's operations in the South Atlantic. Being a Brit, in Yank land at the time, I can recall having to argue the case for a military response by the UK at all! To most Americans it was a spat between two nations over some useless rocks far away about which they new little and cared less.
Ah spain yes that continental superpower. Spain has just come out of a dictorship and are pretty weak. What is spain going to do invade britain, send a harshly worded letter. France and germany are the important european nations and they supported the UK. Also it doesn't matter what voices, europe might criticise the uk but will still back the uk, south america doesn't matter as they will not want to actaully join the war. Your acting on the assumption britain has no commited allies and that the western block will immediately turn on them if they break a rule, but that never been the case with western nations. They have broken rules and done bad stuff yet the western allies never turn on them. When the USA invaded grenada, the west didn't turn on the usa did it.Spain stayed neutral in both the UN and EU, almost openly siding with Argentina
Be a chance to see what a Carl Gustav does to an unarmoured tractor I guess.But wait! What if Argentina forestalled the buildup at Ascension Island by dispatching a small task force equipped with some heavy bulldozers to destroy Wideawake Airfield and-
*Cymraeg is deafened by the screams of "Not this shit again" and is then dragged off by a pack of frenzied realists*
(In case anyone is confused I am referring to this... object)
No! I am talking about political and intelligence aid/assistance, IIRC at the time the support of the USA at the UN was at best ambivalent under Jean Kirkpatrick. Partly due to this and other political considerations the actions taken by the UK Government in recapturing the Falkland Islands that the USA would find acceptable most definitely put caveats on their political support for the UK's operations in the South Atlantic. Being a Brit, in Yank land at the time, I can recall having to argue the case for a military response by the UK at all! To most Americans it was a spat between two nations over some useless rocks far away about which they new little and cared less.