AHC: Argentina peacefully acquires the Falklands/Malvinas
- Thread starter miguelrj
- Start date
As a minimum, you'd need to keep Argentina stable and democratic for the entire period. If you can find a way of doing that, then some variants of the deals that were discussed OTL (joint sovereignty, leaseback, etc.) might be doable.
It should be remembered that Britain was actively trying to get rid of the Falklands for much of this period, and would have welcomed a reasonable and constructive approach from Argentina that respected the rights of the islanders - "rape will be vigorously resisted, but seduction will be actively encouraged" was one somewhat cynical summary of the British government's attitude to Argentina's claims of sovereignty before 1982. As it was, Argentina instead adopted the one approach (bluster and diplomatic aggression backed up by incompetent violence) that was pretty much guaranteed to ensure the Falklands remain British for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, it's a pity you ruled out beef-for-land in WW2 as that's actually rather a good idea I've never seen raised before.
Oh I didn't rule it out, discuss at will. I only stated no "bonus points" in that case because I thought that option would dominate the proposal list and I wanted to know if the Brits could sell the Falklands away when not in a fragile situation.
I wasn't quite aware that the Brits were open to the idea of a handover to Argentina under the right conditions, so thanks.
It was mentioned here.
Indeed, I remember hearing something to that effect.
A peaceful aquicision without purchase? Rather difficult.
You could have the Argentinian government trying an 'ethnic invasion' style policy - subtly encourage native Argentinian's to move to the Falklands then demand a referendum on independence when the population is 50%+. Britain can't realistically refuse a referendum and save face publicly (notice how support for Argentina's claims recently decreased after 90% of the Falklands population voted to remain associated with the United Kingdom). Whoever loses a referendum on independence can't realistically keep making claims to the world stage without looking colonialist. If it goes Argentina's way, Britain will have to back down.
The trick is making the migration seem natural and not a direct policy of the Argentinian government (British probably won't take kindly to it).
I meant no purchase from a desperate Britain, i.e. no purchase during the harder years of 1940-42 or so. But as I wrote before, feel free to discuss any possibility.
Curiousone
Banned
Do it before the Opec oil crises, the hints of oil in the seas in the area in the late 70's.
Have the Argentines offer to protect the Falklanders way of life, property, legal system for a period like the deal Thatcher OTL negotiated over Hong Kong.
Have the Argentines offer to protect the Falklanders way of life, property, legal system for a period like the deal Thatcher OTL negotiated over Hong Kong.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
You have no chance we offered the argies the chance to co develop the oil fields of the Falklands they refused saying they want it all them selves, this was before 1982. We sent our fleet to protect the oil fields and the people who WANT TO BE UNDER BRITISH RULE not Argentinian rule.
It would be easily feasible in the immediate postwar period or early 50s. You'd have a Labour government who would have no sympathies for "colonialism"; you'd have a Britain that's cash-strapped, and in the first years of this period still had rationing going.
Argentine would have to offer a beef-for-land deal that would not be blatant; say, come to a confidential agreement, then grant exceptionally convenient terms to the British, then finally achieve control of the islands.
As to the latter, they would have to do the contrary of what they did. Instead of swashbuckling chauvinism, they should have offered a special status, the widest autonomy, the protection of the language and culture of the locals, lavish transfers of money to the local autonomous administration, and so on and so forth.
All of that could have worked. The British would have sold.
The problem is that the Argentinean government(s) wasn't/weren't interested in the islands per se; nationalistic bluster was actually the point, and giving that up would have defeated the purpose of the exercise.
Argentine would have to offer a beef-for-land deal that would not be blatant; say, come to a confidential agreement, then grant exceptionally convenient terms to the British, then finally achieve control of the islands.
As to the latter, they would have to do the contrary of what they did. Instead of swashbuckling chauvinism, they should have offered a special status, the widest autonomy, the protection of the language and culture of the locals, lavish transfers of money to the local autonomous administration, and so on and so forth.
All of that could have worked. The British would have sold.
The problem is that the Argentinean government(s) wasn't/weren't interested in the islands per se; nationalistic bluster was actually the point, and giving that up would have defeated the purpose of the exercise.
Garrison
Donor
There were no oilfields; exploration only began this decade. At the time oil wasn't more than a speculation and too expensive to exploit regardless. It's current prices that have made exploration worthwhile.
And this is about alternates. Had the Argentines been stable and democratic and not invaded in 1982 they could have probably acquired the islands within a couple of years as the cutbacks and changes to nationality laws made it clear to the Falkland Islanders that the UK was abandoning them. It was the Argentine's own political chaos and attitude to the islanders that made sovereignty non-negotiable.
Curiousone
Banned
So have it done before Oil is found in the region? The papers from the govt meetings show they were keen for some kind of honourable withdrawal. Don't bomb/occupy the Falklanders & you might even get them onside.
I've seriously wondered, with it such a national issue for the Argentines, something they teach to their school kids, as crass as it is, why not just bribe the Islanders ffs? There's 3000 of them now, there were far less in 1982. Offer them a million dollars each to leave. The U.K would have winged about interference in sovereign affairs, but they're not going to start a bidding war with taxpayers money or a shooting war over it.
Once the first chunk of people leave the local economies going to start sinking, people are going to lose the sense of community they had, the reason for staying. You'll effectively buy the Island for 2-3 Billion. Beats what a shooting war costs.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
At that time we would not have sold them to Argentina or any one else, it was a hot bed for escaped NAZIS WW2 had ended 5 years ago. Dr Mangler anyone, Boremann and Adolf Eichmann all thought to be in south America.So no not then and not now will we ever sell to the argies.
If the British carry out some deft diplomatic jiggery pokery in 59-60, there could have been some revision to the 4th article of the Antarctic treaty, which is currently:
If Britain agrees to hand sovereignty of the Malvinas to Argentina in return for the Argentines dropping their territorial claims in Antarctica, they could go on to suggest that the treaty should recognise territorial claims. They could also site the sterling work of the British decolonisation programme, and seek Antarctic territory as an insurance for future British development and prosperity. If the other signatories agree, arcticle four could have loooed like this:
Argentina gets it's islands and Britain gets a big slice of the Big South one the treaty comes up for renegatiation, whenever that would be.
However, I don't know who you would need on the British delegation to secure such a coup. I'm not too hot on the British diplomatic service of the fifties and sixties.
Unless it's putto the British by the Argentines, which is not unreasonable.
If Britain agrees to hand sovereignty of the Malvinas to Argentina in return for the Argentines dropping their territorial claims in Antarctica, they could go on to suggest that the treaty should recognise territorial claims. They could also site the sterling work of the British decolonisation programme, and seek Antarctic territory as an insurance for future British development and prosperity. If the other signatories agree, arcticle four could have loooed like this:
Argentina gets it's islands and Britain gets a big slice of the Big South one the treaty comes up for renegatiation, whenever that would be.
However, I don't know who you would need on the British delegation to secure such a coup. I'm not too hot on the British diplomatic service of the fifties and sixties.
Unless it's putto the British by the Argentines, which is not unreasonable.
gloster meteor mk3
Banned
A million each would not be enough there is enough squidillionaires on the islands as it is.
The Argentines could be in on it but I'm afraid the Americans, Soviets, Chileans and others wouldn't.
Curiousone
Banned
Now or then(1982 or even earlier, before the oil was found.. say 1970)? A few individuals on the islands or the average of everyone? Once enough people take the offer are the squidillionaires going to want to stay?
If you were the Argentines in 1970, how would you try and secure the Falklands?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ign-secretary-over-secret-Falklands-plan.html
So, avoid Thatcher's tenure as PM or avoid the war and wait for another British prime minister willing to agree to such a deal, and it's done.
There was another similar working proposal during Peron's third term which Peron was willing to agree to, but he died before doing so and his VP didn't agree to.
Margaret Thatcher’s 'thermonuclear’ attack on foreign secretary over secret Falklands plan
Peter Carrington, the former foreign secretary, says Margaret Thatcher blocked efforts to reach a settlement on the Falkland Islands using a leaseback deal with Argentina.
Margaret Thatcher's ashes have been laid to rest in the grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea
Tim Walker. Edited by Richard Eden
7:30AM BST 12 Oct 2013
31 Comments
Margaret Thatcher’s determination to stand up to the military junta in Argentina over the Falkland Islands is well documented, but fascinating new light has been shed on the battles that she fought with her own Cabinet on the issue.
Peter Carrington, who resigned as foreign secretary after the invasion in 1982, has disclosed that Baroness Thatcher blocked efforts by him and Nicholas Ridley, then his junior minister, to reach a settlement on the Falklands using a Hong Kong-style leaseback deal with Argentina.
Three weeks after she became prime minister in 1979, she invited Lord Carrington and Willie Whitelaw, with their wives, to a lunch at Chequers. Carrington mentioned that one of the problems he faced was what to do about the Falklands.
“I think we will soon be in trouble if we go on having meetings about them with the Argentines without saying anything at all,” Carrington said. “One of the options which seems to me worth exploring is a leaseback arrangement similar to what we have in Hong Kong.”
Lady Thatcher “erupted in anger”, Carrington tells Jonathan Aitken, the former cabinet minister, in his book, Margaret Thatcher: Power and Personality, which will be published on October 24 . She spent the next 10 minutes denouncing the very idea of exploring a Hong Kong solution.
Related Articles
- Argentina accused of assault on media critics
15 Oct 2013- How Thatcher bonded with Fergie at Palace
10 Apr 2013- Sir Mark Thatcher comes to the defence of his mother Margaret Thatcher
22 Mar 2012- Camilla seeks 'discreet’ secretary
12 Oct 2013- Miliband faces energy conflict with Labour peers
12 Oct 2013
“That’s the trouble with your Foreign Office,” she said. “Everyone in it is so bloody wet!”
Carington recalls: “It got worse. She banged on the table, and went on and on, and how typical it was of me and the FO 'to want to give away Britain’s possessions’.”
Sir Denis Thatcher “cooled the temperature” by saying, “I think you’re being a little extravagant, my dear.”
Despite this “thermonuclear” attack, Carrington persisted in his efforts to find a way round Lady Thatcher’s objections and wrote to her formally to say a form of leaseback was the best solution.
So, avoid Thatcher's tenure as PM or avoid the war and wait for another British prime minister willing to agree to such a deal, and it's done.
There was another similar working proposal during Peron's third term which Peron was willing to agree to, but he died before doing so and his VP didn't agree to.
Alex Richards
Donor
It's the Falklands not the bloody Caymans. Not a tax haven, not a retirement home for rich Brits. Average GDP per capita is about $55 grand. Which is only high in the rankings because the population is small enough that just about everyone has roughly that, but it's hardly full of millionaires.
And honestly, before 82 Britain was pretty much begging Argentina to give them a deal that would allow the islands to be transferred. Argentina never really wanted them in the first place- far more useful as a bit of nationalistic blunder than as actual territory.