AHC/WI: Argentine Victory in a Falklands war

Is there any way to get an Argentine victory in the Falklands war? I doubt that the Argentines can win outright militarily, but is it possible for them to provoke a casualty pit that drains British public support for the war? Perhaps there is more domestic trouble for Thatcher?

Is there any way to provoke a British invasion of Argentina proper, perhaps if Argentine forces on the island can dig in beyond the British's hope of dislodging them? Such a war could easily lead to high enough casualties for the British public to eventually demand cutting losses...

Your POD can involve changes in Argentine and/or British domestic politics--to the point where the war doesn't look much like OTL--but if you don't, what does such an outcome do for the politics of each country? Does the junta last longer? Does Thatcher's gov't fall?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
If worse comes to worse Her Majesty's Submarine Force could declare open season on Argentine shipping, and start mining and lobbing cruise missiles at Argentina's ports. That would be a real drain on the Argentine economy.
 

Dolan

Banned
Actually, the simplest solution would be an US President who explicitly backed Argentine claim on Malvinas. Either due to genuine(ly mistaken) belief on anticolonialism, or due to (unexpected) hatred of Britain.

If Britain still tried keeping Falklands, there will be American Naval Task Force sent there...
 
If worse comes to worse Her Majesty's Submarine Force could declare open season on Argentine shipping, and start mining and lobbing cruise missiles at Argentina's ports. That would be a real drain on the Argentine economy.

RN Subs didn't have cruise missiles in 1982. Despite the Fitzpatrick clique at State the Pentagon would not want to piss off the UK at the height of the Cold War in case Thatcher did a de Gaul and kickrd the US out of their UK bases. The US had a huge number of bases in the UK, the financial and political costs of having to move all those aircraft to European bases or back home would be huge and would have a massive impact on the US and NATO.
 
Actually, the simplest solution would be an US President who explicitly backed Argentine claim on Malvinas. Either due to genuine(ly mistaken) belief on anticolonialism, or due to (unexpected) hatred of Britain.

If Britain still tried keeping Falklands, there will be American Naval Task Force sent there...
The biggest problem(s) with this being, of course, the US-UK Special Relationship since the 1920s, and the fact that Britain and America are both major members of NATO, while Argentina is a tin-pot dictatorship and general sleazy corrupt fascist hellhole. The US might help Argentina with stuff, but Britain is their ally.
 

Deleted member 94680

Your best (only?) bet is to have a Labour government in power in London. Absent Thatcher, pretty much any other possible Tory PM of the era is always going to push the “War!” button given an Argentine invasion.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Argentina turns to USSR for help
Soviets supply
6 x osa boats operating out of Falklands
A few foxtrot subs
A couple of dozen mig21mf( based in Falklands )
Two dozen Su17 strike planes armed with PGM
6 x tu22 blinders with AS4 ASM
The Vulcan strike is intercepted and repulsed
Naval Outcome is a few more lucky hits puts invincible out of commission early in the campaign and sinks a couple more troopships ...game over
[This in addition to their usual French hardware in the OTL]

Thatcher govt defeated in next elections
 
Last edited:
Argentina turns to USSR for help
Soviets supply
6 x osa boats operating out of Falklands
A few foxtrot subs
A couple of dozen mig21mf( based in Falklands )
Two dozen Su17 strike planes armed with PGM
6 x tu22 blinders with AS4 ASM
The Vulcan strike is intercepted and repulsed
Naval Outcome is a few more lucky hits puts invincible out of commission early in the campaign and sinks a couple more troopships ...game over
[This in addition to their usual French hardware in the OTL]

Thatcher govt defeated in next elections
....which kind of defeats the point of the National Reorganization Process. You know, the bunch of fascist, mass-murdering, people-disappearing bastards who were ruling Argentina at this time. These guys got to power because the previous government was "too soft" on Communists, so the Army and Navy brass got together and set up a fascist-leaning junta, killing Communists and Communist sympathizers - which meant anyone who showed any criticism or doubt about the regime.
General Iberico St. Jean governor of Buenos Aires said:
First we will kill all the subversives; then we will kill all their collaborators; then their sympathisers; then those who remained indifferent; and finally, we'll kill the undecided."
Among other things, they worked with Ernesto Pinochet of Chile to engage in massive anti-communist actions across the continent of South America, kidnapping, torturing, and killing many Communists and Communist sympathizers with the aid of the Brazil junta of the 1970s. And quite often done with US aid or implicit support. Check for Operation Condor sometime.

So now these guys, the guys who've been hunting down and killing Communists for nearly a decade, turn to the USSR for help. Three guesses on how their seconds-in-command react; they declare them traitors, and then slit their throats before assuming their roles as the new junta.

And would the USSR really help these bastards? And if so, how exactly is it going to get all that fancy equipment to South America, basically a world away, especially when said hardware looks strong enough to give NATO armies cold sweats?

Really, the best way the Argentinians take and hold the "Malvinas" Islands is if Britain refuses to fight. A Labour government might help in that regards.

EDIT: My bad, turns out they were also in cahoots with the juntas of Paraguay, Urugay, and Peru as well as Brazil and Chile to kill off Communists all across the continent. All with the USA either doing nothing or implicitly helping.
 
Last edited:
The UK was always going to win if it just came down to military strength. But perhaps Argentina could come out of it with something resembling a victory if their were some massive disaster that turned people in the UK against the war.

I'm no expert on military matters, but I would suggest tgat Argentina actually manages to sink the Invincible, with a significant loss of life. Perhaps that would be enough to have the cabinet turn on Thatcher, and faced with the prospect of a more drawn out war than IOTL, her successor opts for some sort of negotiated peace. Even in this situation, I don't think Argentina would get outright control of the Islands, but the circumstances would allow the Junta to spin the war as a victory. Anyone who knows more about the subject can feel free to correct me on this.
Your best (only?) bet is to have a Labour government in power in London. Absent Thatcher, pretty much any other possible Tory PM of the era is always going to push the “War!” button given an Argentine invasion.
If Labour had won in 1979, there is a pretty good chance that there wouldn't have been a Falklands War in the first place, as the RN protection that the Callaghan government deployed to the area in 1977 would likely still be in place. That said, I'm really not sure that any other Tory would have opted for an instant counter-attack in the way that Thatcher did. I remember hearing that there was significant opposition in the cabinet to that. So maybe an alternative Tory PM like Whitelaw or Heath would opt for a negotiated resolution to the conflict instead.
 
And would the USSR really help these bastards? And if so, how exactly is it going to get all that fancy equipment to South America, basically a world away, especially when said hardware looks strong enough to give NATO armies cold sweats?

Especially as there's the possibility that they were (covertly, from everyone) helping the UK during the war. The Argentines got very jumpy at points about possible RN SSNs operating off Buenos Aires. The RN didn't have any there, but a Soviet Admiral at the UN did drop a hint to his UK counterpart that there were Soviet boats trailing their coats in the area to provoke exactly the reaction they got.

The UK was always going to win if it just came down to military strength. But perhaps Argentina could come out of it with something resembling a victory if their were some massive disaster that turned people in the UK against the war.

The war was a far closer run thing than that. If either of the carriers had been hit, the task force would almost certainly have been forced to withdraw. If the air attacks had targeted the landing ships and STUFT, the landing force would probably have been crippled (as it nearly was by the loss of Atlantic Conveyor). If the bombs had been properly fused the BMA at Ajax would have been stripped of its close air defence. The list goes on and on.
 
Your best (only?) bet is to have a Labour government in power in London. Absent Thatcher, pretty much any other possible Tory PM of the era is always going to push the “War!” button given an Argentine invasion.

A Foot or a Benn government would be very reluctant to fight. A Callaghan government would probably go for it.
 
A Foot or a Benn government would be very reluctant to fight. A Callaghan government would probably go for it.

Nonsense Michael Foot had few if any qualms about resisting by force a fascist dictatorship invading sovereign territory. I think you misjudge the generational mindset of Britons of the era. You do not have to be a fan of Mr Foot to read his actual remarks in the House of Commons OTL.
 
Actually, I am a Brit who was around during the Falklands. Foot would have done it reluctantly after exhausting diplomatic options but there were the likes of Benn who would have said hell no and a lot of back benchers would have gone nuts, he would have been fighting Militant the whole time who would be very resistant to "militaristic and colonialist behaviour". A Benn government would have just waffled around with sanctions and strongly worded UN speeches and pretty much nothing else.

Healy would have fought and so would Callaghan.
 
British military reputation is tarnished. Perhaps China might decide to take over Hong Kong, assuming the Seventh Fleet won't meddle.
 
Healey was more hostile to intervention than Foot IOTL, so its perfectly possible Callaghan not invade, at least as a first option.

Callaghan would likely have done what he did in '78 and leak a story that there was a SSN exercising in the South Atlantic first which cooled the Argentinians off that time. I suspect Callaghan would likely have sent a task force but maybe a bit slower.
 
Top