Argentina buys the Falkland Islands?
- Thread starter ronaldo
- Start date
trurle
Banned
The earlier the easier. The 186x may be the period when the British power was sufficiently dispersed in multiple war fronts to attempt the selling of Falklands - in order to gain some resources urgently needed elsewhere. The Alaska Purchase in 1867 and British reaction in the form of consolidation (formation of Canada) shows the British unwillingness to engage in additional conflicts in the period. The Argentina was stabilized in 1861, so in say 1866 chances for paying decent price to British may be the best.
Then again I would say they won't sell it until someone builds the Panama Channel (or similar stuff, since we go into ATL here) becvause prior to the shipping lanes being able to go through Panama the route around Cape Hoorn (or through the Magellan straits) is too important to give up such a prime strategic location.
Behold a rough compilation of ship routes throughout the 18th and 19th century (somewhat inaccurate because upon close inspection there are several lines going across where Ireland is supposed to be but it still gives a decent impression about which routes were used the most)
The above point is good. The British are going to hold onto the Suiz Canal, the Straights of Malacca, the Cape of Good Hope, and someplace at least close to the Straights of Magellan while they still can. And the Panama Canal does them no good as they don't control it.
By 1982 apparently people knew of the existence of oil deposits near the Falklands.
The sale really has to take place after 1956. The British government really did consider abandoning the islands to cut costs, and they might have approached Argentina about a sale. This changed in 1982 because Argentina tried to grab them for free and by then I think the oil deposits were part of both governments'' calculations.
The Argentine claim to the islands was also probably an obstacle to a sale. You can't buy something you claim to be yours. The way it works, you usually get money to drop the claim. And the UK is still the wealthier country.
By 1982 apparently people knew of the existence of oil deposits near the Falklands.
The sale really has to take place after 1956. The British government really did consider abandoning the islands to cut costs, and they might have approached Argentina about a sale. This changed in 1982 because Argentina tried to grab them for free and by then I think the oil deposits were part of both governments'' calculations.
The Argentine claim to the islands was also probably an obstacle to a sale. You can't buy something you claim to be yours. The way it works, you usually get money to drop the claim. And the UK is still the wealthier country.
Zachariah
Banned
What about if the Nicaraguan government signs the equivalent of OTL's Bryan–Chamorro Treaty, at around the same time that it did with the USA IOTL? With control over that shipping route for themselves sealed, why not offload the Falklands and make a quick profit?
There's the possibility that Britain could have been the one that built the Canal, except in Nicaragua instead. They already controlled the Caribbean Terminus of the route with their protectorate on the Mosquito Coast, and nearly annexed Tiger Island on the pacific side before they were stopped by a US naval presence.
It's actually what I have planned in my timeline. The British get Nicaragua and a canal but they don't get Singapore and the straits of Malacca following a shift in focus to the New World after annexing Argentina in 1806.
Incidentally, the annexation does result in Argentina getting the Falklands, just not in the way I'm sure they would have liked.
How on Earth is Britain going to annex Argentina? The US would never allow it, Monroe Doctrine and all. ._.
IOTL during the Napoleonic Wars several British expeditions were sent to capture the Rio de la Plata in the same way they had captured Cape Colony in South Africa. So this is before the Monroe Doctrine was developed.
My timeline posits that the first expedition succeeds, and it results in a situation similar to Canada today, except instead of being divided between Francos and Anglos it's divided between Hispanics and Anglos.
Hmm... sounds workable. It's likely they'll attach Falklands to Argentina in this case, and the latter would remain quite Anglicised, even if it eventually gains independence.
I don't want to derail this thread to much so if you have any feedback I'd love if you could share it the actual thread here.
It's worth noting that far more than just the Falklands gets anglicized, pretty much everything south of the original Spanish Viceroy is settled by Anglos and they also settle what is now Chile south of Araucanía.
Two things about that;
Monroe Doctrine didn't come into affect until 1823.
The US was not the industrial power it was in the late 19th Century in 1806 and would basically have no ability to challenge the Royal Navy anywhere, let alone the Southern Cone.
Also important to note; after the Monroe Doctrine did take hold, Britain was one of the primary defenders of the doctrine, to secure her markets in Latin America from other European powers.
--
Anyway, I think a British canal is the best option for an early POD.
Actually, there were negotiations during Peron's third term, including joint sovereignity/codominium
(link in Spanish)
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1455991-la-propuesta-secreta-de-los-ingleses-a-peron-por-las-malvinas
The British non official paper to the Argentine government
https://es.scribd.com/doc/83966769/...cret_password=1j9fyl7n1et8o1qpetyh#from_embed
Reportedly, Peron agreed enthusiastically because, while the terms weren't the absolute (and impossible) best, he said "Once we put a foot there, they won't ever kick us out". But he died some three weeks later and the imbecile of third wife and vicepresident torpedoed those negotiations. Have a POD in which Peron chooses a competent VP and the codominium agreement goes through. If that butterflies away the 1982 war, then you have an entirely different political and demographic situation in the islands within a few decades. Changing "codominium" to "Argentine sovereignty" isn't out of the question then.
Anyway, for an outright purchase, the end of WWII can be a good opportunity. It can be painted in the same light as the nationalization of the railways, so the public can buy it. Or, in a more dramatic note:
For whatever reasons, only a few British ships can follow the Graff Spee in its way to the South Atlantic in 1939. With better odds, the Graff Spee manages to defeat her pursuers but, battle damaged, limps to the Falkland Islands for emergency repairs. Fog of War/lack of proper communications (uh, short wave radio was already a thing back then. Maybe the German sailors confiscate those?) make the world believe a German invasion of the Southern Atlantic is happening (yeah, only one ship, but it's not like the Falklands were heavily inhabited) and panic ensues. The RN, for whatever reasons (early Norway? Just normal war issues?), can't quickly dispatch a force to retake the islands.
In Buenos Aires, the pro-British OTL governments buys into the panic. In OTL, after the sinking of the Graff Spee, the Argentine government considered taking an official pro-allied-yet-still-neutral stance. Have the media print covers with "The German Navy has invaded Argentine soil", and butterflies might cause the Argentine government to dispatch the Argentine navy to the Falklands to fight off the Germans as an aid to the United Kingdom. Argentina becomes a formal member of the Allies and, among other things, garrisons the Falklands, since the RN is occupied elsewhere (ie, all over the world). When WWII ends, transferring sovereignty to the one non-commonwealth ally who declared war on Germany all the way back to 1939 and had been "taking care" of the islands for almost six years isn't far-fetched.
But how do you prevent Argentina from declaring independence? IOTL their war of independence began just after (1810).