Argentina 'repatriates' Falklands population in 1982

eply 3 by Badger here

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/13984?page=1

has an intersting what if

remove the populace to Argentina then send them on ships to the UK to remove that political lever from Britain, work with the UN to put even more pressure on the UK to back down.

Now, if Argentina had done that, would it have affected the operation to take the Falklands back?
 
I think it would be worse for Argentina if they tried doing that. The British would just seize the islands back, probably buff the Argentine leaderships with threats of nukes, and then place the population back there/
 
It would simply anger the British even more and the Argentine leadership's persistent incompetence at the diplomatic level leaves no hope of sudden talent appearing before the UN.
 
The islanders would probably resist any attempts to move them - some get shot by panicky troops and it makes everything a lot worse for the Argentines.
 
I'm guessing any attempt to do this would end badly, as has already been said. Perhaps at the very least the UK wouldn't rule out bombing mainland Argentina.
 
So the Argentines get rid of the nagging question of an uncompliant populace through mass deportation?

The US is gonna looooooooooooooove this...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So the Argentines get rid of the nagging question of an uncompliant populace through mass deportation?

The US is gonna looooooooooooooove this...

Yep. This might have been enough to push the U.S. from "let's all get along" into "We're with ya' Maggie, lets stack some asses!"
 
Oh, I don't know

With Jeane Kirkpatrick whispering into Reagan's ear how the Argentines are the good guys here and are only eliminating a cell of godless communists and that it more important to support Galtieri's regime than a long time ally, who knows how it would play out.

While being facetious, it is close to the truth. Regardless how odious the junta was, Kirkpatrick thought that supporting them was a better idea than supporting the British. Fortunately, Al Haig's argument was stronger.

Gator
 
Yep. This might have been enough to push the U.S. from "let's all get along" into "We're with ya' Maggie, lets stack some asses!"

You mean you think they weren't already :)
I was working on stuff for the Falklands when it was on, and the US people we interacted with were, well, shall we say hardly neutral :) :) :)
 
With Jeane Kirkpatrick whispering into Reagan's ear how the Argentines are the good guys here and are only eliminating a cell of godless communists and that it more important to support Galtieri's regime than a long time ally, who knows how it would play out.

While being facetious, it is close to the truth. Regardless how odious the junta was, Kirkpatrick thought that supporting them was a better idea than supporting the British. Fortunately, Al Haig's argument was stronger.

Gator

Thatcher's.

Britain.

Communist?
 
Thatcher's.

Britain.

Communist?

I think bbgator is referring to the fact Galtieri sought a military victory in the Malvinas so could shore up domestic support for his regime's one natural talent--making their fellow Argentines disappear.
 
Kirkpatrick

Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was a special advisor to the President, believed that an authoritarian regime, regardless of how oppressive it behaved, deserved American support as long as it was overtly anti-communist. Galtieri himself was highly thought of by certain members of the cabinet, including the NSA. It was Haig's argument that supporting Argentina would not be in the best interest of the USA and would greatly weaken NATO and that is what swung the Americans around to backing the UK. It would not have taken much to swing the argument around to backing the Argentines. And if this had happened, an administration that had turned a blind eye to the "disappearance" of thousands of Argy citizens is not going to protest the "repatriation" of a couple of thousand people.

Gator
 
Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was a special advisor to the President, believed that an authoritarian regime, regardless of how oppressive it behaved, deserved American support as long as it was overtly anti-communist. Galtieri himself was highly thought of by certain members of the cabinet, including the NSA. It was Haig's argument that supporting Argentina would not be in the best interest of the USA and would greatly weaken NATO and that is what swung the Americans around to backing the UK. It would not have taken much to swing the argument around to backing the Argentines. And if this had happened, an administration that had turned a blind eye to the "disappearance" of thousands of Argy citizens is not going to protest the "repatriation" of a couple of thousand people.

Gator

There is (unfortunately) in the eyes of the US Government a big difference between attaacking resistence in one's own country and attacking America's oldest and most important ally. All the world will see Argentina perform ethnic cleansing for wanton military expansion. I have many issues with Ronald Reagan, but he was not that stupid.
 
It would have taken quite a bit to convince Reagan that an already doomed military junta deserved support in an unprovoked war of aggression against his friend and ideological compadre.
 
In a hostage situation its a dream scenario for the side who has the hostages taken to have them all handed back to them. Britain can now blow the hell out of Argentinian positions on the island without fear of hurting civilians.
 
In a hostage situation its a dream scenario for the side who has the hostages taken to have them all handed back to them. Britain can now blow the hell out of Argentinian positions on the island without fear of hurting civilians.

And they can even do it without any international outcry...
 
Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was a special advisor to the President, believed that an authoritarian regime, regardless of how oppressive it behaved, deserved American support as long as it was overtly anti-communist. (snip)

Shouldn't she have supported Thatcher then? ;)

There is (unfortunately) in the eyes of the US Government a big difference between attaacking resistence in one's own country and attacking America's oldest and most important ally. (snip)
France is the USA's oldest ally. Japan or maybe Germany are probably the most important. The UK is the most obedient and lapdog like.
 
Top