As long as anything the British truly needed but lacked would somehow appear from American warehouses and bases...
If that's so, why was the US neutral?
Any way, ethnically cleansing the Falklands is no way to get the UN, or anyone else for that matter, on your side.
Any way, ethnically cleansing the Falklands is no way to get the UN, or anyone else for that matter, on your side.
As long as anything the British truly needed but lacked would somehow appear from American warehouses and bases...
As long as anything the British truly needed but lacked would somehow appear from American warehouses and bases...
Not that the UN will do more than say Tut-tut.
So you’d have TV shots of tearful Falkland Islanders arriving in England, followed by TV shots of jubilant Falkland Islanders returning home several weeks later.
A Stanley without civilians in it makes things easier for the British.
they were a little bit more subtle than that
It all came out of NATO warehouses (thus the British, as a member of NATO, had a slightly better claim to use it), and was promptly resupplied by the US (as a good member of NATO)
That's ignoring all the stuff that happened by phone and personal conversation which never got on the official record, of course...![]()
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
If that's so, why was the US neutral?
Though a little harder if there are shots of joyful Argentinians moving into the 'evacuated' houses - and then pictures of the bodies of dead argentinian civilains killed by the 'brutal british imperialists'.
If you are going to go down the 'repatriate' route you may as well go whole hog and put your own people in 'harms way' - maybe people who are not considered politically reliable - after all it was a penal colony at one time.
Snip
Because there was equally no reason to get involved in the conflict, as Britain had things under control.
There was a great deal of, at the time, VERY quiet cooperation by the U.S. & NATO with the UK.
The U.S., among other things that are now in the public record, was providing real-time Sat Intel (aka: National Technical Means) to the British, and that entailed, among other things, retasking a couple of birds to the South Arlantic, which was/is far from a minor effort. The French also gave up a LOT of information on the Exocet that helped the RN lure the missiles away from the fleet.
The U.S. was able to keep out of anything overt because the British were able to deal with the issue. That was the best for both nations.