Argentina 'repatriates' Falklands population in 1982

Hmmmmm, is th Argentina Junta did that, how long before the Royal Navy carriers are joined by a USN task force built around a Nimitz Class Carrier, inwhich case the Argentine Air Force goes bye bye.
 
As long as anything the British truly needed but lacked would somehow appear from American warehouses and bases...

Yeah, I doubt the Americans will actually get involved-they'll just say a few words, snicker, and give the Brits everything necessary to smack the Argies into next Tuesday.
 
If that's so, why was the US neutral?


Because Galtieri & Company had earlier lent an infantry unit to help train the Contras in Nicaragua. They thought the Falklands would be a nice way to cash to chit owed them by the US, sort of like how Saddam thought fighting the Iranians for 8 years and drawing the teeth out of the early Islamic Revolution for the West meant he was owed Kuwait.

Things always go pear-shaped when Third World dictators actually believe the lies the West feed them in order to get said dictators to do the West's dirty work. Silly Third Worlders, we always promise them the moon and we always screw them in the end, so why do they always believe us? :(

Any way, ethnically cleansing the Falklands is no way to get the UN, or anyone else for that matter, on your side.
 

Cook

Banned
Any way, ethnically cleansing the Falklands is no way to get the UN, or anyone else for that matter, on your side.

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.
 
As long as anything the British truly needed but lacked would somehow appear from American warehouses and bases...

they were a little bit more subtle than that :D

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...:D:D
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
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.

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.
 
they were a little bit more subtle than that :D

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...:D:D

IIRC, there were items, like roll up landing pads for Harriers, that Britain apparently didn't have at all, but were provided by the US. It should be pointed out that Britain PAID for everything they got. This wasn't the days of Lend-Lease, after all.:rolleyes:
 
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 wasn't a "special advisor" to Reagan. That presupposes some kind of special backdoor arrangement, like the National Security Advisor. She was Ambassador to the United Nations, a Cabinet-level position in the US Government. As such, she had the authority of a cabinet level officer, but in terms of personal influence would be naturally outranked by the Secretary of State (Haig) as well as the National Security Advisor, who enjoyed day-to-day access to Reagan.:p But of all the people around Reagan, she had the greatest experience working with Latin America, and very little with Europe. Hence, she argued (I saw her say this on TV) for neutrality on the grounds that the British often were neutral on issues in the UN that America was not. Kirkpatrick was oblivious to the realities (and consequences) of the US turning a blind eye to naked aggression against its' strongest ally.:mad:

Also, the disappearance of thousands of Argentines occurred during the Carter Administration. By the time Reagan was sworn in, the killings had stopped. The junta had already killed everyone they wanted to.:(
 
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.

From an Argentinan point of view, probably worth it, but i'm not sure if it would make things play any better. Ethnic Cleansing doesn't really play well, especially if the victims are citizens of a first world country. Deporting boatloads of people to the islands is just going to make things worse from a PR viewpoint. It does force the British to keep some gloves on during the conflict, but what happens afterwards when a lot of the "unreliable" civilians start begging for asylum?
 
USERTRON,
I stand corrected in that Kirkpatrick was the Ambassador to the UN and did not have any special position. But, she had a great deal of influence on the President on issues concerning Latin America, probably more than Haig. And she definately believed in Galtieri, echoing the old Truman expression, "he may be an SOB, but he is our SOB." The National Security Advisor, Richard Allen, had also expressed support for Galtieri in the past, though I cannot say he supported the Argentines in this matter.

And I agree that the mass killings had stopped by the time Reagan became president, though some individual killings were probably still occurring. But it was the same regime.

The point I am trying to make, badly, is that there were people of influence in the American administration who supported the junta, regardless of its history and past performance. Kirkpatrick was only the most visible supporter.

As an aside, during the Falklands War, I was a student in the Navy Surface Warfare Officer Department Head course. And the only overt supporter of the British. Most of the students saw the war as an academic exercise where we could watch the performance of modern weapons. But, there were several students who were outspoken supporters of the junta because of the anti-communist stance of the Argentines or because they were just Anglophobic.

Gator
 
I could see the press in the UK, especially the left wing press such as the Daily Mirror screaming blue murder that Galteri is the latin Hitler, snatching British people from their homes. It would be one of the few cases where the press, left and right wing, (e.g. The Times, The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph), agreeing that something has to be done and done now.

The Fleet Air Arm and RAF bombing Argentina could be the least of their worries if Fleet Street got their way.
 

loughery111

Banned
Because there was equally no reason to get involved in the conflict, as Britain had things under control.

Pretty much. Had they actually encountered problems in mounting an amphibious assault, the US probably would have offered the services of a carrier group or amphibious assault ship.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
 
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.

I believe it went further than that. Wideawake on Ascension Island was certainly used, although I'd not entirely sure under whose jurisdiction the air base was. IIRC there were even rumors of a carrier being offered to the Brits, though that was never followed up on (and, barring disaster, would not be).
 
Top