Could the Falklands war have spread to Mainland Argentina?

Probability that the war will escalate... and the capabilities and British intentions

Could we get Beresford's colours back?

La_Reconquista_de_Buenos_Aires.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briti..._Battalion,_71st_Regiment_of_Foot_Colours.svg


I think it's highly unlikely that war can scale so that British attacks land to the Argentine mainland become necessary.

Using as likely trigger any of those mentioned above in other post, for more to be closest to the ASB, far removed from reality these may not come to pass.

More feasible, but still far from reality, perhaps serious that British soldiers and the governor of the Falklands, taken prisoner of war by the Argentine ... be sent to a prison camp within Argentina and required a conventional military operation to free them; because a hypothetical Argentine negative to free or exchange them. :confused:

In this scenario and / or added perhaps to a different end of the war, but without official surrender for assault and fighting house to house in Port Stanley; with the result that defeated the Argentines but in Bs. As. will not accept that the war ended and continuing air strikes.

In this situation, it would require the destruction of air bases from Argentine aircraft depart, located on the mainland.

I say military operation and I do not mean a British invasion to Argentina because not only was not in his interest to do so but was outside the capabilities and the British will send one or several armies in amphibious operations of the size required to invade Argentina.

British forces would be fighting in the reverse scenario to that of the Falklands War ...

Assuming, of course, that choose to Patagonia to invade, would be hundreds of kilometers without a city or town that can capture and those who are captured are not worth the price in blood that the Argentine armed forces, would make them pay. away from their bases outnumbered and without the support of its fleet, against the Argentine military units in a conventional war to be fought near their bases and with the support of its population.

With respect to attack Argentina's capital directly... I do not think any British military planner or theirs political controls, they go to interest the prospect of urban warfare in a city of millions of people and in a region with several million people more. :mad:

Regarding the best Chilean aid, does not expect too much of a dictator as Pinochet, even if it is a circumstantial friend of Great Britain, or the capabilities or intentions of Chile for more than just to maintain some Argentine units.

Fighting in the mountain passes, a war planned and for which the Argentine armed forces were prepared for years.

It was a hypothesis conflict that was desired for the Argentine Armed Forces and one that perhaps would have happened if the alcoholic dictator Galtieri had not had the idea of ​​invading the Falklands. :eek:

Finally it remains to consider the political aspect that would imply that British soldiers fighting the Argentines in their own country, and the reactions of other Latin American countries.

Besides the very uncomfortable political position of the United States when Argentina invoked justifiably to The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (commonly known as the Rio treaty, the Rio Pact, or by the Spanish-language acronym TIAR.

Requesting help from neighbors and especially Brazil... which would be theoretically by the treaty and the popular pressure forced to help Argentina... at least a minimum by sending war supplies.
 
Last edited:

Nick P

Donor
A RM officer told me they were actively planning and assesing practicality of a raid on the primary airfield launching the strikes against the RN. Maybe that was a sea story maybe not.

Special Forces Pilot by Richard Hutchings.
This is a very good book about helicopter operations in the Falklands in 1982, the writer is the pilot who flew and crashlanded the Sea King in Chile. The 9 SAS troops he was carrying were to have been dropped near the Argentine air base at Rio Grande to carry out surveillance prior to the main raid. In the event the weather, an unexpected diversion and fuel shortage got the better of them and the team were dropped elsewhere after which the helo was destroyed.

In 1997 Hutchings went back to Argentina for research and discovered from the then base commander that Rio Grande airbase was guarded by 2,600 Argentine Marines. Suicide mission indeed.
 
See, the war would've needed to be radically different for that to occur. After all, as far as the British were concerned, as soon as they could remove the Argentine presence from the Falklands and keep them from re-invading, they could call it quits and head for home. Invading the mainland, aside from raiding and possibly bombing would not be particularly helpful.
 
What Argentina needed was some distractions and resource-stretch for Britain. Honduras invades Belize, a change in leadership has China making aggressive moves on Hong Kong, Spain marches on Gibraltar, etc.....
 
Not really - Argentina was also a member in good standing of the 'We Hate Commies' club, and the US seemed to tiptoe the line between two friends pretty well.

Note neither NATO nor the Commonwealth did anything for the UK during the Falklands.

I recall reading about the Canadians being on standby if Britain requested assistance.
 
I think it's highly unlikely that war can scale so that British attacks land to the Argentine mainland become necessary.

Using as likely trigger any of those mentioned above in other post, for more to be closest to the ASB, far removed from reality these may not come to pass.

More feasible, but still far from reality, perhaps serious that British soldiers and the governor of the Falklands, taken prisoner of war by the Argentine ... be sent to a prison camp within Argentina and required a conventional military operation to free them; because a hypothetical Argentine negative to free or exchange them. :confused:

In this scenario and / or added perhaps to a different end of the war, but without official surrender for assault and fighting house to house in Port Stanley; with the result that defeated the Argentines but in Bs. As. will not accept that the war ended and continuing air strikes.

In this situation, it would require the destruction of air bases from Argentine aircraft depart, located on the mainland.

I say military operation and I do not mean a British invasion to Argentina because not only was not in his interest to do so but was outside the capabilities and the British will send one or several armies in amphibious operations of the size required to invade Argentina.

British forces would be fighting in the reverse scenario to that of the Falklands War ...

Assuming, of course, that choose to Patagonia to invade, would be hundreds of kilometers without a city or town that can capture and those who are captured are not worth the price in blood that the Argentine armed forces, would make them pay. away from their bases outnumbered and without the support of its fleet, against the Argentine military units in a conventional war to be fought near their bases and with the support of its population.

With respect to attack Argentina's capital directly... I do not think any British military planner or theirs political controls, they go to interest the prospect of urban warfare in a city of millions of people and in a region with several million people more. :mad:

Regarding the best Chilean aid, does not expect too much of a dictator as Pinochet, even if it is a circumstantial friend of Great Britain, or the capabilities or intentions of Chile for more than just to maintain some Argentine units.

Fighting in the mountain passes, a war planned and for which the Argentine armed forces were prepared for years.

It was a hypothesis conflict that was desired for the Argentine Armed Forces and one that perhaps would have happened if the alcoholic dictator Galtieri had not had the idea of ​​invading the Falklands. :eek:

Finally it remains to consider the political aspect that would imply that British soldiers fighting the Argentines in their own country, and the reactions of other Latin American countries.

Besides the very uncomfortable political position of the United States when Argentina invoked justifiably to The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (commonly known as the Rio treaty, the Rio Pact, or by the Spanish-language acronym TIAR.

Requesting help from neighbors and especially Brazil... which would be theoretically by the treaty and the popular pressure forced to help Argentina... at least a minimum by sending war supplies.

Just how many troops would Britain have to spare for an invasion? Surely the dominions would contribute sufficient numbers to make up any shortfall. Could they all be supplied is another question worth asking.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how much people underestimate the enduring ties between Britain and the Dominions. Just ten years ago, the Canadian government gave Britain permanent basing rights in Alberta. The UK is also currently the 2nd largest source of FDI into Australia.
 
Yes? The Canadian Navy was on standby btw.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people underestimate the enduring ties between Britain and the Dominions. Just ten years ago, the Canadian government gave Britain permanent basing rights in Alberta. The UK is also currently the 2nd largest source of FDI into Australia.

So was the USA.


I live in Britain and I am very surprised to hear we had a great host of allies in the Falklands war given the Australians never quite trusted us again after WWII and very much tied themselves to the Americans.

Close ties do not translate into automatic military support in every situation.
 
The Dominions?

In the 1980s?
Until the Constitution Act of 17 April 1982, Britain could have demanded Canadian military assistance. Granted this power was much reduced by the Statute of Westminster 1931, where beforehand, Britain's declaration of War in August 1914 automatically brought Canada into the war. Nonetheless, under the powers of the 1931 Act, there was no question that Canada would not have joined with Britain against Germany, though Ottawa did take a few days just to stretch their independence legs.

So, when Argentina invaded the Falklands on 2 April 1982, Canada's constitutional independence from Britain was far less concrete. If Maggie called up Trudeau, he's not going to help at all. Had Joe Clark held onto power instead, or the British-born John Turner succeeded Clark instead of Trudeau, Maggie may have had a better reception had she called upon Canada to assist.

And I remember as an 11 year old lad in Toronto the vast support, at least in English-Canada I observed for Britain in this struggle. Had the request been made, under a different PM, I expect Canada would have sent at least a Iroquois class destroyer (Sea Sparrow armed) and likely two or three of our Boeing CC-137 in-flight refueling aircraft. However under Trudeau, we'd have sent nothing, except a terse letter via Edward Schreyer to sod off.
 
Until the Constitution Act of 17 April 1982, Britain could have demanded Canadian military assistance. Granted this power was much reduced by the Statute of Westminster 1931, where beforehand, Britain's declaration of War in August 1914 automatically brought Canada into the war. Nonetheless, under the powers of the 1931 Act, there was no question that Canada would not have joined with Britain against Germany, though Ottawa did take a few days just to stretch their independence legs.

So, when Argentina invaded the Falklands on 2 April 1982, Canada's constitutional independence from Britain was far less concrete. If Maggie called up Trudeau, he's not going to help at all. Had Joe Clark held onto power instead, or the British-born John Turner succeeded Clark instead of Trudeau, Maggie may have had a better reception had she called upon Canada to assist.

And I remember as an 11 year old lad in Toronto the vast support, at least in English-Canada I observed for Britain in this struggle. Had the request been made, under a different PM, I expect Canada would have sent at least a Iroquois class destroyer (Sea Sparrow armed) and likely two or three of our Boeing CC-137 in-flight refueling aircraft. However under Trudeau, we'd have sent nothing, except a terse letter via Edward Schreyer to sod off.

What were Trudeau's views regarding the British connection?
 
Top