DBWI: A Falklands War

Suppose the Falklands Affair of 1982 had descended into a full-blown war? What if rather than withdrawing, the Argentines had decided to stay and fight? What would have been the consequences?

I can think of one: Had there actually been a war, it's outcome would have been the deciding factor in the 1983 election.

OOC: In 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. After a British task force led by two carriers was hastily assembled and began making it's way towards the islands, the Argentine government withdrew. The Argentines calculated that the British were not going to stop and had superior forces, and decided to avoid the serious probability of defeat and withdrew from the islands. They shifted to focusing on election-forging and internal repression instead.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
The Argentine deployment to the Islas Malvinas was never intended to be permanent and to refer to it as ‘an invasion’ is highly biased and inflammatory; it was a peaceful deployment intended to highlight Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas and pressure the British to resume negotiations on the long term future of the islands and stop the deliberate tactic of procrastination. It was also designed to show the inhabitants of the Malvinas that the British scare campaigns were entirely baseless; their private property was protected and they were not harmed. The Argentine forces, far from ‘invading’, staged a peaceful landing in Port Stanley; it was the illegal British occupation army that opened fire on what had been an entirely peaceful event until then, forcing the Argentine marines to use minimum necessary force to defend themselves. British claims that the Argentine forces were ‘invading’ overlook that, aside from their rightful claim to the islands, the Argentinians took every care to ensure that no islanders or members of the illegal British army of occupation were in any way harmed, even after several Argentine marines were shot dead in an unprovoked and entirely illegal British attack.

If the Argentine forces had wanted to remain in the Malvinas, something that they at no time intended to do, they had more than enough time and men to prepare the defences of the islands against the ridiculous display of imperialistic militarism that the warmonger Thatcher sent south in an effort to baluster her political fortunes.
 
The Argentine deployment to the Islas Malvinas was never intended to be permanent and to refer to it as ‘an invasion’ is highly biased and inflammatory; it was a peaceful deployment intended to highlight Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas and pressure the British to resume negotiations on the long term future of the islands and stop the deliberate tactic of procrastination. It was also designed to show the inhabitants of the Malvinas that the British scare campaigns were entirely baseless; their private property was protected and they were not harmed. The Argentine forces, far from ‘invading’, staged a peaceful landing in Port Stanley; it was the illegal British occupation army that opened fire on what had been an entirely peaceful event until then, forcing the Argentine marines to use minimum necessary force to defend themselves. British claims that the Argentine forces were ‘invading’ overlook that, aside from their rightful claim to the islands, the Argentinians took every care to ensure that no islanders or members of the illegal British army of occupation were in any way harmed, even after several Argentine marines were shot dead in an unprovoked and entirely illegal British attack.

If the Argentine forces had wanted to remain in the Malvinas, something that they at no time intended to do, they had more than enough time and men to prepare the defences of the islands against the ridiculous display of imperialistic militarism that the warmonger Thatcher sent south in an effort to baluster her political fortunes.
This has been your daily Propaganda from Another Time broadcast. :rolleyes:

Regards to the original topic, I think that Thatcher probably could have won in 1983 if she led Britain to victory. A defeat probably does nothing than further ensure her already inevitable loss.
 
What were the British supposed to do then? A foreign army was landing on the islands they were ordered to defend, those Argentines were coming in with guns, how could they not open fire?
 
Personally, I think it was a damn good thing it didn't go to guns. The British were in a very bad position militarily. Two of those ridiculous baby carriers and a handful of frigates against the land-based Argentine air force and their carrier, plus the Belgrano waiting to smash anyone who tries for the islands. Don't forget the Argentineans had Exocets, and British point defence systems were pitiful back then.
I can't see how the British could have fought their way through any hypothetical air attacks and then landed troops on the island in sufficient number to defeat whatever the Argentineans had stationed there, much less keep them supplied during the South Atlantic winter (let's be realistic, the operation wouldn't have been finished in time to avoid that even if it went perfectly).

This is what makes me sure that it was an elaborate series of posturing exercises by both sides. First Argentine pretends to be thinking about invading the islands, then the UK pretends to be serious about fighting for them; all in aid of bolstering their diplomatic efforts. Does anything else really make sense?
 
If it had come to serious blows the consequences for both countries would have been interesting. Argentina wins then the regime survives longer than it did (but probably not that much longer) and Thatcher gets a clear mandate to piss off in 83 rather than clinging on to power by her fingertips as she did for another 4 god awful years. If Britain wins then the jingoism we saw in the tabloid press continues and sweeps her back into power on a wave of popular support. Result; the end of social democracy in the UK, destruction of the welfare state and who knows how many wars and international 'incidents' to follow.
 
The Falklands War was decided on a simple fact, whoever controlled the Islands would win.

The Argentinean President that the British would actually take the Falklands back. There is plenty of documentation that members of Thatcher's cabinet did not want to take them back. However she and a large chunk of the population did. Granted it was a terribly hasty task force that was not prepared entirely for what would face them but we still won.

OP said he wanted to know what would happen if the war had continued. I can only assume after the Islands were recaptured by the British. I believe we would have just carried on strategic bombing on important Argentinian area until the country surrendered. The President wasn't that well liked before the war and after losing the islands in OTL he got deposed. The process just probably would have been quicker and the UK would probably have gained a greater victory.

It's simple Argentina needed to defeat the British Task Force to win the war. If for some reason the war carried on past the Falklands the rest of the British forces would have arrived and defeated anything the Argentinean could throw at them.
 
The Argentine deployment to the Islas Malvinas was never intended to be permanent and to refer to it as ‘an invasion’ is highly biased and inflammatory; it was a peaceful deployment intended to highlight Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas and pressure the British to resume negotiations on the long term future of the islands and stop the deliberate tactic of procrastination. It was also designed to show the inhabitants of the Malvinas that the British scare campaigns were entirely baseless; their private property was protected and they were not harmed. The Argentine forces, far from ‘invading’, staged a peaceful landing in Port Stanley; it was the illegal British occupation army that opened fire on what had been an entirely peaceful event until then, forcing the Argentine marines to use minimum necessary force to defend themselves. British claims that the Argentine forces were ‘invading’ overlook that, aside from their rightful claim to the islands, the Argentinians took every care to ensure that no islanders or members of the illegal British army of occupation were in any way harmed, even after several Argentine marines were shot dead in an unprovoked and entirely illegal British attack.

If the Argentine forces had wanted to remain in the Malvinas, something that they at no time intended to do, they had more than enough time and men to prepare the defences of the islands against the ridiculous display of imperialistic militarism that the warmonger Thatcher sent south in an effort to baluster her political fortunes.

And I suppose all those people who opposed Galtieri's regime went to holiday camps. :rolleyes:
 
Actual, all-out war? Eh, I dunno, there were a few factors against it. Winter in the South Atlantic was coming in about that point, putting any air operations on hold for at least a couple months if you don't want choppers and planes going down left and right. Plus, both sides would be operating at the absolute end of their logistics chain. Any air power the UK couldn't stack onto their carriers would have to base out of Ascension Island so 1) I don't even want to THINK about the refueling task involved for missions from there and 2) a dozen Harriers and some Sea Kings are going to fend off several times their number of Argentine fighters? And on the Argentine side, even with drop tanks their fighters would only have enough fuel to spend a couple minutes over the islands before being forced to turn for home. The whole affair would be like two people trying to slap fight each other while being held just barely apart by bungie cords.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
IF the war had turned into a real war, rather than the phony war that it was, then the United States would have offered and given full support to the UK.
There is no way that Washington would have stood aside. Should Britain suffer a military defeat, even a major setback like the loss of a major warship to one of those exocet missiles, then the Soviet bear would have taken advantage!
With the British distracted by and fighting in the Falklands, then the West could have lost the Shetland Islands!
USN carriers would have covered any opposed military landings, B52s would have flown combat missions from those tiny little mid-Atlantic islands, and US Army Rangers would have fought at someplace like... Goose Green (first place I found on a map, sorry!).
In short, in a real war, the Special Relationship comes into affect and two countries stand shoulder-to-shoulder.
 
IF the war had turned into a real war, rather than the phony war that it was, then the United States would have offered and given full support to the UK.
There is no way that Washington would have stood aside. Should Britain suffer a military defeat, even a major setback like the loss of a major warship to one of those exocet missiles, then the Soviet bear would have taken advantage!
With the British distracted by and fighting in the Falklands, then the West could have lost the Shetland Islands!
USN carriers would have covered any opposed military landings, B52s would have flown combat missions from those tiny little mid-Atlantic islands, and US Army Rangers would have fought at someplace like... Goose Green (first place I found on a map, sorry!).
In short, in a real war, the Special Relationship comes into affect and two countries stand shoulder-to-shoulder.
You sure? It was Haig and Kirkpatrick that made sure the British didn't retaliate further...and this wasn't long after Grenada, which Thatcher opposed. Plus, you're forgetting the whole Monroe Doctrine.
 
I think you're all ignoring the UK SSN fleet here - the Argentine navy had pretty much nothing that could touch them, and their rather limited diesel-electric fleet wasn't a comparable threat to an RN built to fight convoy battles against the Soviets.

That means once the UK got serious, no supplies were getting into the Falklands by sea. That leaves them trying to supply both the islanders and their occupation force through a single rudimentary runway close to the sea in Port Stanley. Do the odd Harrier raid (or even naval gunfire if you're desperate) and the runway is closed. Then you're relying on the UN to force a ceasefire before you're starved out.

If it had come to a fight, I suspect the British would have done quite well - professional soldiers against poorly equipped conscripts from a nation that hasn't fought a real war for over a century is always going to be ugly. That's just ASB though - no British Prime Minister since probably Atlee has had the testicular fortitude to do more than roll over and play dead in such a situation.
 
Top