Falklands - again

The Falklands – again perhaps

Having read a few books on this strange affair, there are a few glaring questions and scenarios playing around.

If we look at the hard facts, we might see that the Argentine claim could be justified due to geography. The British claim can equally be justified due to population wishes.

Of course there is much more to this part, but let that be for now.

I have seen claims that the Argentine Junta was not a united front. That the navy (Ayana) invaded the South Georgia via the scrap dealers without the knowledge of the other members of the Junta.

Was Britain really so busy with the EU talks and all kind of things so it totally fell through the cracks? Did they ignore the rumblings on purpose in the hope that it would go away?

Did the Junta read the situation correctly – that Britain was not really interested in the Falklands anymore? The British attitude (withdrawal of Endurance, etc) could surely be read like that?

As much as Argentina could need a war as a distraction, I do believe that it was a great chance for Mrs Thatcher to use this excuse to unite the British again.

If it is correct that the Falklands could have been written off by London, Would it even have made a difference in the Argentinian economy or attitude to the Junta?

How would Britain have reacted if Thatcher had written it off?

If the ‘writing off ‘ of the Falklands had involved a negotiated handing over to Argentina would it have been the end of Thatcher?

Just a few thoughts
 
The general consensus is that the Junta would have used the invasion as a propaganda coup to boost their popularity. In the U.K. thatcher would have been done for in any scenario other than a Fawklands victory, even one in which the Fawklands war didn’t occur. She was very unpopular during her first term and she won the election on the back of the war.
 
I think Thatcher was 'lucky' with this opportunity to unite Britain behind something patriotic. Invoking the spirit of WWII, the desert campaign, D-Day and BoB and other great things.

The key question is probably: Were the Thatcher government particular concerned about the Falklands up until the invasion and THEN grabbed the opportunity to get the attention away from all the domestic problems?

Was it really a matter of co-incidence and happenstance?
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I think Thatcher was 'lucky' with this opportunity to unite Britain behind something patriotic. Invoking the spirit of WWII, the desert campaign, D-Day and BoB and other great things.

The key question is probably: Were the Thatcher government particular concerned about the Falklands up until the invasion and THEN grabbed the opportunity to get the attention away from all the domestic problems?

Was it really a matter of co-incidence and happenstance?

What are you implying? That Tatcher knew about the Juntas plans and let it slip so it could drump up support at Home?
 
What are you implying? That Tatcher knew about the Juntas plans and let it slip so it could drump up support at Home?
De-classified documents show that the MOD, and Thatcher, were aware of an Argentine build up and that an invasion was possible. The MOD proposed a plan to deter any threat but Thatcher believed the Junta was just grandstanding and wouldn’t actually invade.

Afterwards she said: ‘I again stress, I thought that they would be so absurd and ridiculous to invade the Falklands that I did not think it would happen.‘ Tbh I believe her. The evidence wasn’t overwhelming that an invasion would happen. I can see why she would dismiss the threat.
 
Generally when looking at things like this I take the policy of never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.

The British had been neglecting the Falkland Islands for a long time, and it seems the civil service was quiet happy to hand them over to the Argentinians, and if they had continued to play the long game I believe it would have happened. From 1971 to the start of the war the Argentinian Airforce operated airline LADE was the only regular transport to or from the Islands following the Faukland Islands Company withdrawing it's monthly supply ship to Uruguay. Additionally Faukland Island residents were guaranteed free* transit through, and travel in Argentina, their luggage was exempt from taxes, and duties, and duties and taxes in respect of their luggage, household effects and motor cars passing directly through the Argentine mainland towards the Falkland Islands or going abroad through the Argentine mainland.

*Unimpeded, not at no cost.
 
No, I don't believe in conspiracy either. I don't think Thatcher was deliberately setting out on anything like that. As a matter of fact, I don't think she even considered Falklands. The rumblings had been going on for years anyway.

She had enough on her plate to consider something where the status quo was acceptable to both parties - see above.

However she surely milked the occasion for all its worth.

It is easy to accuse the Junta of playing war games and gambling, but Thatcher gambled it all on her counter-attack - the difference?

Imagine now for a moment that the UK economy was not in a bad shape but humming, Thatcher immensely popular (that would be a stretch!) and the negotiations with EU are the big thing.

1) Would the UK have let Argentina have the Islands (a la the proposal of transferring the ownership to Argentina and then the lease-back for a million years or thereabouts). Citizens could get dual citizenship etc.

2) Could Argentina have promised a solution in the future backed by US? Remember Argentina had been all over US for years and could have a fair feel that US would persuade UK to let it go - in return for supporting US in its efforts in countering USSR in the South Atlantic. Even South Africa claimed to be the 'Southern flank of NATO'.

Ivan
 
De-classified documents show that the MOD, and Thatcher, were aware of an Argentine build up and that an invasion was possible. The MOD proposed a plan to deter any threat but Thatcher believed the Junta was just grandstanding and wouldn’t actually invade.

Afterwards she said: ‘I again stress, I thought that they would be so absurd and ridiculous to invade the Falklands that I did not think it would happen.‘ Tbh I believe her. The evidence wasn’t overwhelming that an invasion would happen. I can see why she would dismiss the threat.

Benefit of doubt well deserved. In all fairness, the branches and intelligence agencies send over tonnes of briefings to cover their backs (“we warned the politicals”). Everything tend to be marked as urgent and important, and if the cabinet or the national security council had to be called for every agenda item thr agencies deemed as an imminent threat, our heads of government would never leave that conference room.
 
No, I don't believe in conspiracy either. I don't think Thatcher was deliberately setting out on anything like that. As a matter of fact, I don't think she even considered Falklands. The rumblings had been going on for years anyway.

She had enough on her plate to consider something where the status quo was acceptable to both parties - see above.

However she surely milked the occasion for all its worth.

It is easy to accuse the Junta of playing war games and gambling, but Thatcher gambled it all on her counter-attack - the difference?

Imagine now for a moment that the UK economy was not in a bad shape but humming, Thatcher immensely popular (that would be a stretch!) and the negotiations with EU are the big thing.

1) Would the UK have let Argentina have the Islands (a la the proposal of transferring the ownership to Argentina and then the lease-back for a million years or thereabouts). Citizens could get dual citizenship etc.

2) Could Argentina have promised a solution in the future backed by US? Remember Argentina had been all over US for years and could have a fair feel that US would persuade UK to let it go - in return for supporting US in its efforts in countering USSR in the South Atlantic. Even South Africa claimed to be the 'Southern flank of NATO'.

Ivan
I don't think any British government would have accepted an armed take over. Some sort of diplomatic arrangement provided no force was used? Yes, it looked like it would happen within a 10-15 years timeframe. But they wouldn't concede at gunpoint.
 
Argentina tried to 'do a Goa' when it invaded the Falklands thinking that Britain would not oppose the invasion and that the annexation would be accepted (in the same fashion that India's invasion of Portuguese Goa in Dec 1961 was effectively accepted by the international community)

For Britain to have 'let it go' would have reinforced the idea that an armed annexation of a given bit of land was an acceptable or ignorable strategy on the international scene especially for the UK being a permanent member of the UN Council.

As for having intelligence that the Argentines were going to invade....well you all have to remember that it is impossible for a British Person to go through the Argentine Looking glass and then jump down the rabbit hole that is the Argentine thought process of the day!

So I do not believe that Thatcher 'allowed' the invasion to happen or some how engineered the war.

What she did was the right thing in opposing it and even Michael Foot (the leader of the Labour party opposition at the time) agreed with her - that it made her 'popular' was a side effect (remember that the 1983 labour Manifesto is known as the longest suicide note in history - so its very likely that the Labour party would have lost anyway).

Also before the 1983 election Thatcher had requested an early opinion Poll and the results when provided was as follows - "The Bad news Madam is that everyone hates you!" Thatcher shocked by this asked what the good news was and the answer was "They will still vote for you"!

As for the Public mood at the time I think the Beaconsfield By Election which was taking place in late May 1982 is a good indication of the support the British public had as Tony Blair seriously misjudging public opinion stood in opposition of the war and the Government's position in a seat that Labour was expecting to recover (with some advantage) from the Conservatives but instead not only did he lose but labour suffered a 10% loss of votes swing towards the Conservatives candidate.
 
I don't think any British government would have accepted an armed take over. Some sort of diplomatic arrangement provided no force was used? Yes, it looked like it would happen within a 10-15 years timeframe. But they wouldn't concede at gunpoint.

No they wouldn't in fact its arguable the previous Labour government did a rather better job of dealing with Argentinian sabre rattling than Thatcher did:

How Britain averted a Falklands invasion in 1977

In contrast by 1982 not only had the government announced the scrapping of the Antarctic survey ship HMS Endurance, that was the major RN presence in the South Atlantic, the Nationality Act 1981 restricted passport rights for the Falkland Islanders. Overall it wasn't hard for the Argentinians to see this as a willingness to abandon the Falklands, which was of course a huge misreading of events, on a par with Saddam thinking the USA would acquiesce in Iraq taking control of Kuwait.
 

Zen9

Banned
Timing is everything, the Shah had recently toppled and there was Afghanistan.
Eastern Europe wasn't quiet, the Soviet old guard was busy playing promotion by dead mens shoes and the US was looking weak after Carter. Reagan was still a joke.

Things looked dicey all over and then the Argentinians gave the UK the means to signal Western resolve.
 
No they wouldn't in fact its arguable the previous Labour government did a rather better job of dealing with Argentinian sabre rattling than Thatcher did:

How Britain averted a Falklands invasion in 1977

In contrast by 1982 not only had the government announced the scrapping of the Antarctic survey ship HMS Endurance, that was the major RN presence in the South Atlantic, the Nationality Act 1981 restricted passport rights for the Falkland Islanders. Overall it wasn't hard for the Argentinians to see this as a willingness to abandon the Falklands, which was of course a huge misreading of events, on a par with Saddam thinking the USA would acquiesce in Iraq taking control of Kuwait.
Those were all signs that the UK would be willing to abandon the islands... as long as it was in an honorable way
 
Those were all signs that the UK would be willing to abandon the islands... as long as it was in an honorable way

I think it would have been done without a direct political decision, Civil Servants making a bunch of administrative decisions that result in a handover by default. The scrapping of the Endurance is a good example, it was done as a budget measure with likely little thought about the trends with regard to the UK-Arg relationship and status of the FI, yet it was conflated into a key indicator to Argentina that the UK wanted to be rid of the Falklands.
 
I think the only people who had a problem with the Faukland Islands becoming Argentinian was the Faukland Islanders and a few supporters in the UK. The 1971 Communications Agreement was a step towards transitioning control from the UK to Argentina, if they had been patient and willing to accept more of the financial costs of Governing the Islands at some stage they could have transitioned to a joint governance agreement, and eventually full control. Invading scraped all that trust and has ensured that the UK will never give up the Faukland Islands while the Islanders want to remain.
In the point 16 of the Agreement: The Argentine Government should arrange for places to be available in schools on the Argentine mainland for the children of residents of the Falkland Islands and should offer scholarships which should be published from time to time, the number of which should be decided upon in the light of local requirements.
If the Faukland Islanders had started sending their children to school in Argentina it would have been only a matter of time before they started identifying more with Argentina than the UK. Both the British and Argentinians who made this agreement knew this. So did the Faukland Islanders who kept on sending their children to boarding schools in Britian.
 
May I change the contents of this thread a bit to how to develop the economy of the Falklands? Agriculture contributes to the economy. Only the Falklands combined the characteristics of being in the Southern Hemisphere and in the time zones within the same business day of the main territory of the United Kingdom. Also the East Falkland and West Fakland account for about 91% of the land area. Are these characteristics an advantage for economy? For example, can information technology be developed due to its relative geographical distance from the main territory of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand but comparative proximity to South America as a bridge for communication?
 
This is actually very interesting. I have not been aware of all these facts myself.

I was aware that there was a comprehensive set of practical regulations for the Falklands, but not to the extent where the population could be easily integrated into the Argentine society.

With only 1,800 people on the Falklands, it is not a lot to take into consideration.

Was there any acceptance in allowing Argentinians to settle on the Falklands?

It starts to look as though the Thatcher government was really not concerned and had somehow accepted a peaceful handing over some time in the future (securing the population to still be British, somehow).

It also looks as though Thatcher grabbed the opportunity to go to war to unite Britain, as much as the Junta did (shame on both!)

Let us imagine a few scenarios:

1) Handover had happened in the late 1970's. What would the Junta have cooked up to 'unite' the nation behind its policies?
2) US backing Argentina in a more active way
3) The UK economy doing OK. Was there then a need to assemble the task force?

It leaves one 'joker': If the invasion had taken place a year later, it is questionable if UK could have assembled the task force and it would then have been impossible to retake the islands.

Ivan
 
May I change the contents of this thread a bit to how to develop the economy of the Falklands? Agriculture contributes to the economy. Only the Falklands combined the characteristics of being in the Southern Hemisphere and in the time zones within the same business day of the main territory of the United Kingdom. Also the East Falkland and West Fakland account for about 91% of the land area. Are these characteristics an advantage for economy? For example, can information technology be developed due to its relative geographical distance from the main territory of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand but comparative proximity to South America as a bridge for communication?
IIRC, there is no sea cable connecting the Falklands to the Internet. Their internet is satellite based and, therefore, sucks. But also keep in mind it's just about 2,000 people living of fishing licenses and RAF Mt. Pleasant. That's all the economy they need, it's the very definition of a territory with (relatively) high gdp per capita because it's a small population who lives out of primary goods extraction. I don't think the locals would want the kind of economic development which would triple the islands population and radically alter its culture.
 
Top