(inspired by Cook) WI: No Falklands war


With joint sovereignty, there would have been some mechanism in place to allow migration to the islands from mainland Argentina. I would imagine that the authorities in Argentina would try and encourage migration as strongly as they can. If this is combined with some of the natives deciding to leave, maybe because they are worried about the government in Britain selling them out, the numbers could swing quite fast.

I don't think this would be all that likely, but I do think it is the best case for eventual Argentinian control of the islands.

The most likely scenario would be a gradual joint sovereignty, some limited migration, maybe a couple of hundred Argentinians over the decades, followed by some quick backpedaling by the UK once oil is discovered nearby.


Another interesting question here is, what if the Junta needs a war or at least a victory of some sort, and they go for Chile instead? There were some unresolved disputes over Tierra del Fuego, which may seem fairly minor, but then frankly so was the Falklands. They don't have the anti-imperialist angle the Falklands War could have had, but the Junta may have decided it was a better bet.
 

Cook

Banned
Another interesting question here is, what if the Junta needs a war or at least a victory of some sort, and they go for Chile instead?



The Junta wanted a win without a fight; Britain had been expected to accept the fait accompli.

Would Chile be expected not to retaliate?
 
Do you mean no war or no invasion as the outcomes will be different. No war then Thatcher is out in 1983 or 84 if there is no election then the government regains popularity possibly going to the polls when the miner's strike starts in early summer so there is little danger of the lights going out. Galtieri's regime collapses in a wave of strikes and the Peronists are back in power.

However no task force and Thatcher is out. Either there is a coalition a bit earlier or there is a Liberal/SDP government possibly with Owen at the head and Galtieri goes down in history as a great leader and retires whilst the amry gradually hands over rule to a civilian regime probaly of a conservative nature.
 
Thatcher doing nothing means she's gone - and fast.

The Conservative poll position was recovering by 1982 but was still damn low and neck and neck with the Alliance. It should be remembered that Thatcher wasn't terribly popular with her Cabinet. Add to that accepting the loss of British citizens to a foriegn dictator, Tory support takes a dive as the Party revolts on the issue, Foot leads pro-war calls in Parliament and the Cabinet quickly play ip-dip-dip over who shanks Maggie and takes over.

Cue a hurried effort to retake the Islands, possibly ending in disaster due to delays/weather/stronger defences. Either that or they go through the UN and get a deal of some sort.

Conservatives hold out til 1984 for General Election. Economic upswing will help but the propaganda disaster of Thatcher's overthrow and the loss of the Falklands will do far more damage in return. Foot's "voice of sanity" during the crisis will be comended, so Labour will probably do a little better. However it will be the Alliance who gain the lion's share of defecting Tories.

In the end I dare say this will lead to a bloody mess. Labour will struggle even harder to outdo the Alliance proportionally, while the Alliance's new votes won't transfer into many new seats.

In the end you'll probably get a Conservative Government, its majority cut down to 20-25 seats and general sense of political malaise. Whoever took over from Thatcher will be secured by a win but I would be surprised if another coup took place, particularly depending how the Miner's Strike fares.

In Labour, Foot will go still but his better public image will probably focus blamers on the Manifesto, not the leader, possibly leading to a quicker reform of the Party.

In the Alliance, they'll be even more pissed about how nonsensical British Democracy works but I doubt it will change much for them.
 
The Junta wanted a win without a fight; Britain had been expected to accept the fait accompli.

Would Chile be expected not to retaliate?

That's a good point. But the internal politics of a regime like the Junta in Argentina means that sometimes it is rational to risk ruining a nation in order to prop up the government.

The Falklands was the easy target, but a stronger stance from Britain would mean it would have seemed a lot harder. If they had to take attention away from the Desaparecidos and other excesses of the regime, whipping people up into a patriotic fervor against Chile may have been the next best bet.
 
Top