Except, if, as has been discussed up thread, that in scenario, any 'civilian' government would have governed only in name and/or still would have its continuation in the govern, severely conditioned to the Military.
What if Argentina won the falklands war?
- Thread starter cognitive bias
- Start date
-
- Tags
- argentina britain falkland war
I don't think Argentina had the capability to strike a knockout blow, big enough to make the British stop. Sure they can cause attrition, but if for example they had tried the combined naval attack on 2 or 3 May I doubt it would have achieved very much but it would have suffered grievous losses in the process.
In the attrition game Britain has got it sewn up, they have the Illustrious coming on line soon enough and could patch up Bulwark if needed, as well as Tiger and Blake.
About the only time Britain was vulnerable was on 21 May when they landed the troops, but IIRC most of the troops were off the ships before the first air attacks arrived.
In the attrition game Britain has got it sewn up, they have the Illustrious coming on line soon enough and could patch up Bulwark if needed, as well as Tiger and Blake.
About the only time Britain was vulnerable was on 21 May when they landed the troops, but IIRC most of the troops were off the ships before the first air attacks arrived.
Sure.. but if in an alternate time line this Argentina was ever to transition to a "normal" civilian government, having to pay to maintain an armed forces capable of deterring the UK from recovering the islands might be a huge liability that would likely consume significant amounts of foreign exchange. If being able to guarantee that the UK could never reclaim the islands by force was a key driver of the domestic political agenda, perhaps the Armed forces retains enough power that there never really is a transition to a civilian government ?
Yep I think you nailed it with your last point. In my view NATO (or at least some of the key NATO members) are not going to want allow one of their key nuclear armed members to be defeated in a stand up fight by a minor power at that point in the cold war.
Last edited:
Cryhavoc101
Donor
There was virtually no capability by the Russians to send anything to the area
Bears from Cuba and West Africa could just about cover the Ascension Islands but could get no where near the Falklands and Russian Spy ships were politely asked to stop shadowing the British ships which they did
I did hear some rumours over the years about the British detecting a Russian submarine in the area and also the Argentine CAG after it did a runner on the night of the 2nd May following the sinking of Gen Belgrano attacked a suspected SSN on the 3rd May.
By that point HMS Splendid had already broken contact and was not herself attacked - so its possible they had detected a boat belonging to someone else?
That rumour being that it was Russian
However more possible they were attacking an anomaly or Biological contact and there was simply no Russian or any other nations vessel in the area.
Or its complete bollocks
Apparently one Russian Spy satellite was capable of taking photos of the area and even more incredibly those photos where being intercepted by the Norwegians and passed on to the British.
"It was Norwegian top-secret listening station Fauske II, near Fauske in Nordland, which routinely intercepted information about the Argentine fleet movements from Russian satellites"
See Page 16
So if anything - they inadvertently helped the British!
Well, at short term, I think that a Junta would have continued to govern the country and after that perhaps the Argentinian military would have had perhaps followed the Chilean model, the 'Pinochet way'. Also, the 'British menace' and/or the certain probability of a 'Falklands war 2.0', would have been ITTL, a most useful pretext to continue and/or to increase a military buildup which, of course, would have effects in the rest of the economy.
But, in this scenario, I think that should be taken into account, that not only would have continued, but even might have accelerated the development of the project Condor I/II (a medium-range ballistic missile able to reach the Falklands). While IOTL, its approbation and development was caused by the defeat and finally, after intense pressures, it got canceled by the government of Carlos Menem... So, I tend to think, that perhaps would be possible that ITTL, even after a victory, if the British would have made clear their decision to sooner or later recover the Islands, than it could have given ITTL, the necessary impulse to continue the development of the project Condor.
And given an economy similar to that in our time line what historical spending would be cut to pay for all of this and who is going to be prepared to sell them advanced equipment and advanced technologies prior to the end of the cold war (once the cold war ends things might get interesting..)
Edit to add perhaps at some point Argentina essentially implodes under the financial strain of more or less running their economy on a permanent war time footing to be able to credibly prevent the UK from reclaiming the islands by force. In my view most foreign financial aid would probably be contingent upon reaching a lasting settlement with the UK and or dramatically reducing military spending.
Last edited:
And the landings didn't need to happen on the 21st.
Sandy Woodard had ample warning given to him from the Met' service indicating there would be fog around San Carlos on the 20th allowing an unmolested (from air attack) landing.
Unfortunately he decided to try and win the air war on the 21st instead by the folks on the beach head using their Mk I eyeballs.
Ref: "The Razors Edge"
I agree as it was written before, that if Argentina would have won the falklands war, the military rule - with this economic scenario that ruled Argentina in the 80s - wouldn't last longer than 2-3 years. And there won't be war against Chile, because Argentina would be lack of material, and Chile didn't have the capabilities to sustain an offensive war...I agree...there is no scenario in which Argentina can win, perhaps made more painful the british victory...but in the end, the union flag would be again in Port Stanley...
LA GUERRA DE LAS MALVINAS (1982-84) - FICCIÓN cap.1
Estimados, esto es una ficción...un ejercicio que hice con unos amigos sobre un "what if" malvinero. Para tal, está basado en...www.taringa.net
LA GUERRA DE LAS MALVINAS (1982-84) - FICCIÓN cap.2
Estimados, esto es una ficción...un ejercicio que hice con unos amigos sobre un "what if" malvinero. Para tal, está basado en...
LA GUERRA DE LAS MALVINAS (1982 -1984) FICCION - cap.3
La Segunda Guerra de Malvinas - 1983 Denuncias, acusaciones cruzadas, y escaladas verbales en el área de la diplomacia ocurrieron entre...
Here is an alternate scenario in which Argentina wins Falklands war, and what happened next (sorry, is in spanish)...but the way Argentina wins marks that several coincidences or less errors must be aligned. Perhaps the most interesting thing is the part that explains why USA would not give a CV to England, that easily.
This is the traslation of the last chapter quoted above (SPOILER'S ALERT
) ....there are a few interesting points, specially for Argentina."Aftermath - Great Britain
But nothing would be possible now, another British cabinet crisis with its corresponding resignations, and led to the victory of the Labor and Social Democratic coalition in the 1984 English elections, and the arrival of Michael Foot at 10 Downing Street was followed by dramatic Changes in Britain, due to Foot's radical tendencies, such as strong state intervention in industrial policies and projects such as unilateral nuclear disarmament, and musings about the British role with the European Economic Community eventually led to a sharp division in the world. Labor government, which broke Foot's health and forced him to resign in 1985.
While Reagan's support was now more diplomatic, and more pragmatic, since it was also necessary to rebuild relations with Latin America, and in the world the feeling was that Great Britain was paying dearly for an imperial whim; the support of the EEC was collapsing and France did not take long to pass bills of Thatcher's "menace" of 1982 and the English government of 1983, which minors, were also annoying. Monsieur Mitterrand declared, in a typically cynical French twist, aided by the mood that "our British friends must understand that their imperial glory days are over", or other phrases from European leaders that "it was time to face reality." They reflected the displeasure with which the NATO allies saw that the 2nd power of the force has lost and damaged some 50 warships in the span of a year in a war without meaning for the rest of Europe.
After 1982, London went from the "special relationship" with the US to being in the middle of the US or Europe, after 1984 the "special relationship" was empty rhetoric and Britain had no choice but to accept its European role. At the end of the day, gauchos dressed in uniform achieved what dozens of politicians and intellectuals had not been able to do: turn the British into "pure Europeans."
Aftermath - Argentina
Just as Galtieri's image soared through the roof in 1982, and decorations were televised, this time the same thing happened. The celebrations in all parts of the country were enthusiastic, and many of the '83 fighters reached the level of celebrity, with their stories of heroism and stories in series, movies, magazines, newspapers and books. Those in charge of the defenses were all promoted, like Seineldin who reached General.
On a negative note, it generated a nationalism that was often exacerbated and that sometimes led to aggressions against resident Chilean citizens, although others defended them in those acts. Chile, in turn, feared the worst ... being invaded by Argentina, due to the unresolved issue of the Beagle, and continued to rearm with the help of England. But the truth is that the material and human losses suffered by Argentina prevented it from starting a new war, and the Reagan administration strongly lobbied for Argentina to avoid any attempt at war with its neighbor.
That is why the victory of the Argentine team against its English counterpart in Mexico'86, could not avoid having a politicized tinge
The issue of the disappeared was not discussed, and thanks to this new support, it was justified in public opinion, sometimes in a shameful way ... only about 15 years later, and in particular cases, some military personnel would be sentenced by justice , and in some cases extradition requests would be made from abroad by missing citizens, without success, or a military man would be imprisoned in Europe for similar reasons.
The relationship with European countries and with the rest of the world changed, Argentina began to rely more on the "Non-Aligned", where the dictator Galtieri could not achieve his dream of being the president of the movement in the mid-'80s. With the help of Israel, Argentina modernized all its Mirage and Dagger fighters in stock to the KFIR standard, by1988; West Germany honored the contracts for the construction of four MEKO 360 destroyers and six MEKO 140 frigates, together with the four TR-1700 submarines and two TR-1400 submarines - with a part of that fleet built in Argentina - between 1985 and 1996.
France delivered the remnant of AM-39 Exocet missiles and Super Etendard fighters and although Argentina continued to trade with the EEC countries, on some issues the strategy had to be changed, such as when France itself refused, under pressure from Great Britain, in sell Mirage 2000 to Argentina, they bought about 25 MiG-23 fighters which with Israeli help and national technique, was modified, carried out an upgrade in avionics and adapted to fire Gabriel III missiles and the same AM 39 Exocet, the latter taken from an experience in the Iran-Iraq war.
In 1991, Argentina and Brazil began construction On of the FMA / Embraer CBA 123, an early surveillance aircraft and in turn, for commercial use between regional airlines (1) and the Martin Pescador anti-ship missiles, gave way to the AS-25k (2) as of 1993. At the beginning In the 1990s, the US was withdrawing economic sanctions against Argentina and France agreed to sell more advanced aircraft
Due to the war, the economy and the “opening” plans of the Martinez de Hoz and Minister Alemann style fell on deaf ears and the economy closed, with which some industries did not close and others did, but as a result of inflation. Finally, after the strong economic crisis of 1986-87, presidential elections were called. Until today, the rule of law persists, but military power, although strong, is no longer a decisive actor in political life, largely thanks to the global process in which dictatorships no longer take place on the continent, but has its place of influence in sectors of society, and it maintains the management of the military-industrial complex, of a size and technological management almost like Italy, and 5% of the GDP of the budget. Compulsory military service was repealed in 1997.
By the early '90s, relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom were rebuilding. But one thing did not escape observers on both sides of the Atlantic, London never acknowledged defeat on the islands.
THE END"
Last edited:
The wearther didn't dictate the landing date, the availability of HMS Intrepid did as she was de-stored awaiting disposal on April 1 1982 and took almost a month to reactivate. On May 20 Intrepid and Fearless were conducting a jackstay transfer at sea to take a battalion each from the liner Canberra.
This is something more of an AHC thread, but getting an Argentine victory in the war is a big challenge and the means by which this is done would accept the consequences of such a war.
What if Argentina takes over the Falklands, and the British react as the Portuguese did over the loss of East Timur and Goa, and give up the Falklands without a fight? With no war at all, that is so different from this POD that maybe it should get its own thread.
Another way to engineer this is that the Americans back Argentina, not Britain. Then we have set up a Suez situation. The problem is to get there. I propose that Labour wins the general election of 1979, or more likely 1978 (its unlikely but doable, especially if its held in 1978), but the loony left takes over the party anyway. Foot replaces Callaghan, but is unable to keep relations with Washington from deteriorating. In fact, ITTL, its actually the Americans who engineer the Argentine attack on the Falklands, as a way to get rid of the Labour government. Foot tries to retake the islands (he supported doing this IOTL), but with clandestine American aid, the Argentines defeat the task force, and the Americans tell the British that there will be no second attempt.
In this situation, the Argentine junta stays in power, and the Conservatives win the 1983 general election by a landslide, but under a leader more right wing than Thatcher.
What if Argentina takes over the Falklands, and the British react as the Portuguese did over the loss of East Timur and Goa, and give up the Falklands without a fight? With no war at all, that is so different from this POD that maybe it should get its own thread.
Another way to engineer this is that the Americans back Argentina, not Britain. Then we have set up a Suez situation. The problem is to get there. I propose that Labour wins the general election of 1979, or more likely 1978 (its unlikely but doable, especially if its held in 1978), but the loony left takes over the party anyway. Foot replaces Callaghan, but is unable to keep relations with Washington from deteriorating. In fact, ITTL, its actually the Americans who engineer the Argentine attack on the Falklands, as a way to get rid of the Labour government. Foot tries to retake the islands (he supported doing this IOTL), but with clandestine American aid, the Argentines defeat the task force, and the Americans tell the British that there will be no second attempt.
In this situation, the Argentine junta stays in power, and the Conservatives win the 1983 general election by a landslide, but under a leader more right wing than Thatcher.
Or 'good money after bad'? Telling the squaddies to go out there and die for a now uninhabited god forsaken rock simply for 'British prestige'? No, what is more likely is that London will 'talk the talk' but then stitch up some form of 'ending'. This will be easier if Thatcher has been dumped.
In this situation, expect a series of 'We don't like it, we don't agree with it - but we accept it'. op-eds in the more highbrow media. The tabloids will scream bloody murder, but if the Conservative Party have given up the ghost on it, there's nothing much they can do - after all, the likes of Steel, Owen or Foot are hardly going to promise a resumption of hostilities, are they?
The main sticking-point pre-war was that the Islanders had zero interest in any dealings with Argentina - which meant any agreement the two sides came up with would automatically be vetoed. The UK was in fact was rather willing to make a deal but would then have to abandon it due to 'local opposition'. Rather annoying, in fact; for the likes of the UN kept on passing resolutions demanding 'talks' about it. The removal of the islanders would handily solve the issue.
The small numbers involved would make this relatively simple. Buy out all the landlords, pay off any islander who doesn't want to remain to be re-settled back in the UK. Allow any that remains to retain their British citizenship, offer a kind of 'one country two systems' rule like later used in Hong Kong.
Not if it was lost on 'their watch' and they've decided to accept the loss as permanent.
I've earmarked three 'capital ships' - Hermes, Invincible and Canberra. The loss of one makes victory iffy. The loss of two rules it out. It doesn't take a lot of butterflies to increase these chances; a co-ordinated naval/air attack on the Task Force, the Air Force manages to sort out it's shoddy bomb detonators, a couple more computer malfunctions on the AA systems of the British destroyers etc.
With aircraft... well, do the British have any other planes which are capable of being used on carriers save the Sea Harrier, which the Task Force took all of them?
The 'first time around' clearly had a Union Jack on it - it was her ships, her planes, her men. Getting deep in hock to Washington to try again would be another blow to British pride.
So... help find the fig-leaves, then. And Washington may in fact feel this 'loss' may in fact be good for the UK for she re-learns the lesson that a country needs to be defended by actual military forces, not the historical memory of them. Perhaps even cathartic; purging a few old Imperial ghosts.
Deleted member 94680
There was fighting? The Indians had 22 killed, the Portuguese 30 killed, 57 wounded, 1 frigate disabled and 4,668 captured. It might have been small scale, but there was combat.
Deleted member 94680
It’s not for “prestige”. It’s fighting to defend British soil and citizens. This is not Suez, combat for some inchoate notion of Empire, retaining territory with a non-British population for reasons of access to a country no longer part of the British sphere, it is self defence against a foreign aggressor.
That is not likely at all.
The Guardian maybe, but not the Times and definitely not the Telegraph.
Steel Owen and Foot were all in favour of regaining the Islands OTL. Why would the Conservatives give up? When - barring Suez with its own special unique circumstances - have the Conservatives ever been in favour of abandoning military action once commenced? Or against commencing military action in the first place?
Exactly. Which is why the Argentines had to resort to military aggression.
The ‘removal’ of the Islanders would be illegal under international law. Just a little thing called Ethnic Cleansing.
A similar ‘simple’ solution was rejected by the Islanders pre-war, IIRC and has been several times post-war. Believe it or not, people generally don’t want to leave their homes when forced to and offered after the fact compensation by the aggressor.
Yeah, cos Hong Kong has worked brilliantly hasn’t it? There’s a reason a wave of immigrants came over from HK post handover.
An... interesting interpretation of Conservative attitudes.
That’s generally the PoD being proposed by the OP it seems.
No. But I said your proposal doesn’t necessarily mean unrecoverable losses of aircraft, so I don’t see how stating what aircraft they would be serves to refute the point?
Or, would be a powerful example of the Special Relationship in action and show how valuable Britain is to America, bringing back memories of Lend Lease from WWII.
Which would require a large change to the Reagan administration and their foreign policy views. TLs that require multiple, unrelated PoDs are... shaky IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that in reality such military scenarios are not feasible, by operating east of the Falklands the carriers more virtually invulnerable because they are out of range of virtually every Argentine land based aircraft. What's more the fuses weren't shoddy, it merely a practical impossibility to fly a survivable attack profile AND have reliable bomb fusing.
As for planes, the entire RAF Harrier GR3 force was available for carrier service if required. Some 14 did serve as well as 28 Sea Harriers, which shot down a quarter of Argentina's combat aircraft.
Well, has been suggested and analyzed the possible consequences from various British political-electoral pods but about the America's pod:
I think that one of the possible way to get, it could be a pod with another American president. Either with a Reagan's electoral defeat or even to have him not surviving after being shot...
Might be worth asking a squaddie or two what their views would have been. I suspect this might not be what you expected.
Deleted member 94680
Even today, it is pretty much universally considered “A Good War” in the British military. Very rare to hear a contrary opinion to the widely held view that “We Were Right To Go”
I have a hard time seeing the US back Argentina in the Falklands under any President—after all, Washington needs London far more in the context of NATO and the Cold War than it does Buenos Aires. I just can’t see a situation involving the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina where the US backs the Argentinians. Best you can hope for is neutrality. But even that is very unlikely given the US’s political, economic, and historical links to the UK.
Couple in the fact that unlike Suez, the Falklands are British soil with British citizens that have been there for more than a century, and I don’t think a US President would get a warm reception from Congress to the idea of backing Argentina over Britain either.