What if the falklands were American territory during the argentine invasion?

Would the U.S. have used diplomacy and try to appease the Argentineans?

I would guess the US response would have been harsher than the British was. The US had a lot more naval assets they could send and wouldn't tolerate the military junta invading and occupying US territory.
 
We would need to know how the United States got the Falklands in the first place.
Perhaps it was traded to the US during WW2 or after as part-payment for USD loans?
I would guess the US response would have been harsher than the British was. The US had a lot more naval assets they could send and wouldn't tolerate the military junta invading and occupying US territory.
I think you are probably right, so much so that is pretty much ASB to imagine the Argentine Junta invading a US possession!

:biggrin:
 
We would need to know how the United States got the Falklands in the first place.

Maybe they bought it off the British in the 19th century.

Seems unlikely that an American client state would invade territory belonging to their patron / one of two super powers.
Didn't stop them from invading the Falklands in the first place. From what i understand, it was a desparate move by a junta trying to survive. I have no doubt if they thought the U.S. wouldn't react, they would have gone ahead with it. Alexander Haig flew around trying to negotiate over the Islands with various proposals to decide the status at a later date.

It's possible that the U.S., without the British unilateral military intervention, might try a negotiate settlement. Or would there be a potentially larger military conflict? Perhaps the Soviet Union would take advantage of the situation.
 
The Argentines thought the British would stay out, and even if they wouldn't, that they could take whatever they sent. The Junta (even ignoring butterflies) wouldn't make that mistake with the US; even if they somehow believed that the US wouldn't intervene directly, their ability to remain in power depends on US support, which would be withdrawn. Stirring up nationalist jingoism against the UK was fine (indeed, many senior Americans supported the Argentines over the Brits; the Reagan administration was internally divided over the war); stirring it up against the US was asking for trouble.

Much more likely they decide to try against Chile instead (as they strongly considered).
 
American Falklands are easy to achieve with a 1833 PoD. Just needs the US government to want to keep them after the raid on Vernet's operation. Butterflies could be minimal until WW1 (when von Speed would have a far easier time of it). The trick is getting the Argentines to be stupid enough to try and invade.
 

Asami

Banned
If, theoretically, the Americans held the Falklands in 1982, and the Argentines were dumb enough to attack the Falklands, the United States would pretty much crush the Argentine Navy, Air Force and Army beneath the boot of their military. The 82nd Airborne, along with the U.S. Marine Corps, would make quick work of the Argentine garrison at Port Stanley. The General Belgrano and whatever else the Argentines call a "navy" would be at the bottom of the Atlantic, and their air force would be decimated.

You're talking about invading American territory and attacking the United States' citizens and assets... during the Reagan administration. Aka the same administration that gave such little fucks about international law that they invaded Grenada without hesitating because it threatened their status quo; and the same one that dropped a few bombs on Qaddafi for the express purpose of telling him to knock it off.

That's a sure-fire way for the USAF to give the Argentines an early Christmas gift -- a big booming one.
 
RN at the time was geared towards anti-submarine warfare in the north Atlantic, while the USN was geared towards global power projection. If the UK had not shifted the RN during the cold war to mostly do ASW they would have had a much easier time taking back the Falklands and the Argentinians would likely not have dared to try. As others have said, the US would find it trivial to take them back.
 
The POD gets difficult (maybe impossible) but an interesting take could be where the Soviets and Argentinians develop a relationship similar to the Soviets and Syria. Perhaps the two extend ties well beyond grain shipments to include broad economic and military ties whereby the Argentinians suddenly have MiGs, ASW forces and supplies to put up a fight. They still get curb stomped by the US but its a lot less straightforward. Really interesting if its the Brits against a wanked Soviet backed Argentina.
 
Well they do say that trying to understand some of the Juntas decision making in the 70s and early 80s was like stepping through the looking glass

For example, and this almost defies belief, they told that US Foreign diplomat fella who tried to broker a seize fire in 82 that (and I para-phrase) "The British had not fought a war since WW2 and were led by a weak woman" the implication being that the British would not fight, their military was no good - and these were supposedly military men who said this!

So why the consensus that an similar 1980s Junta would not fight the US had the States given the impression that they were weak somehow - even if just in the eyes of the Junta - then it is possible that they would do some just as crazy as they did in 82
 
Britain hadn't fought a war since 1945?
Here's a quick search, even the Argentine armed forces would have heard about some of these:
Even that list ignores small disagreements such as the Corfu channel incident and many minor rucks in Asia, Africa and Belize...

regarding Thatcher, the Russians had dubbed her the iron lady as far back as 1976.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Britain hadn't fought a war since 1945?
Here's a quick search, even the Argentine armed forces would have heard about some of these:
Even that list ignores small disagreements such as the Corfu channel incident and many minor rucks in Asia, Africa and Belize...

regarding Thatcher, the Russians had dubbed her the iron lady as far back as 1976.
Thatcher was a true hard case. Reagan was the U.S. President at the time, and had a killer rep, but Thatcher made him look like a cub scout.
 
You're talking about invading American territory and attacking the United States' citizens and assets... during the Reagan administration. Aka the same administration that gave such little fucks about international law that they invaded Grenada without hesitating because it threatened their status quo;
not exactly... Grenada had already been under a Soviet allied government without the US planning to invade them; Grenada wasn't a real threat to the US status quo. What changed was when the coup happened and the place was mostly a chaotic mess with no one really in charge... then the US took action, mainly because it was a golden opportunity to poke the USSR in the eye...
 
Top