What would the post-war settlement of the Falklands with an Argentine victory be like?

If the war is avoided, and Argentina can wait, it's likely a co-sharing agreement would happen, especially if Maggie is replaced by Labour in 1983. Argentina has to play the long game, which see can, but not with this gov't.

If British blood is split, Argentina will never keep the Falklands.
 
In the highly unlikely event that Argentina can squeeze a win from one of the world's most powerful military, largest economy and diplomatically important countries it would face years of crippling sanctions and other diplomatic actions that would ruin Argentina.

Even if Argentina did all the right things, settled things down with Chile, moved their second advanced radar to the Falklands, buried the Cruiser Belgrano in the mud (Canopus 1914) style in Stanley harbor, switched targets to more transports and support ships, so that counter invasion was impracticable that all the British would have to do is keep their submarines circling around the islands for years, plus occasional air raids on Stanley air field, the cost to Argentina of airlifting and supplying 10,000 men on the Falklands forever with no real local resources would be cost prohibitive in itself.
 
Even if Argentina did all the right things, settled things down with Chile, moved their second advanced radar to the Falklands, buried the Cruiser Belgrano in the mud (Canopus 1914) style in Stanley harbor, switched targets to more transports and support ships, so that counter invasion was impracticable that all the British would have to do is keep their submarines circling around the islands for years, plus occasional air raids on Stanley air field, the cost to Argentina of airlifting and supplying 10,000 men on the Falklands forever with no real local resources would be cost prohibitive in itself.

They'd still lose South Georgia, I'd imagine the British would launch another well prepared attack in the southern summer of 1982 given their preponderance of military power.
 
Any British government that gave up on the islands especially after British blood had been spilt has basically committed suicide. Argentina would be defeated eventually.
 
I think there are more long-term consequences than just "what happens to the Falklanders"... this can embolden just about any other third-rate nation to claim, and even invade, any nearby territory regardless of how strong a claim. Morocco can be more aggressive over Ceuta and Melilla; Spain over Gibraltar (very likelt), PRC over Hong Kong and Macau; Seychelles over the British Indian Ocean Territory (the USA has a big say over who has sovereignty, due to Diego Garcia, so that might be hard, but if the US already sold out the UK once...), France could have multiple fights including Mayotte and Réunion. Even the Antarctic Treaty could fall apart since the Falklands gave the British a good base off on their claim to South Georgia; which will be Argentina's next Hitler-esque step; and to the overlapping Antarctica claims. Nations all over the globe not only start being aggressive over nearby colonial territories but also over boundary disputes amongst themselves based on colonial borders. Revanchism and irrendentist tendencies exacerbate.
 
Any British government that gave up on the islands especially after British blood had been spilt has basically committed suicide. Argentina would be defeated eventually.
Indeed. Even if Hermes or Invincible is lost, both HMS Illustrious is about to commission, HMS Bulwark would be made ready, and more British forces will be pulled from Europe to make a second go.

And, if Argentina is nutty enough to harm the local Falklanders, expect hell to start.
 
make a second go
Why bother if the British are really annoyed why not just lay stonfish outside 'ARA bases' and publicly declare a very large minefield. Totally ignoring that they are also the main Argentinian ports, nothing gets killed apart from the Argentinian economy when all foreign flagged ships stop being willing to enter Argentinian territorial waters. With SSNs/Nimrod from ascension to keep any clearing work interesting over winter would Argentina still be willing to carry on come spring?
 
Why bother if the British are really annoyed why not just lay stonfish outside 'ARA bases' and publicly declare a very large minefield. Totally ignoring that they are also the main Argentinian ports, nothing gets killed apart from the Argentinian economy when all foreign flagged ships stop being willing to enter Argentinian territorial waters. With SSNs/Nimrod from ascension to keep any clearing work interesting over winter would Argentina still be willing to carry on come spring?
Without a declaration of war, Britain would soon appear to be viewed as pirates or marauders.

Ship transiting to Argentine ports would almost exclusively be foreign flagged, will the SSN commanders be peering through their scopes trying to discern the flags, flipping through lists of ship registries? Lloyd's of London will not be pleased when they start getting claims against HM's navy.
 
Last edited:
NATO could not be seen as a deterrent to the WP if one of its major military powers was defeated in battle by a tinpot dictatorship, any defeat would be seen as a temporary setback to be righted in due course in order to prove NATO resolve and military effectiveness.
 
Without a declaration of war, Britain would soon appear to be viewed as pirates or marauders.

Ship transiting to Argentine ports would almost exclusively be foreign flagged, will the SSN commanders be peering through their scopes trying to discern the flags, flipping through lists of ship registries? Lloyd's of London will not be pleased when they start getting claims against HM's navy.
The SSN/Nimrods only have to attack the ARA to stop them clearing the threat of mines. Once you have declared the mines publicly (and said you cant be sure they can differentiate between ships) that should be sufficient to get all insurance pulled and stop civilian trade.

I cant really think why Britain cant declare war if needed it has a reasonably good reason and its perfectly legal to do so in response to the Argentinian invasion? In OTL they didn't want to expand the war but if the first attempt failed they might well be rather angry with the casualties they have presumably taken?
 
I cant really think why Britain cant declare war if needed it has a reasonably good reason and its perfectly legal to do so in response to the Argentinian invasion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

Taking back the British-populated Falklands 74 days after their invasion is one thing. Surely you can see that a prolonged blockade of Buenos Aires would be frowned upon in Washington and elsewhere.

Argentina will be calling upon the world to help. If the US doesn't help, expect an invite to the Soviets, and a quick and large naval visit to Argentina. When the Soviet CBG led by the aircraft carrier Minsk sails into Buenos Aires, Reagan is going to have a sh#t.

And what does Britain do when the Junta falls and is replaced by a democratic government in Argentina?
 
Top