WI: Britain Loses the Falkland War?

Assume that there's enough preparation from Argentina for them to push back the British forces and prevent them from reclaiming the Falkland Islands? How is Britain perceived after failing in this mission?
 
The British would be perceived as weak during a vital time when NATO and Warsaw Pact tensions still existed. The British were a vital ally as they still are to the US led NATO pact. Of course I can see the downfall of the Thatcher government, but would it necessarily be replaced by a Conservative government under John Major or a new Labor Government?

As for Argentina, would a victory bolster the Military Government in an outburst of Argentine National Patriotism? Would it delay the return of civilian government to the people of Argentina? How long now would have been the eventual answering by many in the military to the "Dirty War" they enacted during their regime?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The British would be perceived as weak during a vital time when NATO and Warsaw Pact tensions still existed. The British were a vital ally as they still are to the US led NATO pact. Of course I can see the downfall of the Thatcher government, but would it necessarily be replaced by a Conservative government under John Major or a new Labor Government?

As for Argentina, would a victory bolster the Military Government in an outburst of Argentine National Patriotism? Would it delay the return of civilian government to the people of Argentina? How long now would have been the eventual answering by many in the military to the "Dirty War" they enacted during their regime?

John Major isn't forming a government in 1982. He was a nobody until 89/90. There were far more capable, experienced Conservative ministers at the time.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I can't feel anything on that matter for I have no faith in your OP which whitewashes any form of reasonable 'how' away.
 
Well this one is pretty simple to envision. Argentines set their fuses correctly at the battle of san carlos and as a result the entire escort fleet stationed at the bay is sunk (11 bombs hit british ships without detonating OTL). 2 destroyers and 7 frigates in total, this means that half the british task force has been sunk and the landing craft are unprotected against air attack, loosing the war as a result.
 
Well this one is pretty simple to envision. Argentines set their fuses correctly at the battle of san carlos and as a result the entire escort fleet stationed at the bay is sunk (11 bombs hit british ships without detonating OTL). 2 destroyers and 7 frigates in total, this means that half the british task force has been sunk and the landing craft are unprotected against air attack, loosing the war as a result.

1. An exploding bomb doesn't necessarily take out a ship.
2. The reason the bombs didn't explode was because they were dropped from too low a height. The reason they were dropped from too low a height was because if they were dropped from higher, the planes would be in the missile envelopes, and would have taken much heavier casualties.
3. There was a technical fix for this, but for some strange reason, the British weren't telling the Argentine forces that they might need to install the fix. The planes weren't really noting the effect the bombs had, being rather too busy trying not to get shot down as they made their way home.
 
Crippling the RN Would most likely topple the entire conservative government. It would be viewed as a new gallipoli and most likely you'd be looking at up to a thousand british casualties.
 
Given that Britain was one of only 4 powers in the world with any sort of extra-regional power projection and was by any reasonable measure vastly more powerful than Argentina the loss of the Falklands would be seen as a political failure, the Government being unable to organise a successful war. I think the outcome would be a toughening of any successor government to ensure they can 'take a punch' and retaliate to win, who that would be I have no idea.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
To my understanding Argentina as good as lost the war the moment the UK decided not to let it get away with occupying the islands, but for arguments sake...

A loss like that would make every British overseas territory appear vulnerable, maybe not Gibraltar (to close) or Hong Kong (why the trouble, just wait another 15 years)...

OK, there isn't much left that is worth fighting for.

But the IRA might be motivated, NI might be even bloodyer...

My last though: Will a Thatcher failure lessen the chances of potential female heads of government in the democratic western world? (Not that they are big to begin with...)
 
The biggest issue I have with the concept of Argentina winning the Falklands War is that America just sits there and takes it. As it happened, we didn't need America's help at all, but if we did they surely wouldn't have let Argentina get away with taking one of their biggest allies' territory in the '80s cold war climate, especially given that part of what makes us such important allies is that we have these bases all around the world. If these bases were made to look weak, the US bases in the BIOT for example may become a target.

As for the actual question, the Thatcher government would definitely fall. Labour would probably push for a vote of no confidence, which could go either way given that the Tories only had a small majority at the time. If the government survives, the next election is due May 1984 at the latest and Labour would probably use the defeat to take power.
 
The biggest issue I have with the concept of Argentina winning the Falklands War is that America just sits there and takes it. As it happened, we didn't need America's help at all, but if we did they surely wouldn't have let Argentina get away with taking one of their biggest allies' territory in the '80s cold war climate, especially given that part of what makes us such important allies is that we have these bases all around the world. If these bases were made to look weak, the US bases in the BIOT for example may become a target.

The problem with that view is that there was a lobby in the USA, exemplified by Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the UN, who held variations upon the theme that the UK would always support the USA, regardless of what the USA did, but that if the USA supported Argentina, it would encourage those anti-communist authoritarian regimes that the USA found necessary to keep onside. Her piece "Dictatorships and double-standards" basically summarises as "traditional authoritarian regimes can be led to democracy", and that the USA should support these. She very specifically opposed supporting Britain, and was quite vocal in this.

She was a minority view in the USA, and not particularly competent (1) in persuading others of her view. Nonetheless, it took the Reagan administration some time to decide to support Britain over Argentina.




1. The British ambassador to the USA at the time, Nicholas Henderson, famously described her as "more fool than fascist ... she appears to be one of America's own-goal scorers, tactless, wrong-headed, ineffective, and a dubious tribute to the academic profession to which she [expresses] her allegiance." By all reports, he was being very kind to her.
 
1. An exploding bomb doesn't necessarily take out a ship.
2. The reason the bombs didn't explode was because they were dropped from too low a height. The reason they were dropped from too low a height was because if they were dropped from higher, the planes would be in the missile envelopes, and would have taken much heavier casualties.
3. There was a technical fix for this, but for some strange reason, the British weren't telling the Argentine forces that they might need to install the fix. The planes weren't really noting the effect the bombs had, being rather too busy trying not to get shot down as they made their way home.
The Argentine Armed Forces knew the bombs weren't detonating because they were fused not to detonate for safety. The Navy had properly fused bombs, but they weren't sharing them with the Air Force because they felt interservice rivalry was more important than winning a war they started. The Air Force eventually begun to modify bombs, using fuses from British purchased bombs, and those did detonate.
They could also get the idea of using rockets instead of bombs. They wouldn't sink the ships but by hitting all the stuff above deck, they'd mission-kill them.


There should prrobably be a sticky thread for this topic. It seems to get asked about once a week.
Wasn't this asked a month ago?
 
I don't think it is in anyway unreasonable to suggest that Argentina might have won - if they had managed to get hold of a few more Exocets, all might have been different, for example. The feat performed by the Royal Navy (especially) was truly remarkable, but there was a good deal of luck too. The Task Force represented pretty much the entire Royal Navy so there wasn't much left in reserve.

Additionally, and on reading the memoirs of some of the senior British officers in the campaign, one of their greatest concerns was that the UN might intervene and press for a cease fire before the islands had been fully re-captured. This would potentially have led the islands being 'divided' by the UN - West Falkland being Argentinian and East Falkland being British. If the senior commanders were fearful of this occurring, it must have been a possibility.

Had the Argentines managed to sink / cripple one of the two RN carriers, it would have been all over. Would the Iron Lady have been tempted to reach for the nuclear option, and threaten a Polaris strike against (eg) Tierra del Fuego unless the invaders withdrew immediately? Seems highly unlikely, but with British prestige at stake and the RN humiliated... not entirely impossible, perhaps.
 
I don't think it is in anyway unreasonable to suggest that Argentina might have won - if they had managed to get hold of a few more Exocets, all might have been different, for example. The feat performed by the Royal Navy (especially) was truly remarkable, but there was a good deal of luck too. The Task Force represented pretty much the entire Royal Navy so there wasn't much left in reserve.

Welcome to the board.

The Exocet wasn't a very good weapon, Sheffield got burnt out by faulty action station and damage control procedures and the Glamorgan shrugged her hit off and didn't even leave the South Atlantic. I think either carrier could have handled a hit or two from the 365lb Warhead of the Exocet and been fighting very soon after, a boiler clean took the Hermes off line longer than an exocet hit would have. Also the RN had about 60 surface warships in commission in 1982 and used about 1/3 of those in the Falklands, with some only arriving very late. They also had about 16 diesel subs but only sent 1 and used 3-4 of their 12 SSNs, it was only in carriers and amphibious ships that number were tight.

Additionally, and on reading the memoirs of some of the senior British officers in the campaign, one of their greatest concerns was that the UN might intervene and press for a cease fire before the islands had been fully re-captured. This would potentially have led the islands being 'divided' by the UN - West Falkland being Argentinian and East Falkland being British. If the senior commanders were fearful of this occurring, it must have been a possibility.

I've read this as well, but given Britain was a permanent UNSC member and her closest supporters US and France were as well I doubt that would have been enforced.

Had the Argentines managed to sink / cripple one of the two RN carriers, it would have been all over. Would the Iron Lady have been tempted to reach for the nuclear option, and threaten a Polaris strike against (eg) Tierra del Fuego unless the invaders withdrew immediately? Seems highly unlikely, but with British prestige at stake and the RN humiliated... not entirely impossible, perhaps.

If the carriers were damaged enough to be withdrawn nukes would not be used, the Illustrious would be commissioned, the Hermes and/or Invincible repaired and restocked with Sea Harriers and GR3s, AEW Sea Kings and Phalanx CIWS and sent south for a second go in the southern spring. This isn't an option for Argentina, they would not be able to replace their battle losses in their first campaign and would be naked against a second attack.
 
Top