WI: Britain Loses the Falkland War?

Deleted member 94680

As it happened, we didn't need America's help at all

That's not true I'm afraid. Plenty (105 rings a bell?) of brand new sidewinders - some stripped from front line US jets, access to fuel in the ascension islands, a general sloth to any action in the UN to impede our activities, all invaluable assistance given by our Atlantic cousins.

Presents from Russia maybe? 2 of their enemies shooting at each other is a win for the Soviets, might as well increase the winning.

Unlikely if the story of Russian sonar intelligence is true (which I believe it to be). The Russians didn't want destabilisation by a minor nation (not sure why, but the fact seems to be that they didn't).


Post Falklands failure, Thatcher falls and it's either a Tory government under Whitelaw (IMO) or the Liberals. Depends on whether the public support a second try (Whitelaw) or want "peace with honour" (the Liberals). I just can't see the Labour Party taking advantage in the climate post defeat.
 
Whether we'd support a second try probably depends on how badly we lost. Did we have to retreat before a landing? Did we get massacred at the landing? Did we kill a lot of Argentine soldiers but in the end had to pull back? Do we think we did better/worse than we did?
 
(This is not going to be fun for Northern Ireland)

Given how Charlie had managed to piss off Maggie with his stance over the War, it could be "interesting" for more than just NI. A good chance of handwaving the '85 Anglo-Irish Agreement with all the knock ons to the Peace Process.
 
I'm seeing the following rough outcomes:

1) Clear Heavy Loss: Thatcher stands down, Whitelaw/Howe takes over, Alliance wins election. No call for another go. Public demoralised for years, UK shown as declined.

2) Unclear/Moderate Loss: Thatcher stands down, Whitelaw/Howe takes over, calls for a second go. This leads to:
i) Foreign powers back the attempt or at least don't protest too much.
a) Weakened UK manages to win. Tories win next election. UK mood is more belligerent as 'staying the course' won out.
b) Weakened UK loses again. Government collapses. Two defeats on the trot discredit the party for at least a generation, possibly knocking them out for good ala the Liberals.
ii) Foreign powers pressure UK into not trying again.
a) Tories lose election, Alliance wins and is trapped with the public being disgruntled & bitter, demanding harsh stances.
b) Tories survive election on "LOOK WHAT THOSE GUYS DID", is trapped with public expecting harsh stances indefinitely.

3) Mild Loss (i.e. forced back pre-landing): Thatcher does not stand down, looks into having another go (this would be seen as the same war but longer). This leads to:
i) UK wins. Thatcher wins election, mostly OTL.
ii) UK can't have a second go. Too late for Thatcher to resign by the time this is clear, Tories lose election and Alliance wins.
iii) Second go, UK loses. Thatcher resigns and Alliance wins; public even more demoralised than in 1), as it got its hopes up.
iiii) UK can't have a second go but is able to use the threat of it to get a 'peace with honour' deal. Thatcher stays in power; Alliance win the election but by smaller amount, public unhappy but 'at least we didn't REALLY lose'.


4) Liseaux's French Latin Republic Launches Unexpected, Brutal Attack On London & Kent While Fleet Is In South American Waters
 

Deleted member 94680

Do we have anyone on the boards who was voting age during the period?

Would they have voted the Tories out, or kept them in?

Would they have voted Liberal or Labour if they did the former?

Would they want Thatcher to stay as PM if they did the former?
 
The real question is, as you've alluded to, is will the UK government try again. Certainly the Thatcher government is finished, but the question is what happens next? A reshuffled Conservative government? An immediate election? Who'd win such an election? Is there a hung parliament, a small Labour majority under Foot or a small Conservative majority? Does the Lib/SDP block win many seats?
I doubt there would be an immediate election, because the Tories would probably be unable to win it, and for the moment there majority is solid enough to keep going. The only possibility for an early election is if there is a mass defection to the Alliance, and then the government loses a vote of confidence. But a new leader would make that more unlikely, especially if it is a wet like Whitelaw. Maybe if Thatcher somehow stayed on, but other than that, the government would go on, probably till the end of their term.

The Alliance might retake the lead in the polls once more, and win a few by election to keep that going, but ultimately, with a new PM, and a recovering economy, they might well lose steam in the following two years, and because of FPTP, they need to not only beat Labour and the Tories in the popular vote, but do so by a significant margin if they hope to emerge as larger than either. If it is a tight run thing, with them scoring in the low to mid thirties, the most likely result is that they back a continued Conservative government in exchange for PR.

UK becomes laughing stock. Short and simple. The whole idea "From Empire to small country" would get instant shot in arm.
Expect more multicultural UK, with more immigrants, stronger new Labour party and forget about leaving EU.
I would expect in every debate in "should UK have referendum for leaving EU" the point " We lost Falkland war we must be in EU since we are weak".
There would be no EU referendum. More colonies would be lost. Whole handling of Honk Kong would be more pro Chinese think.

T.L.D.R: UK would more multicultural and leftist.
Labour were actually advocating leaving the EU at this point. But in any case, they would not be strong enough to form a government, given how divided they were at this stage. Maybe they would end up effectively fluking the most seats due to the vagueries of FPTP, but even in that scenario, the SDP and the Liberals would likely join with the new Tory PM in coalition to lock them out of power. The Tories were more vulnerable to the Alliance at this point than Labour. Had the Falklands been lost, they would have shed votes to them, the question is if it would be enough to get them to lead a government.

Not sure we would be more leftist, at least not in the short term - coming round to the arguments that the UK would get more militaristic and dick-waving to compensate. We'd want people to know they definitely shouldn't mess with us, we're still a big deal, look at our stuff etc etc. SDP-Liberals might win the election but they'd do it still promising 'strength', Labour will be left in the cold until they do the same.

(This is not going to be fun for Northern Ireland)
An interesting question is whether it would swing the SDP leadership election, which took place shortly after. Owen raised his profile considerably in that campaign as the SDP's spokesman in parliament, and he looked a good deal more patriotic than any of the Labour or other Alliance leaders. If a loss in the Falklands had swung the contest for him, then the Alliance has a leader who is much better suited to populism than Jenkins, and can appeal to Tory voters quite well too.
 
Do we have anyone on the boards who was voting age during the period?

Would they have voted the Tories out, or kept them in?

Would they have voted Liberal or Labour if they did the former?

Would they want Thatcher to stay as PM if they did the former?

I was of voting age during the period. However, since a defeat sufficient to swing an election would have seen me shovelled six feet under, I don't feel in a position to comment.
 
I was 14 so too young to have the plebiscite.

my father, not sure, my mum was always Liberal or Tory, Grandma solid Labour and then Tory. The Falklands veterans I know, well one very strongly Labour, one Tory, one non voter as votings a waste of time and the other whichever he thought offered the best deal at the time.
 
Considering how badly prepared the Argentine were, they did pretty well. The only key area they failed to utilize was focusing their vicious air attacks on the landing craft. Now as Admiral Lewin I think said "Our word would mean little" I think he was right, it was a huge boost to British morale considering the riots of the previous year had been some of the most violent in British history, the economy was still in severe recession because of Thatcher's economic medicine, and before threatened to cut the Royal Navy's fleet size between 20% - 30%, so we can only assume the only way a plausible POD is possible if they sold HMS Invincible to Australia and axe HMS Hermes before hand.



No, John Major wasn't even a cabinet minister until 1989, even then he was forced into that position because Thatcher was the one who groomed him.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
A lot will depend on how the loss arose. If there have been major casualties among the Paras and the Marines, I have doubts about the capabilities of other British infantry units to operate in the conditions.

Come now surely the Guards were capable soldiers....ahem?

Seriously though there are other units that should have been sent instead of the Guards - those 'regular units' having gone through the light infantry, Heliborne and / or air mobile and cold weather training - I think the then Light infantry battalions of the Green Howards and Queens Regiments where the most capable if memory serves from previous discussions on this topic but the Guards were sent instead (the Scots having been on ceremonial duties so obviously suited to the south Atlantic in winter!)

That being said 3rd Brigade is one of the largest in Europe and while it has only the 3 Commando's (and IIRC 40 Cdo stayed in the San Carlos area) it of any units is far more likely to recover - in addition 1st para did not deploy at all

So its likely that unless the Casualties were of WW2 scale then 3rd Commando should be ft for purpose (probably more so) for a second pop

What was apparent from the 1982 campaign was the ability of the CVR(t) family of light tanks to operate on the island and indeed its been suggested that the entire Blues and Royals Regiment and its other tank troops would have been more useful than the 2 Guard 'Regiments' proved to be.

Any 2nd attempt will likely include more light tanks.
 
stronger new Labour party and forget about leaving EU.

Labour was far more eurospectic at this point in time, had they won a subsequent election in the wake of a British defeat it is likely they would have taken Britain out of the EEC as they promised to do in their OTL 1983 manifesto.
 
Come now surely the Guards were capable soldiers....ahem?

Seriously though there are other units that should have been sent instead of the Guards - those 'regular units' having gone through the light infantry, Heliborne and / or air mobile and cold weather training - I think the then Light infantry battalions of the Green Howards and Queens Regiments where the most capable if memory serves from previous discussions on this topic but the Guards were sent instead (the Scots having been on ceremonial duties so obviously suited to the south Atlantic in winter!)

That being said 3rd Brigade is one of the largest in Europe and while it has only the 3 Commando's (and IIRC 40 Cdo stayed in the San Carlos area) it of any units is far more likely to recover - in addition 1st para did not deploy at all

So its likely that unless the Casualties were of WW2 scale then 3rd Commando should be ft for purpose (probably more so) for a second pop

What was apparent from the 1982 campaign was the ability of the CVR(t) family of light tanks to operate on the island and indeed its been suggested that the entire Blues and Royals Regiment and its other tank troops would have been more useful than the 2 Guard 'Regiments' proved to be.

Any 2nd attempt will likely include more light tanks.

I didn't have much contact with the Scots Guards, so I'm reluctant to comment. The Welsh Guards were not fit for purpose.

You're absolutely right, with the proviso that between first and second pop there would be enough time for those who survived Mark 1 to recover from trench foot. The issued boots were not fit for purpose. Not all had trench foot. Those who had done the MAW course realised the issued boots were totally inadequate, and had made alternative arrangements. But it was an issue.

There are those of us who would suggest that not merely would the Blues and Royals have been more use than the Welsh Guards, but that the 14th Wallington Girl Guides would have been more use than the Welsh Guards.
 
If a second bite is needed the months between the initial loss and 2nd bite could be spent doing specific training and gathering specific kit so virtually any unit would be properly prepared, even the Guards who were trained to fight from APCs. Indeed if anything is going to cause a loss it is the rushed nature of OTLs operation, it could have been prepared much more thoroughly and still made the same invasion date.
 
If the Americans intervened in the Falkland War due to the Brits failing, would Argentinians as the Soviets for support or supplies/ the Soviets giving them supplies? How likely would that be?
 
If the Americans intervened in the Falkland War due to the Brits failing, would Argentinians as the Soviets for support or supplies/ the Soviets giving them supplies? How likely would that be?
Full US intervention is highly unlikely. Lending the UK equipment is quite possible.
 
Top