WI: Chile joins Falklands war against Argentina

So OTL during the Falklands conflict Chile was very much on the British side, they provided British with info about Argentine troop movements and assisted in other ways, they also had the ongoing Beagle dispute with Argentina. They were close enough to joining the war that Argentine held back a few mountain divisions from the Falklands as back up. So what would be the results of the following happens: Argentina occupies the Falklands as OTL but (POD) Britain actually declares war on them instead of just making it a Conflict zone, and Chile follows with a declaration of war the next day?

How much longer will the war last?

Could Chile receive Tierra del Fuego in the peace treaty?

Would a longer harder war lead to Argentina officially renouncing its claim to the islands?

This of course assumes Argentina loses, while they have no chance of holding the islands might a land war against Chile galvanize the Argentine public into action?
 
Last edited:
Why should Chile join the war?
Could Chile gain something important enough to risk a land war and the destabilization of Southern America?
It would be also necessary to research the actual strength of the military of Chile and Argentina. Is Chile able to follow into the war in just a few days, or are some preparations necessary?
I don't know much about the subject, but I doubt that it is wise for Chile to attack Argentina.
 
Why should Chile join the war?
Could Chile gain something important enough to risk a land war and the destabilization of Southern America?
It would be also necessary to research the actual strength of the military of Chile and Argentina. Is Chile able to follow into the war in just a few days, or are some preparations necessary?
I don't know much about the subject, but I doubt that it is wise for Chile to attack Argentina.
Tensions between chile and Argentina had been high for a dacade with Argentina ever beginning an offensive operation against chile beafore Papal meditation started. Chile could likely gain Tierra Del Fuego and remove the threat of a later Argentine invasion by taking them out with Britain as a ally.
 
If Chile joins... who's to say other countries won't jump to the fray? Peru and Bolivia might step up on Argentina's side. Ecuador then attacks Peru, and things can spiral further down from there.
 
This could be the beginning of WW3!
In the depths of irony... it's not Capitalism vs Communism. But again a struggle between two countries with Imperial ambitions. Or rather, one with old school Imperial ambitions and the other on a wave of conservatism and Neoliberalism, aka, neo-colonialism.
 

Cook

Banned
...they let Britain base planes there and assisted in other ways...

I was aware that they provided early warning to the British about aircraft departures from Argentina's Rio Grande and Rio Gallegos airbases, but what British aircraft operated from Chile?
 
I was aware that they provided early warning to the British about aircraft departures from Argentina's Rio Grande and Rio Gallegos airbases, but what British aircraft operated from Chile?
Actually after looking I think I got that wrong. I will remove that.
 
I was aware that they provided early warning to the British about aircraft departures from Argentina's Rio Grande and Rio Gallegos airbases, but what British aircraft operated from Chile?
Canberras, flying recon missions with Chilean markings. Apparently, the SAS tried to conduct a raid against the Rio Grande airbase departing from Chile, but their helicopter crashed due weather.

I think this needs an earlier POD, in which Chile is better prepared for war (let's say, no Carter embargo?) - otherwise, Pinochet's best option is to let the British wear down the Argentine armed forces without Chile being (directly) involved.
 

Cook

Banned
Canberras, flying recon missions with Chilean markings.

While there was a proposal to send two RAF canberras to Chile, it never went ahead.

Apparently, the SAS tried to conduct a raid against the Rio Grande airbase departing from Chile, but their helicopter crashed due weather.

An attempt was made to insert an SAS patrol by Sea King near the Rio Grande airbase on Tierra del Fuego, to conduct preliminary reconnaissance for Operation Mikado, a proposed assault on the airbase by an SAS squadron to destroy the Super Etendards based there. The recon mission was called Plum Duff. This however, was launched from HMS Invincible, not Chile; it was forced to land in Chilean territory after being unable to successfully insert the patrol. The air crew stayed with the helicopter while the patrol carried out and E&E and were later recovered by another helicopter. The patrol was however able to report that Argentinian ground forces in and around Rio Grande meant that the proposed Operation Mikado would have been unlikely to successfully destroy the Super Etendards and would have been a suicidal undertaking even if successful.
 
Last edited:
I would question the claim that Argentina has no chance of holding the Falkland Islands. In OTL, the British retaking the islands was touch-and-go, with the British logistical train on the verge of collapse, and the operational capability of 3 Commando Brigade having been much reduced by the conditions.

As for Chile joining the war, in OTL, while Chile was happy enough to provide support that couldn’t directly be traced back to them, I think you need to provide a stronger reason for it to get directly involved.

Being able to base out of Chile eases the logistical issues, and simplifies air cover for the fleet, it does nothing to change the situation for the boots on the ground, who are still going to be more than somewhat stretched.
 
I don't see an upside for Chile.

The prospect of taking the remainder of Tierra del Fuego and making it stick is borderline ASB. Simply put, the world doesn't accept ownership by right of conquest any more. That's the whole point of kicking the Argentines out of the Falklands. For the west to recognize Chile's conquest of Tierra del Fuego, they'd have to take a contrary position to that taken on the Falklands. Britain's not going to endorse it. The United States won't. China, Japan, the Soviet Union, Europe... no one is going to accept that.

Hell, Chile won't want to accept that principal, as it will open Bolivia and Peru up to the temptation to militarily redraw their old borders with Chile. Once borders become fluid.... Chile is in trouble.

The best that Chile could get out of the deal would be some minor resolution of the Beagle Islands, and maybe some trivial border adjustments. Simply not worth the time, money and lives.

Plus, participating in a war is incredibly expensive, even for First World nations. Chile simply doesn't have the money. Or the manpower. Or the weapons or resources. I don't think that there's any real prospect of taking Tierra del Fuego in the first place - it's extremely remote and difficult to reach from Chilean population centers, extremely difficult to attack, and difficult to hold, and there's no real benefit.

There's also the fact that as a country, it's quite near indefensible. A thousand miles long and eight miles deep. That's not really defensible territory. Plus Argentina is a lot larger, more population, more industry, more resources. And whereas the Argentines had to cross hundreds of miles of ocean to fight the British... All they have to do to fight the Chileans is march. Bad news for Chile.

Bottom line.... lots of risks, lots of downsides, no benefits.
 

Cook

Banned
Could Chile receive Tierra del Fuego in the peace treaty?

I believe Chilean support was because Argentina had irredentist claims on Chilean territory, and the Chileans wanted the wind taken out of the Argentinean sails, rather than because of any irredentist claims of their own on Argentine territory.
 
I would question the claim that Argentina has no chance of holding the Falkland Islands. In OTL, the British retaking the islands was touch-and-go, with the British logistical train on the verge of collapse, and the operational capability of 3 Commando Brigade having been much reduced by the conditions.
The British decision was taken to go early and fast with an improvised Task Force of what was in hand. The alternative (and follow up if it failed) was to go 6 months later heavy on shipping and resources and there was no way Argentine could deal with that. Chile was not needed for either and could only create an anti Chilean legacy in Argentina if it did join in but being seen helping Britain in minor ways was good for internal consumption and earning Brownie Points in arms and economic ties with Britain.
 
The British decision was taken to go early and fast with an improvised Task Force of what was in hand. The alternative (and follow up if it failed) was to go 6 months later heavy on shipping and resources and there was no way Argentine could deal with that. Chile was not needed for either and could only create an anti Chilean legacy in Argentina if it did join in but being seen helping Britain in minor ways was good for internal consumption and earning Brownie Points in arms and economic ties with Britain.

If the decision was taken to wait for six months, the international political situation would have made the attempt untenable. In OTL, even the Americans had factions that proposed supporting the Argentine action, and this was in the immediate aftermath of an unprovoked invasion of an Ally's territory. Wait six months, and world opinion will lean heavily on Britain to accept the fait accompli.

In addition, waiting six months gives the Argentine forces time to prepare for an assault, and the positions were difficult enough to crack as it was.

If six month later is following a failed attempt, then, depending on how it failed, the British forces may very well be lacking certain key elements that can’t be replaced in that time frame. For example, if either carrier is sunk, it’s not going to be replaced, and air cover goes from marginal to inadequate. If Canberra is lost before unloading, 3 Commando Brigade is stuffed. Those troops are irreplaceable, and any substitutes in Part 2 would have minimal training in landing operations. If there have been heavy casualties among the Harriers, these are not going to be replaced, and without airfields to operate from, the RAF is basically reduced to pointless Black Buck style operations, and won't be able to knock down Argentine planes.

I suspect the terrain difficulties facing an invading force are as little understood now as they were then. To be fair, 6 months later takes one from winter to summer, so the weather will not be quite so vile (and believe me, winter in the Falklands when the wind is from the south, blowing unimpeded from the Antarctic, is not funny). On the other hand, there will be damn all night time, so assaulting prepared positions will happen during daylight, which will be no fun for the attacking forces, and may well be using troops who weren't Marines or Paras, and not so well-trained in light infantry assault actions. To take just one example, how does one move supplies about on land? Good luck with using motorised transport that isn’t specifically designed for the purpose; they’re going to get totally bogged down off the few roads. Using helicopters when the Argentine forces have had 6 months to prepare air defences is likely to be painful.

I find it difficult to dismiss the difficulties of retaking the Islands, either in April-June, or Oct-Dec, in quite so cavalier a manner. Argentina may not hold the islands, but I really do not think one can give that option “no chance”. If the original poster had said that the Argentine forces probably couldn't have held the islands, I could have let that pass.

I agree that there is nothing for Chile to gain in doing anything more to help Britain than it did in OTL, and any change to this needs to be explained.
 
Andes is the second highest Mountain chain in the world, if you think fighting in Afghanistan's Hindu Kush is bad, imagine fighting there. As it is I can see the only way I could see a war like this happening is if Brazil and Peru, both long time allies join with Chile which would put Bolivia, Ecuador and maybe others in to play. This would also accelerate the nuclear weapons program that both were developing. Nothing good comes from this, with very little benefits for anyone involved.
 
We will have to agree to disagree Flin. Without saying more than I should I was fortunate enough to see the outline plans for the summer option and I am satisfied that it would have been capable of the task. The Argentinian Air Force would have been disposed of piecemeal and no part of the Islands would have been out of reach of gunfire never mind air support. The determination to undertake the task was absolute. I totally agree that land logistics on the Islands are a nightmare even in peacetime. However there are other threads that cover the ground (no pun intended).
 
if either carrier is sunk, it’s not going to be replaced, and air cover goes from marginal to inadequate
GB have Illustrious and Ark royal building at the minimum, they can build plenty of harriers as the line was still in production so can come back at least as strong by the summer if not much larger.

They will also have crash developed much better airborne radar etc that will massively help, basically GB has a much larger arms & industrial complex and the SSNs so cant really lose a long war unless its stopped by diplomatic problems.... (but that might make it to go for unilateral disarmament and walk out of NATO under Foot so US cant really change sides)
 
We will have to agree to disagree Flin. Without saying more than I should I was fortunate enough to see the outline plans for the summer option and I am satisfied that it would have been capable of the task. The Argentinian Air Force would have been disposed of piecemeal and no part of the Islands would have been out of reach of gunfire never mind air support. The determination to undertake the task was absolute. I totally agree that land logistics on the Islands are a nightmare even in peacetime. However there are other threads that cover the ground (no pun intended).

Fair enough. I went Down South with 42 Cdo during the unpleasantness in OTL, so I tend to get a bit irritable when I hear comments about how easy it all was. Inevitably, I have very specific knowledge of the bits I saw, and rather less knowledge of areas I wasn’t involved in. If someone tells me gunfire could support the boots on the ground, I’ll probably believe them. If someone tells me that it would be a foregone conclusion for the boots on the ground, I’ll be a bit more sceptical.

FWIW, I also answer to David.
 
I was invited to join in the 'fun' David but I had to point out that the given job required a working knowledge of spanish. From what I heard later a spanish phrasebook on the way down would have left me over qualified. Yes gunfire is all very well but won't solve the problem when it comes to pointy stick time. I have had the unpleasant experience of being on the wrong end of D30 howitzers for a day (not as part of my work) and it convinced me that it works to remove the need for pointy sticks if applied in sufficient quantity. Anyway we (or at least I) digress from the thread and I am glad you came back safely.
 
Top