WI: Falklands War done *after* the junta fell?

Presumably an elected government after the junta's downfall would be able to plan things more rationally (rather than the haphazard regime-saving efforts of the junta IRL), would be able to attract international sympathy far more easily than the junta, would face a Britain whose political scene was somewhat less favorable to the Conservatives, etc.
 
Why would an elected government that just removed a military junta in a country with a less than pleasant economy and the Dirty War want to invade another nation's territory?

Did this ATL election lead to a suicide squad forming a government designed to invite a new coup?
 
Why would an elected government that just removed a military junta in a country with a less than pleasant economy and the Dirty War want to invade another nation's territory?
Nationalism, of course.

Also the junta was actually gaining popularity when it invaded the Falklands, hence why it... invaded them. It promptly lost it and more when it failed in its task.
 
Nationalism, of course.

Also the junta was actually gaining popularity when it invaded the Falklands, hence why it... invaded them. It promptly lost it and more when it failed in its task.
It was gaining in popularity because of the rhetoric and invasion. It didn't invade because it was gaining popularity. (I don't think you meant the latter, but that's how it reads to me.)

You have to be pretty desperate to go up against a Great Power, just to boost your popularity. In democratic governments, parties come into and go out of power, that's what makes it a democracy. The Junta knew they'd be in deep trouble if they lost power, so played a desperate gamble to gain popularity and stay in power. They lost badly, of course.

For a democratically elected government to try it would require crazy circumstances. Mrs Kirchner might be that desperate today, but I doubt it.
 
Presumably an elected government after the junta's downfall would be able to plan things more rationally (rather than the haphazard regime-saving efforts of the junta IRL), would be able to attract international sympathy far more easily than the junta, would face a Britain whose political scene was somewhat less favorable to the Conservatives, etc.

Assuming you got the to invade, I fail to see why the democratic government would plan it any better.
 
Honestly no government capable of rationally planning the operation is going to carry through with it. Remember that before the war things were very much headed in the direction of an eventual handover of the islands, and that is what any reasonable government is going to push for. Could a better prepared invasion be arranged? Yes, definitely, but what is really needed is a bit of patience, a government that behaves in ways that demonstrate legitimacy. Militarily show the flag operations probably make sense, but threatening, let alone attacking, the islands is at the end of the day directly contrary to any interest but maintaining British sovereignty.

The I guess the other side of the question is what a successful invasion needs, and I tend to think it's more effective submarines. Get the Argentine carrier into play (in a way that doesn't just make it a big fat target for an SSN), hit the supply vessels rather than surface combatants and offer any kind of credible threat to the SSNs and things start to look damn near hopeless for the British. That said, I have a hard time imagining how to arrange this without something approaching a decades worth of open planning for invasion. Realistically this is in every way naval war, and getting Argentina to win is a question of avoiding surface combat and keeping British troops off the islands.

Assuming you got the to invade, I fail to see why the democratic government would plan it any better.

Precisely. All things considered the Argentine campaign was pretty well run, and moreover, Junta or no you are going to have the same military, broadly speaking, planning it. Delaying the war through a decade of active preparation could change things, but they will change for both sides, and odds are pretty good the islands end up Argentine peacefully before a meaningful strategic shift can be achieved.
 
If this scenario resulted in a better run invasion the most difference would be a delay of 6 months during which the Royal Navy would have had the time to return the cruisers HMS Tiger and Blake to service with batteries of 6" guns allowing naval gunfire to reach any point on the Islands, and another aircraft carrier HMS Bulwark and to arrange airborne radar so Britain would have had air supremacy over the Falklands.
 
Galtieri and Anaya were so incredibly stupid they should have been executed for that. And so, they've 'planned' under the idea that the UK wouldn't fight back. Which is to say, little planning was actually done.
Any politician able to reach presidency will understand there is no way whoever is the British PM can not, under any circumstance, accept an armed invasion and thus, would plan accordingly.

And here comes the problem: The OP puts the war in the 1985-1990 timeframe, if not later. By then, the Argentine armed forces would have received the full lot of exocets and would have probably worked out the issues with the submarine torpedos. Proper planning would also mean the invasion would be carried at a time when the RN is at it's lower state of readiness, war is expected and the runway in the islands is prolonged so Mirage IIIs can operate from there. More preparations can be taken without drawing too much attention: figuring out how to take out missile frigates with bombs and modify them before hand, importing a couple of additional tankers and improve the conscripts training, for instance.
The RN was supposed to be undergoing cuts in one hand but, in the other, would already have, at least one more carrier and would probably have AEW Sea Kings as well (or were those developed as a consequence of the war?). So, overall, the aeronaval battles would have been far bloodier.
Now, let's assume a democratic president analyze the war plans with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he's convinced there is a chance of defeating a British task force in the open oceans. He would also know the British PM can't back down, even then. So he should expect the British would get the Americans, with their far more powerful CVBGs, involved. And an intact Argentine aviation and submarine force can't take on them, let alone a bloodied and depleted one. Also, in the diplomatic front, there will be no lobby inside the American State Department to support Argentina, as the country is no longer fighting international communism/torturing Central American peasants on behalf of the CIA.

So, in short, I don't think a democratic president would go for it.
 
and would probably have AEW Sea Kings as well (or were those developed as a consequence of the war?). So, overall, the aeronaval battles would have been far bloodier.

They were a consequence. I suspect they would have come eventually anyway given that the whole purpose of the harriers was to provide anti aircraft capability, but on the other hand the task forces the Invincibles were designed for wouldn't have had any shortage of seaborne radar. If I had to guess, 1985 is too early without a war, but once you get into the 90s Sea King AEW starts to be likely.

I'm also not sure where you get the idea there would be an additional RN carrier. Remember that one of the Invincibles was going to be sold to the Australians before the war reminded the British why power projection still mattered.
 
Sure, but if the Invincible was yet transferred to Australia by the moment the war starts, then the UK can hold the transfer until the war it's over. OTOH, there is the matter of a trained crew for an additional carrier.
 
The only way Argentina was ever going to get the Falklands was if it wooed the Falklanders in a long term plan. Cheap flights, free higher education, high rates of return in a special bank, paying for infra structure for the islands, free Spanish teaching, broadcasting special television (dubbed?) for the islanders etc.

Eventually a later generation would see Argentina as the place of opportunity and social/cultural contacts. Backed by a Foreign Office egging on the Falklanders to move closer to Argentina.

That all got cocked up when they invaded so they blew what could have been their best chance.
 
The only way Argentina was ever going to get the Falklands was if it wooed the Falklanders in a long term plan. Cheap flights, free higher education, high rates of return in a special bank, paying for infra structure for the islands, free Spanish teaching, broadcasting special television (dubbed?) for the islanders etc.

Eventually a later generation would see Argentina as the place of opportunity and social/cultural contacts. Backed by a Foreign Office egging on the Falklanders to move closer to Argentina.

That all got cocked up when they invaded so they blew what could have been their best chance.

Indeed, and this is what the British government wanted too - in the run up to the war the FCO rather cynically summed up their Falklands policy as "rape will be vigorously resisted, but seduction will be actively encouraged." Unfortunately the Junta wasn't listening, probably because a seduction policy would have taken a couple of generations to work and they seem to have been obsessed with th elooming 150th anniversary of British settlement coming up in 1983.
 
It was gaining in popularity because of the rhetoric and invasion. It didn't invade because it was gaining popularity. (I don't think you meant the latter, but that's how it reads to me.)

You have to be pretty desperate to go up against a Great Power, just to boost your popularity. In democratic governments, parties come into and go out of power, that's what makes it a democracy. The Junta knew they'd be in deep trouble if they lost power, so played a desperate gamble to gain popularity and stay in power. They lost badly, of course.

For a democratically elected government to try it would require crazy circumstances. Mrs Kirchner might be that desperate today, but I doubt it.

This is the thing I've never got about the decision to invade the Falklands. They were a) going up against the Royal Navy, b) going up against an ally of the United States which was more important than them, and c) the country they were invading had Thatcher as its head of government. I mean even if they held the British off, did they seriously expect not to get a call a few weeks later from Washington saying; "You know that aid package your getting, that's cancelled until you leave the Falklands"

teg
 
Top