WI: Operación Soberanía (Chilean/Argentinian War, 1978)

In 1978, Chile and Argentina were poised on the brink of total war over the disputed Picton, Lennox and Nueva Islands. As the crisis worsened, Argentina tooled up for a full-scale invasion of Chile. Dubbed Operación Soberanía (Operation Sovereignty), the plan called for seizure of the disputed islands by the Argentine Navy, followed by an invasion of mainland Chile through the Mangelles region and the Andes mountains. D-Day was December 22, with combat operations beginning at 20:00 (8PM)

The Chileans could tell the Argies were gearing up for a major attack and mobilized. They deployed troops to the border, mined invasion routes, and scrambled their navy.

On D-Day, a massive storm disrupted Argentine naval preperations. Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II, fearing war between two majority-Catholic nations, sent his envoy to mediate the crisis. Only six hours before the war was set to begin, Buenos Aires recalled it’s fleet and called off the operation.

What if the storm had not arisen and the Pope waited just a bit longer to send his envoy? From the sound of things, this was going to be a war unlike any other South America had seen since the 19th Century. Argentinian casualty projections estimated that 30,000 - 50,000 of their soldiers would die in the war, and Argentinian planners decided that there was a very real risk that the war could expand to a wider South American conflict. There are indications that DINA worked on a plan to contamiate Argentinian water supplies in case of invasion.

What do you think would happen? Who do you think would win?
 
Last edited:
Well the Argentine Military was a lot larger than the Chilian one and had the larger Military budget

However the Argentine force had become very 'political' almost para military army in many respects and many of their units had suffered with regards to 'real war training' and the smaller Chilian Army was in comparison a far more professional organsiation

Also much of the terrain they were attacking across would have acted as a force multiplier for the Chilians and indeed they had already started to 'prepare' the battlefield with mine fields and the destruction of certain passes and had prepered other demolition activities if the invasion went ahead.

It might also have been important regarding whom was backing whom - and at the time Chile seems to have been worse off in terms of foriegn support but would that have lasted in the face of an invasion?

I also have to add that their would have been no suprise and this coupled with what appears to me as a very blaise attitude among the Argentinians verses the premptive actions taken by the Chilian Army and Navy would have caused the Argentines many losses and I think that many of their intitial goals would not have been acheived.

After that could either side maintian an ongoing war?
 
Remember reading some analysis back in the day that the Chileans were considered a tough professional army whereas the Argies except for the Mountain brigades were rubbish.
 
In 1978, Chile and Argentina were poised on the brink of total war over the disputed Picton, Lennox and Nueva Islands. As the crisis worsened, Argentina tooled up for a full-scale invasion of Chile. Dubbed Operación Soberanía (Operation Sovereignty), the plan called for seizure of the disputed islands by the Argentine Navy, followed by an invasion of mainland Chile through the Mangelles region and the Andes mountains. D-Day was December 22, with combat operations beginning at 20:00 (8PM)

The Chileans could tell the Argies were gearing up for a major attack and mobilized. They deployed troops to the border, mined invasion routes, and scrambled their navy.

On D-Day, a massive storm disrupted Argentine naval preperations. Meanwhile, Pope John Paul II, fearing war between two majority-Catholic nations, sent his envoy to mediate the crisis. Only six hours before the war was set to begin, Buenos Aires recalled it’s fleet and called off the operation.

What if the storm had not arisen and the Pope waited just a bit longer to send his envoy? From the sound of things, this was going to be a war unlike any other South America had seen since the 19th Century. Argentinian casualty projections estimated that 30,000 - 50,000 of their soldiers would die in the war, and Argentinian planners decided that there was a very real risk that the war could expand to a wider South American conflict. There are indications that DINA worked on a plan to contamiate Argentinian water supplies in case of invasion.

What do you think would happen? Who do you think would win?
A map that shows more detail.

305px-Opsoberania.png
 
Interesting... And ill-advised...

... Some of my Argentino correspondents talk of this as if it would be a walkover, with numerous Argentino units flooding over the smaller Chileos. They felt the Fuerza Aerea Argentina was going to wipe the floor with the Fuerza Aerea de Chile but wondered about the Armada de Chile causing trouble for the Armada Argentina.

It is interesting to get the Chilean viewpoint.

Adding up the confidences, we see a Chilean naval victory - awkward for Galtieri and Anaya- a bloody confrontation for the two armies, maybe an inconclusive air war with damage on both sides - bad for Dozo. No gains for Argentina, no territorial losses for Chile, but probably the fall of both the Galtieri and Pinochet regimes. So let's see what develops...
 
Last edited:
Remember reading some analysis back in the day that the Chileans were considered a tough professional army whereas the Argies except for the Mountain brigades were rubbish.

Pure propagandistic by Pinochet regime...Chile was, as well as Argentina, a conscript Army. Argentina had very good mountain troops, as well as marines, and the advantage, if we caln call this a one - comparing to Falklands-Malvinas war- was that the conscripts were training all the year for an incoming war. The "political" army was a Chilean issue as well, as Chile was ruled by a Dictatorship as earlier as 3 years before Argentina. And Chile was not self enough to supply themselves in light weaponery not even heavy. Argentina had a large military industry complex at that time.

As I put in another forum

The chilean submarine Simpson was found and pictured by Santago del Estero submarine as you can google it. Chile had in service only that old guppy class submarine because the other three had problems. In fact chilean fleet had passed over ARA Santa Fe, when both fleets mobilized to war. Argentina had two new at that time U209 subs and two guppy class in the zone

In Tanks, all argentinian Shermans were modernised by 1977 with 105mm guns , radios and other stuff, like Israel did it. AMX 13 tanks, SK105 KURASSIER and Full production of 155 mm artillery And TAM tanks were in pre production. Chile had Shermans but from post WW2, and M 24 and a few M41.

In troops, both armies were conscripted based army, but in Argentina' s case, they were training for that and called reserves overnumbered 500.000 men. Of course Chile had its plans and were training. Chile had a half of Argentina' s military budget and Argentina GDP was almost four times than Chile.

And Chile had troops in north because of a fear of a Peruvian attack.

Main problem for Chile was that once war started, they will be lacking of oil because of embargoes and the few refineríes were in south and targeted by Arg Air Force. Chile was not self sufficient in infantry weapons at that time as Argentina and worse for oil and trucks

Argentina had its 25 de Mayo CV at its full and despite chilean rumours, the carrier was in conditions after an overrun made in 1977.

In Air power CHILE DID NOT HAVE MIRAGE! they came after 1981 and the F5 were not all availabe because of Humphrey Kennedy embargo. The same problems with their Sidewinder AA missiles. Same happened with Hawker Hunter aircraft, because UK embargoed Chile , yes, you read right. In fact UK sold Argentina at that time ships (ARA HERCULES and Santísima Trinidad, both T 42 like Sheffield) , missiles like blowpipe and other things...as you can see, UK didnt see Falklands as a problem.

And you forgot to mention Argentina had Canberra bombers. But yes, a bombardment made by Argentina would not be considered a heavy one for an extended front.

Main powers did not have problems to sell weapons to Argentina and put a huge embargo to Chile because of human rights. At that time Chile had a worse international image that Argentina, and you can see it when France did not sell two A69 ships to South Africa and inmediately sold to Argentina in that 1978

It would be an Argentina' s victory, but to a cost that would not justify a war. Worst will be for Chile.

Chile was ruled by military hand so they were actually involved in political affairs. So they were distracted in internal matters as well. It is true that Chile had one lead voice, Pinochet, while in Argentina were three or more in some times.

About DINA poisoning water, I assumed that (of course is my opinion) as part of dissinformation and propaganda. If you see the Planta Potabilizadora Gral San Martin, is HUGE, so with water in movement, you have to put millons of m3 of poison, and how can you do that without not being alerted?

If that plan succeed, international image of Chile would fall to pieces and say farewell to see even a screw from outside. And must remember that Argentina at that time had a developing nuclear investigation, more than Brazil at that time, so arg militaries could use to build some "dirty bombs " as retaliation.

At sea, I see a pyrric victory, Argentina would win for, let say, 5 o 6 chilean ships sunk for 3 argentinian sunk and others damaged for both. Chile remained badly injured but enough to avoid Argentinian fleet to cross freely to Pacific Ocean.

Plans for Argentina were aproppiate of disputed Islands , chilean side of Tierra del Fuego, some southern territories close Santa Cruz province, and destroy civilian and military infrastructure but not a full occupation. The destruction was in order to avoid Chile "would be able to be a threat for 100 years " as exaggerated an officer many years ago.

Glory would allow Argentina' s military to give up power in better shape than OTL, but not many years more. Despite all, as Peron said, for argentinians "la fibra más sensible es el.bolsillo "...(

the most sensitive fiber is the pocket)

By 1978 in Argentina, Montoneros were defeated, but in their platform said that they would not intervene in the "imperialist made war " but if there were attacks into Argentina' s territory, they will defend argentinian soil

For Chile, recovery will be harder but eventually will recover their economy. As you can see on earthquakes in 2010, Chile had a tremendous capacity of reconstruction

The World would not care after they'll finish. Chile would ask for China, Argentina for USSR in UN Council Security, for any veto that guarantee argentinian territorial progress at least for the first 10 days of war (this according to historian Rosendo Fraga, that General Viola, when went to Moscow asked for that) Argentina had excellent relations with USSR but not a degree to buy them weapons, except if war went wrong.

US will extent their embargo, Brazil would be happy to sell weapons to Chile, because they don't want an hegemonic Argentina but they don't want three atlantic powers, that was their game. West Germany, France and Israel over all, would talk about peace but will still going on their business on selling....specially to Argentina. After all , with their weapons levels, this war might not last more than 40 days. If Guerilla ops appeared they would not require to sell heavy weapons.

Of Course Carter will be accused again of weakness because, the blockade could be vulnerate and then Argentina, to congraciate , will send officials to Central America as they did in OTL.

But when this war would be over, no one at Central Powers, is going to care about.
 
The long-term consequences will be interesting. What will a bloody Argentine victory against Chile do in Argentina? Will the generals last longer?
 
Ruperto Pesto, I think I got the gist of that...

... In essence, a no-win war, but losses on both sides, with a delayed Chilean recovery. Bad news for both sides. I assume you are Argentino, like my worthy friend Petete123123.

Thank heavens the good Cardinal intervened in time! He prevented a lot of pointless death and suffering.
 
Last edited:
While Argentina had the upper hand in equipment and numbers, Chile had a huge force multiplier in the form of the Andes. OTOH, Chile has no depth from the mountains to the coast. If a thrust from Mendoza breaks through Chile's defenses, the defenders will have a hard time keeping the Argentine army from reaching Valparaiso and cutting the country in half. How much longer would a government fight when its capitol and at least one of its other main cities are under occupation by a foreign and cruel invader?

Apparently, the Argentine Junta was expecting a quick war, as close as possible to a coup de main which would allow to negotiate those three useless rocks from a position of strength and have a few weeks to bomb Chile. We know from the Falklands War how distant were the Argentine Junta desires and the reality of war. My take is that things would quickly get messy, bloody and cruel, as it's often the case in war, and I'm not sold on the Argentine Army capability to break through the Andes. What happens then if civilian casualties due aerial bombardment, Argentina is seen worldwide as having started a war of aggression and the Chilenean Army holds the mountain passes after causing significant casualties to the Argentine forces?
 
Chilean general staff had a better idea of just what they were getting into. If I'm remembering this right they had an estimate of 100k plus casualties with the war being a slow grinding mess. Frankly neither country was in a good position to prosecute the war... And the outcome would depend on the strength of their political systems and their abilities to draw in outside powers. At first blush the advantage is on the Argentinian side as they would have Peru pulling for them. The downside to that is in the context of the cold war Peru getting involved would validate the Chilean propaganda about their regime getting the us on their side. Of course they would need to hold long enough for any military aid to benefit them but they might have pulled it off. Especially if they could hold on till winter hit the Andes... Not sure when that happened in 79 but the offensive was planned for a late December kick off...
 
Ruperto Pesto, I think I got the gist of that...

... In essence, a no-win war, but losses on both sides, with a delayed Chilean recovery. Bad news for both sides. I assume you are Argentino, like my worthy friend Petete123123.

Thank heavens the good Cardinal intervened in time! He prevented a lot of pointless death and suffering.

Something like that...argentinian infrastructure will suffer little in comparison, but Argentina would win in military terms but overall, it wouldn't be such thing as a victory...the life losses would have been huge, not to justify a war. If we still feel the 649 deaths that Argentina suffered at Falklands war, I cannot imagine what would happened with the 5000 or more deaths (and more from chilean side) that Argentina could have got in that conflict...perhaps the media, controled by military junta would say little, because the war is at the border, and not against a superpower at 700kms from continental soil (as Malvinas)...who knows.

Two military governments with little love for human rights...certainly a nasty scenario from crimes all along the border.

And after the war, even chileans refugees would have ended...in Argentina, (because of the ties and tradition of thousands of chilean inmigrants in Argentina) so we will have an unexpected humanitarian crisis, and Buenos Aires, trying to show themselves as "magnanimous" to the rest of the world (they love to do such pantomime) after the war...they would have no choice but to accept


The long-term consequences will be interesting. What will a bloody Argentine victory against Chile do in Argentina? Will the generals last longer?

I guess the generals would last longer, but not much longer...it all would depend how economy works...and argentinian militaries were not good working on it. Perhaps 2 or 3 years more, but certainly they would not have
problems with justice for human rights, not as in OTL. They would have a prestige they do not have, and society would be divided on how to judge it or not to sent them to justice. The Junta in OTL was in decline for their economic mismanagement and the Falklands Malvinas war accelerated everything, and put everything in a combo, including human rights, which was not a very relevant issue, but had more and more descent but because economic issues were getting worse.

Surely, they would keep the military industrial complex in their hands and issues such as compulsory military service would take years to be eliminated. In 1994 OTL was eliminated by the death of a conscript, but since 1982 it was said that it was no longer useful. In a victory scenario, it may be eliminated in 1997 or in the year 2000
 
Something like that...argentinian infrastructure will suffer little in comparison, but Argentina would win in military terms but overall, it wouldn't be such thing as a victory...the life losses would have been huge, not to justify a war. If we still feel the 649 deaths that Argentina suffered at Falklands war, I cannot imagine what would happened with the 5000 or more deaths (and more from chilean side) that Argentina could have got in that conflict...perhaps the media, controled by military junta would say little, because the war is at the border, and not against a superpower at 700kms from continental soil (as Malvinas)...who knows.

Two military governments with little love for human rights...certainly a nasty scenario from crimes all along the border.

And after the war, even chileans refugees would have ended...in Argentina, (because of the ties and tradition of thousands of chilean inmigrants in Argentina) so we will have an unexpected humanitarian crisis, and Buenos Aires, trying to show themselves as "magnanimous" to the rest of the world (they love to do such pantomime) after the war...they would have no choice but to accept




I guess the generals would last longer, but not much longer...it all would depend how economy works...and argentinian militaries were not good working on it. Perhaps 2 or 3 years more, but certainly they would not have
problems with justice for human rights, not as in OTL. They would have a prestige they do not have, and society would be divided on how to judge it or not to sent them to justice. The Junta in OTL was in decline for their economic mismanagement and the Falklands Malvinas war accelerated everything, and put everything in a combo, including human rights, which was not a very relevant issue, but had more and more descent but because economic issues were getting worse.

Surely, they would keep the military industrial complex in their hands and issues such as compulsory military service would take years to be eliminated. In 1994 OTL was eliminated by the death of a conscript, but since 1982 it was said that it was no longer useful. In a victory scenario, it may be eliminated in 1997 or in the year 2000

In such case Argentina may have followed the Brazilian (and ironically, Chilean) path to democracy: a controlled and gradual transaction from full military power to democracy, with some checks and controls kept under the military (basically to avoid major discussions about the crimes committed by the military during the dictatorship).
So, in this case, I imagine a gradual transaction starting by 1980-1982 with holding of less relevant elections (municipal or provincial legislatures) and a gradual flexibility of censorship laws. In the particular case of Argentina a major discussion would be around the future of Peronist groups: imagine that the military would press to a dismemberment of Peronist groups and formation of more centrist or right wing parties. In such a case, the political environment would be dominated by UCR as the main opposition force, absoriving more moderate ex-peronista and some center-right / right wings parties as heirs of the military government.
At the end, even more after the Latin American crisis during 1882-1984, a civilian president, much probably from UCR (and much probably Alfosin, as in OTL) would be finally directly elected somewhere between 1986-1990.
 
It seem likely that there would be no Falklands War in this TL, if Argentina is still rebuilding from a bloody Chilean war.

A Falklands War won’t be needed, as the Argentine Army (if victorious) wouldn’t need a scapegoat for all national ills by 1981. Falklands was just a disastrous adventure by the military to distract the attention from the internal problems...
 
Any war started against Chile would draw Peru to the north, since in this year they were at the peak of their military power with extensive Soviet weapons support. Ever since the military took over in a dictatorship there were many in the government that were itching for a rematch and to recover the lost territories in the 19th century Pacific War.
 
How this affect the Malvinas/Falklands War? If Argentina and the UK still end up going to war in the lat '70s or early '80s, would Pinochet's regime gain economic or military support from the UK?
 
How this affect the Malvinas/Falklands War? If Argentina and the UK still end up going to war in the lat '70s or early '80s, would Pinochet's regime gain economic or military support from the UK?
Unlikely it would happen the things that led to that war would lead to this one instead.
 
Top