WI: The US sides with Argentina during the Falklands War?

Deleted member 140587

ASB for two reasons:
- Geopolitically, Reagan was not about to betray his closest ally (throwing a knife in NATO while doing so) to prop up some fascist regime in South America that most Americans couldn't point out on a map.
- Reagan was an Anglophile, most of his staff were Anglophiles (save Al Haig and Pat Buchanan), and the American public (for the most part) is quite Anglophile (Americans had gone NUTS for Charles and Diana's wedding only two years earlier).
 

Teiresias

Cryhavoc101 said:
Why would they do that?

What's in it for them?

The UK was their most important ally during the Cold war and did a lot more trade with the USA than Argentina did?

As others have pointed out Haig went to Argentina to try and get them to see reason

He was told by the Junta that Britain would not fight because
  1. They were not as brave as the Argentinians (Yep those shotgun armed famers...shhheesshhh!!!)
  2. The British had not fought a war since WW2 (Yes these were apparently military officers)
  3. They were led by a weak and feeble woman (Just to be clear in case it was not obvious enough this weak and feeble woman was Margaret Thatcher and as it turned out she had bigger testicles than they did)
Haig upon being told this and after he had rescued his jaw from the ground returned to Reagan and told him that the Junta were crazier than a shit house rat
Click to expand...
Haig did want to give the Argentinians military intelligence about an impending British attack, though. Apparently he thought it would help the US appear to be a neutral arbiter to Argentina (for some reason he wasn't worried about the British considering the US to be neutral).
 

Citycat

Whilst this is a very far fetched and suicidal scenario for the US in undermining its own power and influence abroad by turning against its #1 Cold War ally that helps it maintain the US-created post WWII international order, it would be interesting if this caused the beginning of the end of NATO.

The European powers supported the UK, so this would scenario would see the US dig its own grave in losing influence in Europe.

Assuming the USSR goes similarly to OTL, less than 10 years later the Warsaw Pact would dissolve.

No NATO or WarPac in a post Cold War world would make an interesting ATL...rise of a European superstate?
 
Last edited:
juanml82

juanml82

Realistically, the only scenario I can think about is something like this:

Argentina gets the full delivery of Super Etandards + Exocets, successfully tests the submarine torpedoes (which weren't working) and shows more military readiness in other ways
Heightened tensions with the USSR means NATO is seriously concerned about WW3 actually breaking out and can't afford the distraction of a war in the literal other side of the world
Galtieri calls for general elections. He plans to run after succeeding with the Falklands, but doesn't say so yet.
The flag incident in the South Georgias happen in Stanley, the Argentines raising the Argentine flag get beaten or something and the rest of the world becomes kind of sympathetic to Argentina and hostile to the people who beat the crap out of sailors for something that isn't even a crime.
Then Galtieri orders the invasion and the first thing the Argentine armed forces do once they take over is to enlarge the airstrip at Stanley and base Exocet armed Super Etandards there. Bonus points if air launched Exocets have been already used and showed effective in some other conflict elsewhere.

Since NATO can't afford sending the RN south at a moment of heightened tensions, the Junta seems to be on its way out and the world is kind of sympathetic, Reagan convinces Thatcher to accept some sort of negotiated solution that allows both Galtieri and Thatcher to save face (is that even possible?) so the British military remains focused on the USSR.
 

Cryhavoc101

Teiresias said:
Haig did want to give the Argentinians military intelligence about an impending British attack, though. Apparently he thought it would help the US appear to be a neutral arbiter to Argentina (for some reason he wasn't worried about the British considering the US to be neutral).
Click to expand...

That's okay Britain had Edward Rowlands MP for Merthyr Tydfil, (apparently he was later made a baron but fuck that guy) who told the world on April 3rd 1982 that British Intelligence had cracked the Swiss Crypto AG machine systems that they used in both their embassies and for their military and so were reading all of their 'encrypted messages'

Guess what the Argentinians had done by the 4th of April?

Guess what the British had stopped doing by the 4th of April?

They didn't need an ally to betray them.
 

Spencersj345.346

Cryhavoc101 said:
That's okay Britain had Edward Rowlands MP for Merthyr Tydfil, (apparently he was later made a baron but fuck that guy) who told the world on April 3rd 1982 that British Intelligence had cracked the Swiss Crypto AG machine systems that they used in both their embassies and for their military and so were reading all of their 'encrypted messages'

Guess what the Argentinians had done by the 4th of April?

Guess what the British had stopped doing by the 4th of April?

They didn't need an ally to betray them.
Click to expand...
And this is a classic example one doesn't tell politicians anything about the source of intelligence and only tell them the minimum that they need to know of what said intelligence is. Also how the hell did he avoid the consequences of breaking the official secrets act?
 

Cryhavoc101

Spencersj345.346 said:
Hmmm one of the downsides of Parlimentary system I suppose, although I would be rather interested in how he justified risking British lives as part of his job as an MP and whether or not he was reelected
Click to expand...

Defeating Thatcher and the Tory's was far more important than winning a war

Yes and not only that he was later made a life peer and a Baron

Only in Britain!!!
 

Spencersj345.346

Cryhavoc101 said:
Defeating Thatcher and the Tory's was far more important than winning a war

Yes and not only that he was later made a life peer and a Baron

Only in Britain!!!
Click to expand...
Once again how the armed forces and intelligence services of western nations have the strength of will not to arrange accidents for politicians who talk too much about sensitive information in public amazes me
 
deathstrokenorris

deathstrokenorris

If you consider "siding with" as "not helping the British" then I guess it is possible*. But actually actively helping Argentina at the detriment of the UK? This is so ASB that it isn't even funny. I think a magical Antartic Nazi empire popping up and siding with Argentina is more doable than this.

*This would basically mean not giving the UK any of the support they did IRL. Though I still think they would win, it would just be harder.
 

Deleted member 94680

juanml82 said:
Heightened tensions with the USSR means NATO is seriously concerned about WW3 actually breaking out and can't afford the distraction of a war in the literal other side of the world
...

Since NATO can't afford sending the RN south at a moment of heightened tensions... Reagan convinces Thatcher to accept some sort of negotiated solution that allows both Galtieri and Thatcher to save face (is that even possible?) so the British military remains focused on the USSR.
Click to expand...

NATO doesn’t “send” the RN anywhere, Britain does.

But wouldn’t the more likely result if this scenario be more NATO pressure on Argentina to withdraw? Hardly sends the best message to the Warsaw Pact, does it? “Hey, put pressure on us and we’ll fuck over one of our own members to stop them looking after their own interests, we’re that scared of you!”

Also, what “face saving” measure is there for Thatcher and Britain once Galtieri starts rattling sabres?
 

DrHackenslash

Assuming we aren't talking about the US actively supporting Argentina by sending a carrier fleet down to the Falklands, I can see a sort of mirror image of what happened with Grenada the following year.

To directly lift from Wikipedia:


British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a close ally of Reagan on other matters, personally opposed it. Reagan told her that it might happen; she did not know for sure that it was coming until three hours before. At 12:30 on the morning of the invasion, Thatcher sent a message to Reagan:

This action will be seen as intervention by a Western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East/West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of Cruise missiles in this country. I must ask you to think most carefully about these points. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication. You asked for my advice. I have set it out and hope that even at this late stage you will take it into account before events are irrevocable. (The full text remains classified.)
Click to expand...
Reagan told Thatcher before anyone else that the invasion would begin in a few hours, but ignored her complaints. She publicly supported the action. Reagan phoned to apologize for the miscommunication, and the long-term friendly relationship endured
 

DG Valdron

I can't imagine any scenario where the US intervenes militarily on behalf of Argentina.

But I suppose it is possible to imagine a Suez Crisis type situation where the US intervenes diplomatically on behalf of Argentina, as it did on behalf of Egypt.

I can't see such a scenario ending well.
 
juanml82

juanml82

Stenz said:
NATO doesn’t “send” the RN anywhere, Britain does.
Click to expand...
Of course the UK. But it's one thing for the British to say "We are off to war in the southern south Atlantic" in normal, cold war times, than to say it when everyone else in NATO is saying "Wait, what? We may be about to fight the Third Battle of the Atlantic anytime now"

But wouldn’t the more likely result if this scenario be more NATO pressure on Argentina to withdraw? Hardly sends the best message to the Warsaw Pact, does it? “Hey, put pressure on us and we’ll fuck over one of our own members to stop them looking after their own interests, we’re that scared of you!”
Click to expand...
Yes, NATO can exert pressure. But if there is a serious concern about WW3 starting at any moment, it would be a bluff, because if the UK is willing to send their fleet over, France and the USA would not.

Also, what “face saving” measure is there for Thatcher and Britain once Galtieri starts rattling sabres?
Click to expand...
No idea.
 
DracoLazarus

DracoLazarus

If America supports Argentina, France will make known its position to Brazil on the subject of Guyane clear.
There is also the possibility that Mitterand makes overtures to the Soviet Union.
 

Deleted member 94680

juanml82 said:
Of course the UK. But it's one thing for the British to say "We are off to war in the southern south Atlantic" in normal, cold war times, than to say it when everyone else in NATO is saying "Wait, what? We may be about to fight the Third Battle of the Atlantic anytime now"
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it’s still up to the British government where the British military goes. They can complain, but until Article 5 is invoked and a task force is formed (AFAIK), Britain retains control over its own military.

juanml82 said:
Yes, NATO can exert pressure. But if there is a serious concern about WW3 starting at any moment, it would be a bluff, because if the UK is willing to send their fleet over, France and the USA would not.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a NATO task force heading to the Falklands. I’m talking about the governments of the NATO nations using diplomacy, trade, finance, etc - all the weapons in a country’s arsenal when it comes to influence.

juanml82 said:
No idea.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top