WI: US Backed Argentina in the Falklands war

This is ASB, this would never happen. It would cause a lot of head scratching followed by shouting over this mind numbingly dumb nonsense. The US would have bad relations with its once closest ally. But this of course would never happen.
 
This is ASB, this would never happen. It would cause a lot of head scratching followed by shouting over this mind numbingly dumb nonsense. The US would have bad relations with its once closest ally. But this of course would never happen.
Reagan straight up ask Margaret Thatcher “why!?” When he asked why not just give them worthless islands. This is 70s. British aren’t going to join Soviet bloc or cut ties with US over this. Argentina is more of Wildcard and like South Korea can be gradually shifted into first world country with US influence and investment. Argentine is one of nicer Latin American countries now. Can honestly be more so with US investment and is big country. More potential to grow then UK
 
Americans public probably don’t care really to be honest. Probably poke fun at event a bit. No hair off back of politicians over elections over what they choose. This is really just international PR and relations issues. The US does not want to look imperialist which Soviet propaganda often took every advantage or opportunity to do so. The British and French often indirectly made that hard at times especially people like Thatcher who literally every bad part of Reagan without any of the redeeming features.

Having her say something highly disrespectful towards Americans or about their involvement might help US to step in on other side like they did with Suez Crisis
 
The Suez Crisis is one example that canal was more important then island full of penguins
One big difference is that Egypt had a legitimate claim to Suez, Argentina had no claim to the Falklands. They were never part of Argentina and the people there had no desire to be part of Argentina.
 
Unless the US is putting something concrete behind their backing of Argentina, other than words, words, words, Margaret Thatcher goes "Make me" and ignores Kirkpatrick
 
One big difference is that Egypt had a legitimate claim to Suez, Argentina had no claim to the Falklands. They were never part of Argentina and the people there had no desire to be part of Argentina.

And related to that, Esienhower did not support Egypt in grabbing British territory. He simply refused(granted, along with a bit of economic pressure) to endorse Britain grabbing Egyptian territory.

If someone actually grabbed legitimate UK territory, and the US supported that excursion, you'd have the de facto end of NATO within days, and the de jure end likely within months.
 
The result of the US backing Argentina in 1982 is effectively declaring to the world that the USSR has won the Cold War.
 
Polaris_missile_launch_from_HMS_Revenge_%28S27%29_1983.JPEG

There is always Polaris...
...RN: hey it works!
 
The only way the US backs Argentina in the Falklands is if Britain goes ASB and says, no, we don't want them you can keep them.

At the end of the day, from both a realpolitik and normal point of view, keeping Britain on-side had far more value to the US than keeping a crazy dictatorship that, by all accounts, was one bad day away from a coup. Regardless of what some fools thought.

If the US leadership was so utterly crazy as to throw away a valuable ally, to undermine NATO and basically concede Europe to the Soviets by doing so and as such defacto concede the Cold War then that leadership gets replaced by whatever legal method the US has to do so. Impeachment, I think?
 
Essentially, as people have already said, this is unlikely to the point of ASB.

However, let's accept that ASBs somehow have USA decide to back Argentina in the conflict to a similar extent that they backed the UK in OTL. That is, intelligence and moral support, without actually getting involved.

Since intelligence is being shared between Argentina and the USA, the British Mission in Washington promptly shuts down. This was (and is) by far the closest intelligence cooperation between two countries around, with information from assets being shared. This pretty much blinds the USA in the Middle East (where the vast majority of assets were British) and the Indian subcontinent (where the USA was pretty much totally dependent on Britain). Building a network is a lengthy process, and American intelligence would be pretty much Israeli-dependent for the next decade and a half in the Middle East. Good luck with that.

NATO undergoes strains. America is backing a non-NATO country in a war with a NATO country. That is going to send shock waves throughout the whole of the organisation. If America decides to support attacks on allied nations within NATO, you can expect a lot of problems. It might well lead to a development of a European force. NATO had already been under strain over Cyprus; this would be an order of magnitude greater.

US bases in Britain were already controversial. We're in the run-up to the height of the Greenham Common protests already. If the USA has backed an enemy of Britain in a shooting war, expect public pressure for these US bases to be kicked out to mean that any party that didn't back that to fail in the polls. An election is going to happen by 1984 at the latest, and the only question would be whether the US servicemen would be home for Christmas.

With France, Ireland, and now Britain pretty much out of NATO at various levels, the strategic situation in the Atlantic shifts. Spain isn't yet in NATO, and joining wasn't popular there. While Spain has sympathies with the Argentine claim, you can bet your bottom dollar that the evidence of America joining the fight against a NATO country (as it would be portrayed) would be politically impossible. That's pretty much the entire west European coast now no longer friendly disposed towards the UK.

After a lengthy bout of France saying "I told you so" to Britain, it's probable that close military cooperation between France and the UK outside of NATO would start to develop.

The northern flank of NATO becomes a mess. Defence of the Norwegian north was pretty much the purview of Norway and Britain (I should know. I invaded the Soviet Union from there). That's likely to fall apart.

On the other hand, the USA gains the support of Argentina. Which was, at the time, an economic basket-case with a modest military capability in a strategic backwater. Still, at least Argentine can continue with its Dirty War without being disturbed.

As for the course of the war, not a lot will be different. The US no longer supplies Britain with the latest model of Sidewinder, but since air control was never contested, that's simply going to mean that a few Argentine pilots make it home after disengaging from aerial combat rather than getting splashed. If the US were to supply Argentina from NATO stocks (as it did for Britain), all hell would break loose. WE can discount that. American advice would have been listened to more carefully, which benefits Britain, as British and American operational tactics were very different; Argentina would prepare even more for the wrong approach, and have an even harder time adjusting to the actual situation on the ground.

But it's silly, because the original concept is silly. Despite Kirkpatrick (more fool than knave), there was no chance of America turning on Britain.
 
One big difference is that Egypt had a legitimate claim to Suez, Argentina had no claim to the Falklands. They were never part of Argentina and the people there had no desire to be part of Argentina.
Egypt was unfriendly nation. The US was actually cordial with the Argentinian government there during this time and was concerned about alienating them especially if they lean to openly British. The British government population there are also either researchers or subsidized settlers(herders and farmers). The Brits got to pay people to live there.

How close is British Isles to the Falkland Islands compared to Argentina? To many Americans and people in general they think it’s odd the British can claim to have more “legitimate” claims then a nation that is actually near it. Having people die over that island instead of selling it and keeping military lease on bases there would be how Americans handle similar situations. It’s petty and pride filled dispute. Egypt with Suez Crisis was at least about something very important to international trade and geopolitics
 
Top