WI: US Backed Argentina in the Falklands war

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.
For information or intelligence in Middle East the US can get not just Israel but Saudi too(less reliable but still option). Also Mossad is clever and “ears on ground” directly. There intelligence is focused there and have direct interest in geopolitics.

Given “intelligence” UK provided US in places like Iran there lost of intelligence is not huge lost. Israel and Mossad would be happy those.

Also US has military bases across Europe especially in Germany which during Cold War was important but honestly resource money drain after. Even during Cold War the only benefit of bases in UK is navy bases and more areas for Soviets to send their missiles before they even think of hitting our actual land. Also not smart to concentrate all or too much of your forces to one place in case of missiles exchanging. Other then that it’s just power projection and excuse/bailout for Europeans to give more money to their own welfare state instead of military.

The US would not send anything that would start open conflict with Brits. Just cut money flow and harm a aggressive PR campaign against Thatcher and her supporters to point of pressuring them to pull out. Like French in Algeria Brits could militarily but still lose politically.

It is good to remember that Americans got Brits to sign over all their North American bases for lend lease. They got outdated boats and 90 percent discount on goods but US ended their empire in Western Hemisphere without a single shot. This is why uk has to often be clever and bait US into stuff because otherwise their public truly does not care or even agree or think like them half the time. It’s more so just old money and elites that exchange between these two especially later in century we get
 
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
There were very few, if any Argentine people living on the Falklands in 1982. Principle of self-determination means it is British. Equating the Falklands to Suez or Algeria is being blind to the history behind all three events

The British are not idiots. If the Americans are not going to put force behind their words, Thatcher tells Reagan to sit down while she goes to work
 
Last edited:
There were very few, if any Argentine people living on the Falklands in 1982. Principle of self-determination means it is British. Equating the two is a very misled thing.

The British are not idiots. If the Americans are not going to put force behind their words, Thatcher tells Reagan to sit down while she goes to work
When have Brits ever taken that seriously? Self determination is very cherry picked by British. Also if she does, Then US outlets bash thatcher who very easy target even among her own people. Also we will cut money.

Three and big one if she pisses off Reagan like leaders did Truman by being disrespectful(thinking we are “obedient” dominion like Canada you don’t have to “consort” is what arguably cost British in Suez Crisis). Then he will “look other way” to all Americans(specifically Irish Americans) sending money and weapons to IRA that thatcher did ask him to help stop flow of.

Our CIA have likely killed or contributed to numerous assassinations across globe and likely against our own leaders/politicians too. You don’t think they would give “tips” to IRA where thatcher might be so they know where to put bomb or when to shoot? If they got no problem contributing to death our own people they sure as hell won’t hesitate against yours
 
When have Brits ever taken that seriously? Self determination is very cherry picked by British. Also if she does, Then US outlets bash thatcher who very easy target even among her own people. Also we will cut money.

Three and big one if she pisses off Reagan like leaders did Truman by being disrespectful(thinking we are “obedient” dominion like Canada you don’t have to “consort” is what arguably cost British in Suez Crisis). Then he will “look other way” to all Americans(specifically Irish Americans) sending money and weapons to IRA that thatcher did ask him to help stop flow of.

Our CIA have likely killed or contributed to numerous assassinations across globe and likely against our own leaders/politicians too. You don’t think they would give “tips” to IRA where thatcher might be so they know where to put bomb or when to shoot? If they got no problem contributing to death our own people they sure as hell won’t hesitate against yours
If the CIA gives guns to the IRA, Europe flips its shit and America can wave goodbye to European allies. Ultimately, America has a lot of power, but trying to act like a dictator will only breed resentment, especially if done to an UNSC P5 or a power with a lot of pull on Europe. If they actually killed Thatcher, it would be found out and whomever was stupid enough to greenlight it will be on a plane to Old Bailey and then directly to Gaol

The world might be immoral, but there are certainly lines you do not cross.

But it’s clear you have no interest in debating the merits outside of Rah-Rah America Strong
 
Our CIA have likely killed or contributed to numerous assassinations across globe and likely against our own leaders/politicians too. You don’t think they would give “tips” to IRA where thatcher might be so they know where to put bomb or when to shoot? If they got no problem contributing to death our own people they sure as hell won’t hesitate against yours
The idea that America, particularly under Reagan, would back Argentina over the UK is ASB. The idea that the CIA would assassinate Thatcher over this makes the recent thread about German guerillas making their way from Stalingrad to Borneo look plausible. There is no way this would happen, absolutely none.
 
I was going to ask if USAFE bases in Germany could absorb all those RF-4Cs, A-10s, KC-135s and F-111s etc. that would be homeless but then I read the bit where the CIA is killing British citizens by proxy so it's ok, they've all just been bull-dozed into their HASs.
 
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
Seapower 101.

choke_points.jpeg

Japan — Short- and Long-term Energy Risks - Our World

In the context of the era, the United States was having trouble (a lot of trouble) with Panama. It still had to shuttle fleets from Atlantic to Pacific in a yoyo during the Cold War. 75 % of its offensive expeditionary power lay in its aircraft carriers, which cannot pass through the Panama Canal of that era. So the US Navy has to round Cape Horn with its aircraft carrier battle groups and make sure that it is a friendly stadthalder who holds the Falkland Islands.

The Falklands whether British held or Argentine held only mattered to the United States insofar as the United States could guarantee the islands were held by a state friendly to it.

Things in South America have never been easy for the United States because it has been a two century run of American imperialism that has soured the South Americans on that North American imperialism. It was and is fertile territory for the enemies of the United States to exploit against her. Because the Monroe Doctrine was about who would hold economic and political hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.

Who have those economic and geopolitical enemies of the United States been in the past in that region?

19th Century

Spain, France and Great Britain.

20 Century

Great Britain, Germany and Russia.

21st Century? No current Politics.

But notice one of the names?

If Jean Kirkpatrick remembers her history, then she is balancing a balance board between a very recent (38 years at the time of the Falklands War) "special relationship" and more than 100 previous years "cold, correct and sometimes hostile" relations between the United States and the British Empire.

Someone brought up the Suez Crisis as a parallel case. Yeah, about that one. Remember why the United States was furious with the United Kingdom and France and Israel at that time?

NATO almost came apart over that one.

The thing to remember in such discussions, as this one, is that nation states are not friends. (REALPOLITIK). They are social-political entities-constructs with international shared interests and conflicts that will drive them together or apart, depending on what the political and economic circumstances are at the time under discussion or action.

In the case of the Falklands, some Americans weighed the whole of South America against the "Special Relationship" and measured that ratio against Soviet penetration into Central America which had recently become a major geopolitical alarm bell for Washington. Having a war in the sensitive South American region between two of America's "allies" was not in America's "interests" in her own backyard and there was a split within that American administration as to how to handle the mess.

It was seen in Washington, at the time, that British government policy (Foreign Office) prior to the Falklands War, was to quietly let the Falklands go. Now suddenly the London government was caught with its britches showing as the Galtieri government against American advice, tried to pull a publicity stunt to stay in power by gambling that the British would accept the "fait accompli". Note that the Thatcher government was in enormous political trouble at home over social policy and economic policy at the time? But here was the "Rule Britannia, Wave the Union Jack moment", the sitting government needed to stay in power, and so forth goes the Royal Navy.

This is not the London centric view of the world, it was the SOUR CYNICAL American view of the mess at the time.

I despised Jean Kirkpatrick, Al Haig and their ilk, and their neo-conservative chicken-hawk view of the geopolitical realities, but I understood years later what the see-saw was that they teeter-tottered upon at that time. They were locked in the end-game with Russia. And here comes this war in the South Atlantic with two nations that shared co-tangent interests with the United States that will draw America's attention away from the main adversary. They would not talk it out. They had to fight.

War therefore happens in the South Atlantic that will no matter who wins between the two "allies" will cause the United States to LOSE geopolitically in both Europe and South America. And who will gain from it? The main adversary will gain as the Russians did.

Hungary 1956. Falklands 1982. Grenada 1983, Nicaragua 1984. Quite a mess.

I might point out that in the Falklands if things had gone really sideways on the ground as it almost did, might have wound up brokered as a UN MANDATE with peacekeepers. UN Peacekeepers at the time meant Soviet infiltration in many cases. Not going to happen. How would it look with American MARINES knocking heads together? It DID happen in Grenada.

Ronald Reagan may have flipped a coin and it might have come up heads. Who knows? When there is a foreign policy split in the American government, the President decides international policy. That is why LONDON prospered and Buenos Aires did not. Reagan thought he needed British control in the Falklands and damn the consequences in South America.;

Still... America lost face in South America and Europe.

That is my opinion. Your mileage might vary.
 
Our CIA have likely killed or contributed to numerous assassinations across globe and likely against our own leaders/politicians too. You don’t think they would give “tips” to IRA where thatcher might be so they know where to put bomb or when to shoot? If they got no problem contributing to death our own people they sure as hell won’t hesitate against yours

Well, this was a hilarious read. You want to know exactly what happens if the CIA pulled this?

There's two options in the short term. Replacement amongst the Tories or GE. If GE, could go to Tories or Labour.
If it goes to the Tories, they take a massive hard-line stance on Ireland and when the truth gets out, they take a massive hard-line stance on the USA.

This means the intelligence information discussed earlier is gone, the American bases in the UK are gone and the US loses the usage of the UK for their Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, removing half of their OTL stations. Certain leases would not be renewed, although that's a long run concern unless there's some hidden escape clauses. Which if there were would punch a hole into the USN's logistics system and it's almost certain that the UK would pull out of NATO and pull the BAOR off the Rhine.

If Labour takes over due to a GE, then it is almost certain that Britain would go for full neutrality in the Cold War. 80s Labour did not like America and while they had some elements who did, as a whole they didn't particularly like the Soviet Union either.

Put simply, America being dumb enough to choose Argentina over Europe which is what it effectively would have done under the earlier proposed scenario? Stupid, but it could have been done with some repercussions.

Going full zero-sum game realpolitik and murdering the leader of one of it's most important and useful allies to support a crazy dictatorship? It would spell the end of that alliance, as well as the alliance with pretty much all their major alliances because by this one action NATO becomes worthless and the USA ceases to be seen as a good and reliable option due to the fact that you can't even trust the US to prioritise properly.

If they're willing to prioritise a crazy dictatorship over one of their major basing areas for fighting the Soviets in Europe and one of their major missile areas, then quite simply you cannot trust them to not throw you under the bus for minor gain.

As such, Europe is left with two options, bail on NATO and form their own alliances and economic pacts or submit to either Soviet or American Imperialism.

The thing you fail to understand is that the 80s is not the modern era. Here and now everyone has gotten used to America doing as it will even as people hold grudges over it with little ability to do anything.

In the 80s, all these powers had a lot of people with living memory of when they were top tier powers and for many their falls have been slow and not openly noticeable. They won't lack the will to do anything and the Cold War and the US' reliance on them, the UK and the rest of Europe, gives them things they can do.
 
Last edited:
If the CIA gives guns to the IRA, Europe flips its shit and America can wave goodbye to European allies. Ultimately, America has a lot of power, but trying to act like a dictator will only breed resentment, especially if done to an UNSC P5 or a power with a lot of pull on Europe. If they actually killed Thatcher, it would be found out and whomever was stupid enough to greenlight it will be on a plane to Old Bailey and then directly to Gaol

The world might be immoral, but there are certainly lines you do not cross.

But it’s clear you have no interest in debating the merits outside of Rah-Rah America Strong
We or more accurately third parties within US get way with killing people all time. They probably don’t get caught and throw IRA under bus if too much is traced back to them.

Like they did with neo fascist in Italy. They have zero chance of actually doing anything by themselves and are perfect fall men to blame when caught. Hard to directly trace bribes and back room deals. Call it “passive aggressive” diplomacy and den of snakes. Nothing done direct and only indirect
 
The idea that America, particularly under Reagan, would back Argentina over the UK is ASB. The idea that the CIA would assassinate Thatcher over this makes the recent thread about German guerillas making their way from Stalingrad to Borneo look plausible. There is no way this would happen, absolutely none.
I call it “passive aggressive” diplomacy or third party actors from within US. Our government won’t support it directly but certain members of CIA especially ones who have ties to Irish mafia here can get weapons, supplies, and “tips” to IRA. If anyone caught you blame individual or fraction within third party. You have deniability. Reagan just needs to do less to cut weapons and information flow between IRA and American third party funders. One reason our government likely lowered migration and exchange with places like Ireland and Italy from 60s onward is because our criminal organizations were using ties to become more international organization therefore a nuisance
 
Seapower 101.

choke_points.jpeg

Japan — Short- and Long-term Energy Risks - Our World

In the context of the era, the United States was having trouble (a lot of trouble) with Panama. It still had to shuttle fleets from Atlantic to Pacific in a yoyo during the Cold War. 75 % of its offensive expeditionary power lay in its aircraft carriers, which cannot pass through the Panama Canal of that era. So the US Navy has to round Cape Horn with its aircraft carrier battle groups and make sure that it is a friendly stadthalder who holds the Falkland Islands.

The Falklands whether British held or Argentine held only mattered to the United States insofar as the United States could guarantee the islands were held by a state friendly to it.

Things in South America have never been easy for the United States because it has been a two century run of American imperialism that has soured the South Americans on that North American imperialism. It was and is fertile territory for the enemies of the United States to exploit against her. Because the Monroe Doctrine was about who would hold economic and political hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.

Who have those economic and geopolitical enemies of the United States been in the past in that region?

19th Century

Spain, France and Great Britain.

20 Century

Great Britain, Germany and Russia.

21st Century? No current Politics.

But notice one of the names?

If Jean Kirkpatrick remembers her history, then she is balancing a balance board between a very recent (38 years at the time of the Falklands War) "special relationship" and more than 100 previous years "cold, correct and sometimes hostile" relations between the United States and the British Empire.

Someone brought up the Suez Crisis as a parallel case. Yeah, about that one. Remember why the United States was furious with the United Kingdom and France and Israel at that time?

NATO almost came apart over that one.

The thing to remember in such discussions, as this one, is that nation states are not friends. (REALPOLITIK). They are social-political entities-constructs with international shared interests and conflicts that will drive them together or apart, depending on what the political and economic circumstances are at the time under discussion or action.

In the case of the Falklands, some Americans weighed the whole of South America against the "Special Relationship" and measured that ratio against Soviet penetration into Central America which had recently become a major geopolitical alarm bell for Washington. Having a war in the sensitive South American region between two of America's "allies" was not in America's "interests" in her own backyard and there was a split within that American administration as to how to handle the mess.

It was seen in Washington, at the time, that British government policy (Foreign Office) prior to the Falklands War, was to quietly let the Falklands go. Now suddenly the London government was caught with its britches showing as the Galtieri government against American advice, tried to pull a publicity stunt to stay in power by gambling that the British would accept the "fait accompli". Note that the Thatcher government was in enormous political trouble at home over social policy and economic policy at the time? But here was the "Rule Britannia, Wave the Union Jack moment", the sitting government needed to stay in power, and so forth goes the Royal Navy.

This is not the London centric view of the world, it was the SOUR CYNICAL American view of the mess at the time.

I despised Jean Kirkpatrick, Al Haig and their ilk, and their neo-conservative chicken-hawk view of the geopolitical realities, but I understood years later what the see-saw was that they teeter-tottered upon at that time. They were locked in the end-game with Russia. And here comes this war in the South Atlantic with two nations that shared co-tangent interests with the United States that will draw America's attention away from the main adversary. They would not talk it out. They had to fight.

War therefore happens in the South Atlantic that will no matter who wins between the two "allies" will cause the United States to LOSE geopolitically in both Europe and South America. And who will gain from it? The main adversary will gain as the Russians did.

Hungary 1956. Falklands 1982. Grenada 1983, Nicaragua 1984. Quite a mess.

I might point out that in the Falklands if things had gone really sideways on the ground as it almost did, might have wound up brokered as a UN MANDATE with peacekeepers. UN Peacekeepers at the time meant Soviet infiltration in many cases. Not going to happen. How would it look with American MARINES knocking heads together? It DID happen in Grenada.

Ronald Reagan may have flipped a coin and it might have come up heads. Who knows? When there is a foreign policy split in the American government, the President decides international policy. That is why LONDON prospered and Buenos Aires did not. Reagan thought he needed British control in the Falklands and damn the consequences in South America.;

Still... America lost face in South America and Europe.

That is my opinion. Your mileage might vary.
Good points, as American I will say US is bigger wild card then people give them credit for. They can work with literally anyone because they can be bought/bribe and indifferent personally in many issues. Our military is often glorified peacekeepers or mercenaries keeping other places from killing each other and trade somewhat stable.

The issues with imperialist powers like Brits and French they still think it’s 1910 with their position in geopolitics. No you have to converse with Americans and likely provide economic concessions to get your way and preferably have some subtlety with it(don’t tie imperialism on us. We are hegemonic and plutocratic not imperialist or ancien regimes). Iran coup is example of British being smart with approaching Americans while Suez Crisis is example of them being dumb by not even letting Americans in on it before invasion
 
Well, this was a hilarious read. You want to know exactly what happens if the CIA pulled this?

There's two options in the short term. Replacement amongst the Tories or GE. If GE, could go to Tories or Labour.
If it goes to the Tories, they take a massive hard-line stance on Ireland and when the truth gets out, they take a massive hard-line stance on the USA.

This means the intelligence information discussed earlier is gone, the American bases in the UK are gone and the US loses the usage of the UK for their Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, removing half of their OTL stations. Certain leases would not be renewed, although that's a long run concern unless there's some hidden escape clauses. Which if there were would punch a hole into the USN's logistics system and it's almost certain that the UK would pull out of NATO and pull the BAOR off the Rhine.

If Labour takes over due to a GE, then it is almost certain that Britain would go for full neutrality in the Cold War. 80s Labour did not like America and while they had some elements who did, as a whole they didn't particularly like the Soviet Union either.

Put simply, America being dumb enough to choose Argentina over Europe which is what it effectively would have done under the earlier proposed scenario? Stupid, but it could have been done with some repercussions.

Going full zero-sum game realpolitik and murdering the leader of one of it's most important and useful allies to support a crazy dictatorship? It would spell the end of that alliance, as well as the alliance with pretty much all their major alliances because by this one action NATO becomes worthless and the USA ceases to be seen as a good and reliable option due to the fact that you can't even trust the US to prioritise properly.

If they're willing to prioritise a crazy dictatorship over one of their major basing areas for fighting the Soviets in Europe and one of their major missile areas, then quite simply you cannot trust them to not throw you under the bus for minor gain.

As such, Europe is left with two options, bail on NATO and form their own alliances and economic pacts or submit to either Soviet or American Imperialism.

The thing you fail to understand is that the 80s is not the modern era. Here and now everyone has gotten used to America doing as it will even as people hold grudges over it with little ability to do anything.

In the 80s, all these powers had a lot of people with living memory of when they were top tier powers and for many their falls have been slow and not openly noticeable. They won't lack the will to do anything and the Cold War and the US' reliance on them, the UK and the rest of Europe, gives them things they can do.
They likely don’t get caught. Hard to track money and weapons and if they do we blame Irish mob, “corrupt officials”, or third party/individuals from within our country. Likely some Irish Americans with mob ties who help sent weapons to Ireland. We have deniability and even if British intelligence smells bullshit Cold War keeps showing the “reds”/Soviets will make them “officially” buy story. Many British elites and Americans have been growing more distance with wasp influence fading here.
 
We or more accurately third parties within US get way with killing people all time. They probably don’t get caught and throw IRA under bus if too much is traced back to them.

You are aware, I assume, that in the time frame you are talking about, 6 had managed to penetrate the IRA to a significant degree, and had an asset involved (later to be in charge of) house clearing for the IRA. Information from assets back to control was not fast enough for immediate work, but was invaluable in strategic manipulation.

CIA involvement at this stage will be known about. Not might be. Will be. They absolutely will get known about.
 
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.
Excellent post

My understanding regarding the the latest Aim 9s were that they were already in British stocks but were supposed to be 'NATO' only so Britain had to get assurances that the USA could cover (and were happy with) any that were used up.

I suspect with this improbable POD that the UK simply says 'fuck it' and takes them anyway
 
I might point out that in the Falklands if things had gone really sideways on the ground as it almost did, might have wound up brokered as a UN MANDATE with peacekeepers.

Could you clarify if you are talking about the war in general or the war on the ground? Only I know a little bit about the ground war, especially about certain aspects.

I have to say that if you are indeed talking about the ground war, I would like some supporting evidence for your assertion. Only from what I saw, being involved in the landings at San Carlos, and actions at Mount Kent and Mount Harriet, that nearly going sideways is not how I would describe it.

Far from it. About as far from it as it is possible to be.

From which I conclude you were probably talking more generally. Would appreciate clarification.
 
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
It's not the worth of the islands, it's the principle of resisting armed aggression against an ally. What if China invaded American Samoa? It's not worth much, and it's very far away, but the U.S. would fight to take it back.
 
Kick
You are aware, I assume, that in the time frame you are talking about, 6 had managed to penetrate the IRA to a significant degree, and had an asset involved (later to be in charge of) house clearing for the IRA. Information from assets back to control was not fast enough for immediate work, but was invaluable in strategic manipulation.

CIA involvement at this stage will be known about. Not might be. Will be. They absolutely will get known about.
Your intelligence is probably good it own(I would say Mossad is better especially for American interest but that’s besides point). How much stuff in otl do we know CIA or third party elements have gotten away with while everyone likely knows they had at least partial hand in it? Kennedy’s assassination(likely mob influences too), involvement in Years of Lead in Italy(local mafia families has role in that too), and numerous anti communist activists in first and third world, plus the trafficking of cocaine to the contre.

You know what happens if you “follow trail”? They blame some high profile Irish mobster they are after who has ties moles in fbi or cia. They persecute the bureaucrats and politicians caught red handed while blaming Irish mob for trafficking weapons to IRA. Which gives Americans to “clean bit house” at home. Like neo fascist in Italy they are often just pawns.

History shows no one likely will call out US during Cold War. The 90s and after might be different story and re opening of “cans of worms”.
 
Could you clarify if you are talking about the war in general or the war on the ground? Only I know a little bit about the ground war, especially about certain aspects.

I have to say that if you are indeed talking about the ground war, I would like some supporting evidence for your assertion. Only from what I saw, being involved in the landings at San Carlos, and actions at Mount Kent and Mount Harriet, that nearly going sideways is not how I would describe it.

Far from it. About as far from it as it is possible to be.

From which I conclude you were probably talking more generally. Would appreciate clarification.
Loss of the helicopters with the Atlantic Conveyor and the terrible naval air situation at San Carlos Water specifically. It was very close to being a total disaster. Just how close is not generally realized.
 
Last edited:
Top