King Thomas
Banned
whilst the UK was busy fighting Germany in WW2? Would the UK still be able to kick Argentina out and get the islands back?
WI Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands in 1940?
- Thread starter King Thomas
- Start date
Thande
Donor
I think in the 1940s Britain was still Argentina's main trading partner. Although there might be territorial disagreements, starting a Falklands war then would be economic suicide on their part, especially since Britain was of course bankrupting herself buying for the war effort and trying to feed the populace, so they would be missing out on capitalising on that.
Not to mention real suicide later. They have just thrown in with the NAZIS. FDR will LOVE that, anti-imperialist or not. Nothing like having the dominant power in the hemisphere who is already looking to be THE power after the war, really pissed off at you. Churchill, on the other hand, will somehow manage to find a way to kick their ass in 1940 and REALLY make them suffer in 1945.
Hm- do you think that FDR could use this to bring the United States into the war in 1940?
Did the Argentine Navy have the capability even land a decent number of forces at that point (say, 5,000)? What was its status at the time?
Indeed. And that will inmediately lead to political suicide to whoever decided such an invasion. Also I'm not sure if it was such an issue at that time. There was simply no reason whatsoever to invade as there was no important gain in such a move and too much to loose. Even if military sucesfull - and that's a biiiig IF - the postwar scenario would be an economical suicide, leading to a political suicide later on, followed by a military suicide when the Allies counterattack. Remember that in 1982 it took a military governement witch was going to loose their power anyway composed of a general and an admiral that wouldn't recognize reality even if she danced naked in front of their eyes - and with flashing strobelights in her breasts - to order the invasion
Yeap.
I have no idea on the transport capacity
IIRC the issue was only re-ignited in the 1950s (and even then, only once Peron was out of office), so at that time it was just a moot issue.
The time to attack would have been after Italy had joined in but even then sufficient ships would have been assembled for a one off assualt. It would however have been a devastating blow but not to have reacted would have signalled defeatism
As it was Britain was considering negotiating some type of long term agreement with Agrentina at the time just as we were with De Valera
President Ortez was no Nazi sympathiser and would probably have vetoed any plans or been an obstacle to the military although his Vice Presient was pro Axis.
Germany might have forced their had if the Graf Spee had done a Goeben and sailed to Buenos Ares and was handed over to Argentina
As it was Britain was considering negotiating some type of long term agreement with Agrentina at the time just as we were with De Valera
President Ortez was no Nazi sympathiser and would probably have vetoed any plans or been an obstacle to the military although his Vice Presient was pro Axis.
Germany might have forced their had if the Graf Spee had done a Goeben and sailed to Buenos Ares and was handed over to Argentina
I would've thought, given it's importance as a base, it would've been protected with a coastal battery and garrisoned (even if pretty weakly in 1940) with troops and a naval presence. With sufficient notice the South Atlantic Squadron could've intervened.
Then there's whether the USN would've been in the area and how they'd react. Etc.
They'd wait, and take it back no later than the summer of '46. Probably earlier. The RN would make a handsome profit seizing the Argentine merchant marine, and turning them over to British service.
Last edited:
Yeah, he'd quite likely lie about how it was some sort of German-Argentine plot, and construe it as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. I doubt Congress would buy it, however.
But I could see it as sufficient to have the USN sent to the area in a clear show that it wasn't acceptable. Munroe Doctrine aside, the US was by that time assisting the UK and would realise the loss of the FI - or subsequent recapture - would weaken them in other areas: not good if you want to continue using the UK as the proxy power to fight for a shared objective.
One could even see the US being asked to place troops there, even just a nominal force, as they did in Iceland to free up the British garrison for fighting.
At this time the Argentian navy had 2 Battleships and at least 3 modern cruisers (Italian Built) as well as a far size destroyer force/ Wheter it had the transport capacity to move a 5,oo man force is an open question.
Given time the Royal navy could defeat the Argentian force but I would expect that the Kriegsmarine would alos get involed by the use of submarines and raiders. At this point I am not sure that FDR could get the US involved in a war between Arentina and the UK.
Given time the Royal navy could defeat the Argentian force but I would expect that the Kriegsmarine would alos get involed by the use of submarines and raiders. At this point I am not sure that FDR could get the US involved in a war between Arentina and the UK.
Ah, But you Forget Teddy Roosevelt's Amendment in 1904 ...
Under The Roosevelt Corollary, Between 1904 and 1928, Latin America was Basically Regarded as The United States' BITCH ...
Any, and All, Belligerent Actions by Latin American Countries, Especially those Likely to Induce European Involvement; Would be Met by an American Intervention, That could Only be Described as Biblical!
Argentina would never have attacked the islands, as others have said, it would have been political suicide.
Now, entering the war on the allied side and negotiating the hand over of the islands (Or some Hong Kong like deal) once the war is over is an entirely different matter, and one that I think would have been infinitely more likely.
Now, entering the war on the allied side and negotiating the hand over of the islands (Or some Hong Kong like deal) once the war is over is an entirely different matter, and one that I think would have been infinitely more likely.
Ah, But you Forget Teddy Roosevelt's Amendment in 1904 ...
Under The Roosevelt Corollary, Between 1904 and 1928, Latin America was Basically Regarded as The United States' BITCH ...
Any, and All, Belligerent Actions by Latin American Countries, Especially those Likely to Induce European Involvement; Would be Met by an American Intervention, That could Only be Described as Biblical!
Dogs and cats sleeping together?
Ah, But you Forget Teddy Roosevelt's Amendment in 1904 ...
Under The Roosevelt Corollary, Between 1904 and 1928, Latin America was Basically Regarded as The United States' BITCH ...
Any, and All, Belligerent Actions by Latin American Countries, Especially those Likely to Induce European Involvement; Would be Met by an American Intervention, That could Only be Described as Biblical!
Yes, but remember that doctrine wasn't fully applied in the South Cone until 1945. Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay were in practice in the British sphere of influence, which allow them to have a certain degree of independence towards the US. The Chaco War (1932-1935) could be seen as a war beteen a country backed by an American oil company (Standart Oil) and a country backed by a Dutch/Brish oil company (Shell). At the end of the day, it was Paraguay, the British-backed country, who won both the war and the peace. Both Argentina and the US proposed peace plans that would end the war: the one of the US was more favourable to Bolivia, while the one of Argentina was more favourable to Paraguay. Both country accepted Argentina's plan, and the Argentinian who negotiated the deal was awarded with a noble price.
This is to say that, at least till the late thirties or early fourties, the Monroe doctrine wasn't applied in the South Cone. However, it would probably had been if the ASB had push Argentina to attack Malvinas in 1940, as the British "protection" wouldn't have been applied if it were the British themselves who were under attack.
Last edited:
Redbeard
Banned
Ah, But you Forget Teddy Roosevelt's Amendment in 1904 ...
Under The Roosevelt Corollary, Between 1904 and 1928, Latin America was Basically Regarded as The United States' BITCH ...
Any, and All, Belligerent Actions by Latin American Countries, Especially those Likely to Induce European Involvement; Would be Met by an American Intervention, That could Only be Described as Biblical!
I doubt if the USN could operate in strength in the South Atlantic by 1940, and the Monroe doctrine in practice was enforced by the RN (keeping other Europeans away). I think the only major navy capable of operating significant forces in the SA in 1940 and before was the RN.
Anyway a cruiser squadron and a R-class battleship would be sufficient to chase away anything the Argentine navy could send. The two Argentine battleships were obsolete by 1940 (12" main guns) and in bad maintenance and although the three cruisers were relatively modern, they were also small and thin skinned.
If the Argentinians succeed in initially taking the islands in a surprise operation, the following British counter invasion might give valuable experience in amphibious and combined operations.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard