The Falklands War

What if the dispute over the Falkland Islands in 1770 led to war between Spain, France, and Great Britain? Who would win and how long do you think the conflict could last?
 
I doubt it would escalate that far

but then I'm not an expert on the period and that isn't helpful at all
 
I doubt it would escalate that far

but then I'm not an expert on the period and that isn't helpful at all

It was a major incident and there was a very serious chance of war happening if Louis XV hadn't stopped Choiseul when he did.
 
To be frank, I would say that it wouldn't get that far. Of course, this could get caught up in an alternate version of the American Revolution.
 
To be frank, I would say that it wouldn't get that far. Of course, this could get caught up in an alternate version of the American Revolution.

It would probably mostly be a naval war and Britain would try to occupy New Orleans. But as I said before if France had backed Spain then there probably would have been a war. As for the American Revolution, unless if there was an earlier POD, I don't think it would have started any earlier as nobody seriously discussed independence from Britain until 1775-6. It also depends on what happens to Lord North. But such a war would also blow a big gaping hole in the "France won't dare intervene in our colonial affairs" theory. The ARW might be avoided altogether when calls for representation comes around.
 
If the UK had a naval base on the Straights of Magellan then a base on the Falklands would not be necessary. Since it was difficult to colonize (there were a few failed attempts) it could be possible that the UK would just give up on trying to claim it.

France, Belgium, or some other imperial power could use the island as a refueling center and would be willing to pay the huge price to settle there. A war between them could break out.
 
The UK didn't form yet and Belgium was still an Austrian possession. Meanwhile France being asked by Spain to back it's claim and nether Britain or Spain wanted to back down anyways. So Yeah...
 

Faeelin

Banned
As for the American Revolution, unless if there was an earlier POD, I don't think it would have started any earlier as nobody seriously discussed independence from Britain until 1775-6. It also depends on what happens to Lord North. But such a war would also blow a big gaping hole in the "France won't dare intervene in our colonial affairs" theory. The ARW might be avoided altogether when calls for representation comes around.

Okay, some thoughts.

First, despite the appearance of strength from Britain's victory in 1763, Britain was fairly weak in the 1770s. A few incidents illustrate this:

  • Corsica. The island's purchase shocked Britain, because, as Lord Shelburne noted, "Corsica "must be a great accession to that kingdom, not only of commerce, but of strength, by affording the goodness of some of its ports, the greatest advantages for annoying our Italian and Levant trade in time of war."

    Why the Corsican fiasco? Britain was distracted by the consequences of the Townshend Act. But this went further; Britain thought France should be appeased over Corsica to concentrate on the thirteen colonies.

  • Scandinavia. In September of 1770 the Danish Chief minister was deposed in a palace revolution, and replaced with the Pro-French Count Struensee. This would have been bad. But George III's sister, Caroline Mathilda, was having an affair with him. So the overthrow of Struensee in 1772 by a court cabal created new problems, because the sister of the king of england was threatened with execution for treason and adultery. To prtoct the lover of a pro-French minister from the wrath of Britian's natural allies, a naval demonstration was sent to intimidate the Danish. [1] This didn't win friends.

    Meanwhile, in Sweden in 1772, Gustavus launched a coup d'etat with French support to impose royal absolutism. The Russian response was to threaten an invasion of Finland, or even an amphibious assault on Scania istself. France, in response, threatened to attack the Russian Mediterranean squadron.

    Thus, Britain's Swedish and Danish allies were less than friendly.

  • Poland. In August of 1772, Russia, Prussia, and Austria each grabbed a slice of the Commonwealth of Poland, and Britain's response was silence. In the 1730s, British public opinion had been sharply divided about whether Britian should enter the Austrians side in the War of Polish Succession. Forty years later, several million people had hcanged hands almost noiselessly. But the Britishg overnment, even if it would have intervened, would not known who to back. Some would have baked Austria,b ut doing so would have jepeordized Hanover. And as Walpole observed, "the fleet being so formidable, I suppose, will be towed overladn to Warsaw to restore the Polish constitution and their King."

    As a sign of British tunnel vision, Britons also saw France at work in the partition, even though it had tried to vigorously oppose it.
  • Lorraine & the Barrier Forts. Lorraine's acquisition came via peacecuful annexation, but only strengthened French power. In part because of British weakness, Austria and France began negotiating a deal where the French would get Ypres or Furnes in return for supporting the opening of the Schelde, which would cripple Britain's ally the Netherlands. This didn't go anywhere, but it illustrates Britain's continental weakness.

So, turning to the Falklands themselves. London was convinced that the Spanish were ejected at the direction of the French Minister Choiseul, and so Britain mounted a nvaval demonstration in response, particularly in the Mediterranean. Britain's response was so much greater than Spain's, however, that it encouraged the British government to take a jingoistic "UK! UK! UK!" line, with speeches agbout conquering the Americas and how awesome we all are. Indeed, the opposition was so pro-war that it restricted Britain's ability to maneuver.

Why did anybody even care about the Falklands? While they were barren desolate rocks, the Falklands were perceived as a staging post for a British drive into the Pacific.

The American colonial reaction is actually going to be pretty significant and complicated; I'm running out the door so I'll comment later.

[1] and the bagels.
 
France would probably spend a lot of money on the war and so if the American Revolutionary War doesn't happen then France would still have a large debt. So maybe the French Revolution starts a little earlier?
 

Faeelin

Banned
Okay, some more thoughts.

First, the American colonials were well aware of their position in Britain's great power status (or at least how everyone perceived their position). A lot of American discourse was focused on the belief that the colonies were the bastion of Empire, and were needed to provide Britain with Great Power status. There was also a feeling they had not seen the fruits of victory.

Many Frenchmen also saw the American colonies in the same light. Indeed, there were quite a few Frenchmen who thought Britain could only be taken down if and when the colonies revolted.

So I suspect if war broke out there would be a lot of dissatisfaction about it in the colonies. New France has already fallen; New Orleans is too far away at this point. And what do the colonies get for it?

I wouldn't assume it's going to be a walkover, either. There was a real fear at the time that Gibraltar would fall in short order in the event of a war breaking out, and France and spain had a larger fleet at the time.
 
Top