WI : No Falklands conflict

Did a DBWI on this a while ago, little interest then. Was tempted to post a TL, but I don't think I'd have the time to commit to it, and if I did it would be a steaming bag of poo.

If Galtieri didn't invade the Falklands (presumably due to realism overtaking optimism), bearing in mind the economic situation, would the Conservatives have won a second term? Would the SDP-Liberal Alliance be able to win an election? Something else?
 
Did a DBWI on this a while ago, little interest then. Was tempted to post a TL, but I don't think I'd have the time to commit to it, and if I did it would be a steaming bag of poo.

If Galtieri didn't invade the Falklands (presumably due to realism overtaking optimism), bearing in mind the economic situation, would the Conservatives have won a second term? Would the SDP-Liberal Alliance be able to win an election? Something else?

Custard Cream Monster

Difficult to tell for sure but very likely that the Tories would have failed to get a majority in the next general election, despite the insanity of our electoral system. Probably have a split Parliament because unless Labour imploded totally I can't see the Alliance totally breaking through, although it might have occurred. More likely would probably have been some coalition, probably between the Alliance and Labour as the Tories were so detested by the majority of people at the time. Could have been an uneasy government possibly not lasting for long but could have stopped the Thatcher reaction in its tracks and seen her replaced by a forward looking Tory rival.

Steve
 

Cook

Banned
If Galtieri didn't invade the Falklands (presumably due to realism overtaking optimism), bearing in mind the economic situation, would the Conservatives have won a second term?

I didn’t even know Galtieri had been running for parliament; what seat did he stand for?
;)
From the somewhat jaundiced opinions of some people around here I can only assume that he’d be expected to have a ministerial position in the Thatcher government.
 
Speaking of Galtieri...

What would the effect of no war be on the junta he led?

Isn't it pretty much agreed that Argentina's loss in the war was the proximate cause for the junta's fall? How long could the junta have held onto power if they'd avoided the war?

On the other hand, it's also pretty much agreed that the junta decided on the war in order to shore up domestic support. Stirring up passions about the Falklands is an old domestic stand-by for Argentina's rulers. The current president, Ms. Kirchner recently as this spring began beating the Falklands drum as a way to distract the populace from both the economic meltdown she and the previous president, her husband, have been presiding over, the economic indicator "book cooking" which is still occurring, and the various corruption probes aimed at them.
 
Speaking of Galtieri...

What would the effect of no war be on the junta he led?

Isn't it pretty much agreed that Argentina's loss in the war was the proximate cause for the junta's fall? How long could the junta have held onto power if they'd avoided the war?
They would have lasted until '84-'85. 1986 at the most. They were breaking havoc in the economy, and that's without discussing their rather low approval rate.
 
Custard Cream Monster

Difficult to tell for sure but very likely that the Tories would have failed to get a majority in the next general election, despite the insanity of our electoral system. Probably have a split Parliament because unless Labour imploded totally I can't see the Alliance totally breaking through, although it might have occurred. More likely would probably have been some coalition, probably between the Alliance and Labour as the Tories were so detested by the majority of people at the time. Could have been an uneasy government possibly not lasting for long but could have stopped the Thatcher reaction in its tracks and seen her replaced by a forward looking Tory rival.

Steve

Sounds interesting. If it was the Alliance were in government with Labour junior coalition partners, which Alliance leader (IOTL, Jenkins and Steel in 1983) would the Queen have invited to the palace to form a government?
 
I think minority Tory government in a country crippled by strikes.
Labour in in 86 and the country to the dogs by 87, (I have zero faith in Kinnock, not that you could tell of course...:D).

However, at least after that, Euro membership would be attractive, as would more co-operative stance and reduced British powers within the EU as I'd expect them to have to bail out the British economy at some point if Kinnock got in.
I think a more Euro freindly Tory party in come 97 though.
 
I can't see the SDP-Liberal alliance winning a majority, but they might win a lot of seats. Result is probably a Conservative minority government, at least for a while. Labour imploding completely isn't impossible with Foot as leader though.

Probably something close to a 300-200-100 split Conservative-Labour-Alliance.

Sounds interesting. If it was the Alliance were in government with Labour junior coalition partners, which Alliance leader (IOTL, Jenkins and Steel in 1983) would the Queen have invited to the palace to form a government?

Steel makes the most sense.
 
I wonder if we would have seen an Argentine-Chilean conflict instead. I understand there are a few border issues there as well. Thatcher only ever took advantage of a war for political gain, Galtieri started one. If the British stance was a little firmer, he could look elsewhere.
 

abc123

Banned
Let's put the opening question like this:

WI Argentina waited for two years, and then attack Falklands?
Let's say in end of april of 1984.

In that time they would get 2 more submarines, their crews would be more experience, they would get new destroyers, nes Super Etandards and more Exocet's.
Britain would scrapped Hermes, and Invincible sold to Australia.
What than?
:eek:
 

loughery111

Banned
Let's put the opening question like this:

WI Argentina waited for two years, and then attack Falklands?
Let's say in end of april of 1984.

In that time they would get 2 more submarines, their crews would be more experience, they would get new destroyers, nes Super Etandards and more Exocet's.
Britain would scrapped Hermes, and Invincible sold to Australia.
What than?
:eek:

I can't really see the Junta holding on that long and still having the authority, moral and actual, to pull this. If they're still kicking by then, they're not likely to have much control anymore.
 
If the Junta was willing to wait, the Falklands was already on it's way to joint sovereignty, and eventual absorption into Argentina.

I still think Britain 1984 could have won this thing. The rules of engagement were such that the Task Force was already fighting with one hand behind its back. Nuclear submarines could have wiped the seas clean of Argentine shipping, and some kind of super Black Buck could have smashed any airfields in range. If Britain had the will to execute this conflict, it could have won. Now if we have a different set of leaders at the time, we could see no will to take back the Falklands, at least in government, but I doubt this government would survive the next election.
 
If the Junta was willing to wait, the Falklands was already on it's way to joint sovereignty, and eventual absorption into Argentina.

I still think Britain 1984 could have won this thing. The rules of engagement were such that the Task Force was already fighting with one hand behind its back. Nuclear submarines could have wiped the seas clean of Argentine shipping, and some kind of super Black Buck could have smashed any airfields in range. If Britain had the will to execute this conflict, it could have won. Now if we have a different set of leaders at the time, we could see no will to take back the Falklands, at least in government, but I doubt this government would survive the next election.

A government that was unwilling to even try and take back the Falklabnds would be lucky to see out the week, let alone till the next election.
I dont think you understand how people (and many of the tory MP's) felt about this.
The British are extremely bloody-minded at the best of times, and allowing a minor foreign power to take over islands whos occupants were British and had repeatedly insisted they wanted to remain British is just not going to happen.
 
Well ok Falklands War 1984 hmm

RN- there is only Illustrious to hand, work commences double quick on Ark Royal.
LPD's have gone, there are more T22 in service but its only 8 towed array ships when its all said and done. Subs- well ok so we have a couple Swifsures in service, the 5 older boats (Dreadnought is for scrap). So no taskforce can be sent down south as we don't have any amphibs and I presume Sea Harriers have been reduced to only 2 squadrons (on and no AEW still).

Troops- the RM merged with the Parachute Regt creating the Commando Parachute Regt with 3 battalions.

RAF-Vulcans have gone, Black Buck can only be attempted with Tornado -and using JP233??????hmm nasty.
 

abc123

Banned
Well ok Falklands War 1984 hmm

RN- there is only Illustrious to hand, work commences double quick on Ark Royal.
LPD's have gone, there are more T22 in service but its only 8 towed array ships when its all said and done. Subs- well ok so we have a couple Swifsures in service, the 5 older boats (Dreadnought is for scrap). So no taskforce can be sent down south as we don't have any amphibs and I presume Sea Harriers have been reduced to only 2 squadrons (on and no AEW still).

Troops- the RM merged with the Parachute Regt creating the Commando Parachute Regt with 3 battalions.

RAF-Vulcans have gone, Black Buck can only be attempted with Tornado -and using JP233??????hmm nasty.


As I said.
;)
Wishes of HMG in Whitehall and british population are one thing, but cruel reality of military capabilities of UK Armed Forces is something wholly different thing.
;)
 
Speaking of Galtieri...

What would the effect of no war be on the junta he led?

Isn't it pretty much agreed that Argentina's loss in the war was the proximate cause for the junta's fall? How long could the junta have held onto power if they'd avoided the war?

.

They would have lasted until '84-'85. 1986 at the most. They were breaking havoc in the economy, and that's without discussing their rather low approval rate.

Agreed. They'd have fallen anyway, and rather soon. But maybe, without the war, they might have been able to negotiate with existant political parties and obtainan amnesty for their crimes against human rights. After all, this is what Brazilian, Uruguayans and Chilenean dictators obtained (well, Chilenean ones got much more). Argentina is the only country in which those members of the armed forces who kidnapped, tortured and killed people were subjected to trial and condemned when democracy returned.

So, we might have had a democratic Argentina in which the military remain a powerfull internal force, and where those accused for crimes against human rights aren't trialed,...at least till much later.
 
Reagan offered Thatcher one of the reserve carries, i think Independence,or Saratoga or Coral Sea,i m not shure each one but it was a modernazid essex class for shure.
 

Thande

Donor
Hung parliament. Then chaos, because David Owen wanted to back the Tories to keep extremist Labour out, while most of the Liberal-SDP Alliance wanted to keep the Tories out and support Labour while trying to force them to moderate their positions.
 
Reagan offered Thatcher one of the reserve carries, i think Independence,or Saratoga or Coral Sea, I'm not sure which one but it was a modernized Essex class for sure.

Uh, no. Saratoga and Independence were uprated Forrestals. Coral Sea was an immediate post-WWII Midway class. Comparing either classes to Essexs would be like comparing a Chieftain to a Churchill. And doing so would be so intruding into the conflict as to make it an American one. And where would the UK get the fleet-class naval aircraft, pilots, and crews for such vessels? The crews run up to 6,000!:eek:
 
Let's put the opening question like this:

WI Argentina waited for two years, and then attack Falklands?
Let's say in end of april of 1984.

In that time they would get 2 more submarines, their crews would be more experienced, they would get new destroyers, new Super Etendards and more Exocets.
Britain would have scrapped Hermes, and Invincible sold to Australia.
What then?
:eek:

Actually, the coming of the Hawke Administration in Australia would have seen the cancellation of that sale, anyway.

What then? No non-nuclear sovereign power has ever launched a direct attack against a nuclear one. So...

Polaris.:eek: Or Trident.:eek::eek:
Not on cities or any ground targets, obviously. Google "EMP".:p

Thatcher STILL gets re-elected.
 
Top