1940s Purchase of Falklands?
- Thread starter naraht
- Start date
Free asado till the end of the war
Only if the Argentines agree to deliver.
Actually, at that level (1/4 lb meat per person per day, let's say), I think the British would agree. I'm not sure quite how much meat that would be, but that would greatly reduce or eliminate the purchase of meat from the US, and maybe give them enough money so they can buy the destroyers outright rather than the destroyers for bases agreement. And after the U-boats put the first load of 20 tons of beef on the bottom of the ocean, bad things happen for Germany...
Thande
Donor
Nobody apart from the USA buys and sells territory for money. (I find this a particularly annoying misconception). It's not impossible that the islands would be ceded to Argentina at some point in exchange for something less crass than cash (like favourable trade deals) but this wouldn't happen until after WW2 was over at the earliest.
Only if the Argentines agree to deliver.
Actually, at that level (1/4 lb meat per person per day, let's say), I think the British would agree. I'm not sure quite how much meat that would be, but that would greatly reduce or eliminate the purchase of meat from the US, and maybe give them enough money so they can buy the destroyers outright rather than the destroyers for bases agreement. And after the U-boats put the first load of 20 tons of beef on the bottom of the ocean, bad things happen for Germany...
That'd be around 12 million pounds of a day.
With those phenomenal natural resources lying of the coast, there isn't a hope in hell the British Imperialists would ever sell the Malvinas to anyone!
They didn't know back then. And for now it only has fish. I haven't see any proof that they found good oil in considerable amounts.
If they sold it to the Argentines, it would be with a proviso that a British naval base and other facilities be allowed to stay until the end of the war, and perhaps for much longer. The Falklands had considerable naval value in WW I and in the early months of WW II when the Graf Spee was roaming the South Atlantic, so I don't see the Brits just selling the islands and walking away. Certainly not with German surface raiders roaming the South Atlantic and with the British need to protect the western flank of its Cape convoys. (The problem of U-boat milch cows would also be a consideration.) But in the Cold War the strategic value of the Falklands would be negligible to Britain (the Argentines would keep the USSR out for sure), so the Brits wouldn't keep up an expensive naval base there for long. If the Argentinian navy developed a problem with Soviet subs snooping around (probably engaging in some practice exercise) then they could always call on either the U.S. or Britain to help out with aerial surveillance or to send a nuclear sub on a friendly visit to Buenos Aires and thus keep the situation under control.
The Argentines would need to give significant concessions to the British, and I don't see them doing so.
At the very least, in 1940s Argentina would need to enter the war on the British side, agree to not make any separate peace, agree to take on significant war operations (ASW in South Atlantic, perhaps even raise fighter squadrons and an expeditornary force) before Britain would be willing to give up the Falklands. I don't see Argentina agreeing to such a high price. They might not even be able to really afford such commitments. Anything less than that, and I see zero appeal for the British.
After the war, the British are certainly not going to surrender the Falklands. The Falklands are not inhabited by Argentines, but British settlers. Those settlers are not going to want to give up Britain for Argentina.
At the very least, in 1940s Argentina would need to enter the war on the British side, agree to not make any separate peace, agree to take on significant war operations (ASW in South Atlantic, perhaps even raise fighter squadrons and an expeditornary force) before Britain would be willing to give up the Falklands. I don't see Argentina agreeing to such a high price. They might not even be able to really afford such commitments. Anything less than that, and I see zero appeal for the British.
After the war, the British are certainly not going to surrender the Falklands. The Falklands are not inhabited by Argentines, but British settlers. Those settlers are not going to want to give up Britain for Argentina.
From Clive Ponting’s '1940 Myth and Reality' Page188-189
In other areas, though, Britain did consider making significant concessions in order to obtain support. British possession of the Falkland Islands had long been a sore in relations with Argentina, an important source of wheat and beef for Britain’s wartime food supply. Argentina has never recognised Britain’s claim to sovereignty over the islands. In the decade before 1940, the British consistently refused to submit the issue to any international tribunal because of doubts as to whether their claim would be upheld. As one senior Foreign Office official wrote in 1936: ‘The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day that it [would not be] easy to explain our position without showing ourselves up as international bandits.’ Exactly what happened in 1940 is yet another closely guarded secret, since all the relevant Foreign Office files remain closed. It seems clear, however, that the Churchill government did consider giving the title of the islands back to Argentina under a leaseback scheme. The contemporary index to the closed files refers to ‘[an] offer by HMG to reunite Falkland Islands with Argentina and acceptance of a lease’. Doubts about the British title are confirmed by the use of the word ‘reunite’ to describe the transfer of the islands to Argentina
Ponting’s book was first published in 1990, has this ever cropped up in ‘discussions’ over the islands?
In other areas, though, Britain did consider making significant concessions in order to obtain support. British possession of the Falkland Islands had long been a sore in relations with Argentina, an important source of wheat and beef for Britain’s wartime food supply. Argentina has never recognised Britain’s claim to sovereignty over the islands. In the decade before 1940, the British consistently refused to submit the issue to any international tribunal because of doubts as to whether their claim would be upheld. As one senior Foreign Office official wrote in 1936: ‘The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day that it [would not be] easy to explain our position without showing ourselves up as international bandits.’ Exactly what happened in 1940 is yet another closely guarded secret, since all the relevant Foreign Office files remain closed. It seems clear, however, that the Churchill government did consider giving the title of the islands back to Argentina under a leaseback scheme. The contemporary index to the closed files refers to ‘[an] offer by HMG to reunite Falkland Islands with Argentina and acceptance of a lease’. Doubts about the British title are confirmed by the use of the word ‘reunite’ to describe the transfer of the islands to Argentina
Ponting’s book was first published in 1990, has this ever cropped up in ‘discussions’ over the islands?
Fearless Leader
Donor
...but Argentina purchasing the Falklands is something different. Prior to World War II Canadian Passports identified their bearers as a British Citizen living in Canada. Canada's "purchase of Rupertsland" was more an issue of administration rather than land actually changing hands at the time.
That being said, given Churchill's proposals to solicit Irish support during the war by offering Northern Ireland, I don't think a similar situation in Argentina is completely outside the realm of possibility. The real problem is getting Argentina to a place where they'd be willing and able to pay the price of getting the British to agree...
Agreed, the average Englishman (and Scotsman and Welshman) would be *much* more willing to give up Islands that they had barely heard of (and which prior to 1940, they hadn't lost anyone defending than Northern Ireland which was a primary part of the United Kingdom. Especially if the Argentinians let the British keep a Naval base for some amount of time there (20 years) and provided food...