The Sale of the Falklands

Foreign Office, Whitehall,
London, Great Britain.
September, 1947.


It was a hungry and annoyed Ernest Bevin that laid his eyes upon a telegram that had arrived to the Foreign Office from the Argentinian Embassy one September morning. Hungry, because Sir Strafford's rationing still wasn't allowing a single Briton to enjoy a decent breakfast, and annoyed because the substitute they were now mixing into the rationed coffee frankly tasted like coal. Mr. Bevin was beginning to feel a headache approach, and briefly put down his glasses, looked away from the letter and lay back in his chair. He sighed. Lately, life hadn't been so good on him and the Labour cabinet. First Keynes had been unable to obtain a proper loan from the United States, and they were still suffering angered opposition for their determination to make India an independent state. As far as the war in Greece was concerned... He didn't want to think about it. Sometimes he was wondering if it hadn't been best had Labour lost the 1945 election, so that the Conservatives would have had to deal with the Herculean burdens that Attlee had assigned for him, but he always ended up chuckling: Clearly, had the Tories been the ones in power, the foreign affairs of Britain would have been in a catastrophic state. He had a duty to fulfill to his country, and his patriotism kept him from backing away every time it felt though.

...but Ernest found himself digressing in his own mind. There had arrived a telegram from the Argentinians and he needed to have a look at it. He reached for his glasses and took up the paper. "Interesting." Mr. Bevin noted, apparently President Peron of Argentina, a man the Foreign Secretary honestly neither trusted nor liked, was interested in buying the Falkland Islands from Britain. The sum he offered was, frankly, modest, but Britain needed a small boost to its finances, especially in these times of severe austerity. Besides, it was the Falklands he was selling to Argentina, not Ulster he was selling to the Republic of Ireland. Would anyone seriously give this much attention, especially when the talk was still mainly concerned with the Indian business?

In the next cabinet meeting, Bevin brought up the question and expressed his desire to accept Peron's offer. He was joined by both the Chancellor, Hugh Dalton and the President of the Board of Trade, Sir Strafford Cripps. Nye Bevan, eager to secure more fund for his ambitious plans gave his enthusiastic support. Herbert Morrison was the only one to express some skepticism, which may have been what gave the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, some incentive to actually go through with it. The general feeling in the cabinet was "Sure, why not?"

In the debate that followed in the House of Commons, no serious opposition was put up. Labour pretty much en masse supported the sale, and for what little mandate they had, Clement Davies delivered the support of the Liberal Party's nine seats. The Leader of the Opposition, Sir Winston Churchill found himself unable to support the sale and decided to speak up against it, but not with much efforts of course. He couldn't be seen giving much attention to these small islands in the South Atlantic after the independence of India. That would just look silly. Some Conservative backbenchers did of course offer some bitter speeches about how this was an assault on the entire history of the British Empire, but few took them seriously. One in particular, who's name the author has inconveniently forgotten, comically spurted out that this could have tremendous consequences to the future of their beloved country. But he was pretty much just laughed at by members of each side of the floor. Even Mr. Churchill found himself smirking while the backbencher delivered his speech. In the vote that followed, the supporters of the sale won a comfortable majority.

And so on the 1st of January 1950, the Union Jack was for the last time lowered in Stanley and the Argentinian flag was raised. It passed almost without mention in the British press at the time. After all, what importance, if any, could a continued British ownership of the Falklands, a few barely populated islands several hundred miles away from Britannia, ever have played in the Great Play of History?



Discuss. ;)
 
Last edited:
Well, that's completely feasible. Though I really don't know where you're going with the foreshadowing as the comments are, essentially, correct.
 
I always wondered what would have happened to them. Would the islanders stay? Would the place be colonised with Argentinians? It is the size of Wales, lest we forget.
 
I always wondered what would have happened to them. Would the islanders stay? Would the place be colonised with Argentinians? It is the size of Wales, lest we forget.

And it has slightly more than 3,000 occupants at the moment. Let's not forget that Norway's possession in Antarctica is several times larger than that nation itself, yet I can completely see Norway selling all of that off if someone just offered a reasonable price. Size isn't everything (no pun intended). ;)

I guess that the islanders would probably be bitter and issue some formal protest, but nobody would be too concerned about them. The government would likely step in and issue some compensation for all who wish to emigrate to Britain once the Argentinians assume control of the islands, and then they'd probably go "Meh, this place was never paradise anyway..."

Well, that's completely feasible. Though I really don't know where you're going with the foreshadowing as the comments are, essentially, correct.

Well, I would assume that history goes pretty much OTL-ish with some negligible deviations up until the fateful year of 1982. Then I am curious what will happen...
 
Seems plausible. Britain sold its stake in Argentina's railways in this period; what's a couple of minor islands to that?

I wouldn't expect much to be changed until the '80s.

I think the 'foreshadowing' is actually meant to be jokey foreshadowing for what happened in OTL.
 
Seems plausible. Britain sold its stake in Argentina's railways in this period; what's a couple of minor islands to that?

British territory, with British citizens in residence whose parent's, grandparents, etc. are all buried there. Are you seriously saying that's of less account than a few railway stocks? And ones moreover who are being sold off to an authentically fascist regime (Peron was an open admirer of Mussolini) only a couple of years after WW2. Yeah, this would be completely uncontroversial:rolleyes:
 
I think Churchill would kick up a bit more of a stink than is being suggested.

It has nothing to do with the Falklands being important otherwise they would have been given to Argentina for nothing long ago.

Churchill knew about the Battle of the Falklands in 1914 and knew about its value both sentimentally and as a port of call for British ships at that time.

He would have said "look. Labour has bankrupted the nation, given away India and now it's actually selling off British Territory. What next? The Isle of Wight? Stonehenge? Turn Buckingham Palace into a hotel?" The press would then join in.

IMO the money raised wouldn't be worth the political damage.
 
British territory, with British citizens in residence whose parent's, grandparents, etc. are all buried there. Are you seriously saying that's of less account than a few railway stocks?

And there were British citizens in India whose parent's, grandparents, etc. are all buried there. More than just a few thousands, I might add. They're not giving the Falklands away for free, or giving it up after an army of occupation has taken over it. They're selling it, at a time the nation needs money desperately, I might add.

And ones moreover who are being sold off to an authentically fascist regime (Peron was an open admirer of Mussolini) only a couple of years after WW2. Yeah, this would be completely uncontroversial:rolleyes:

Now, now, both Frankie D. and Winston Churchill offered some uncomfortably warm praises to Il Duce, and there wasn't a complete breakdown of relations with Franco's Spain after WWII and President Eisenhower even officially visited the country in 1953.

I think Churchill would kick up a bit more of a stink than is being suggested. [...] Churchill knew about the Battle of the Falklands in 1914 and knew about its value both sentimentally and as a port of call for British ships at that time.

Oh, he would definitely be emotionally attached to the Falklands. But as much so as to the British protectorates in the Middle East? As much so as to India? Would he put as much effort into defending continued British ownership of the Falklands as those? That would look... strange to say the least. And he would know that.

He would have said "look. Labour has bankrupted the nation, given away India and now it's actually selling off British Territory. What next? The Isle of Wight? Stonehenge? Turn Buckingham Palace into a hotel?" The press would then join in.

Churchill many, many times made statements that can be summed up as "This time Labour has gone too far!" yet that didn't stop Labour from continuing to implement its radical policies. Neither did the immense pressure from the Conservative press have any success in halting far, far more radical measures, such as the NHS, for example, for which there existed (believe it or not) opposition within the Labour Party who felt it was too left-wing (!)

So I am wondering, if India, Palestine, the decimation of the British Navy, the pull-out from Greece, the nationalization of the coal industry, and the introduction of the National Health Service, the granting of rights to immigrate to Britain of all Commonwealth citizens, and the extreme rationing that continued far into the postwar years did not bring down the Labour government of Clement Attlee, then why do you think that this comparatively small thing, that would have been done prior to the implementation of many of the even more radical measures, would have created a public backlash against the government?

IMO the money raised wouldn't be worth the political damage.

Attlee's Labour government were more than willing to controversially cripple the British fleet in order to save money. They furthermore pretty much admitted that the British Empire was weak an incapable of serious independent intervention in world affairs when they retreated in Greece. Selling the Falklands doesn't seem to implausible when considering the people we are discussing.

Oh, and finally, if political damage was all that mattered, then politics would probably be much, much more different. For one thing, the LibDems probably wouldn't even have entered the Coalition. At times, politicians happen to do the very odd thing of doing what they think is best for their country rather than what is best for their poll numbers. ;)
 
I think Churchill would kick up a bit more of a stink than is being suggested.

It has nothing to do with the Falklands being important otherwise they would have been given to Argentina for nothing long ago.

Churchill knew about the Battle of the Falklands in 1914 and knew about its value both sentimentally and as a port of call for British ships at that time.

He would have said "look. Labour has bankrupted the nation, given away India and now it's actually selling off British Territory. What next? The Isle of Wight? Stonehenge? Turn Buckingham Palace into a hotel?" The press would then join in.

IMO the money raised wouldn't be worth the political damage.

Now it may be by Clive Ponting and I haven't herad of it being brought up in discussions since the Falklands war but to date, no-one has been able to say its total bollocks.

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
 
Now it may be by Clive Ponting and I haven't herad of it being brought up in discussions since the Falklands war but to date, no-one has been able to say its total bollocks.

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

A desperate measure in a time of war is different from selling territory afterwards.

The Churchill government considered pretty much every option you could imagine in the early part of the war. It wouldn't surprise me if he offered the throne to Eleanor Roosevelt in order to get US support.
 
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.

A desperate measure in a time of war is different from selling territory afterwards.

And you don't think that Clement Attlee and his cabinet is desperate? :rolleyes:

Or are you proposing the following scenario takes place:

"Gentlemen, this is a disaster! We're completely bankrupt and we're running out of food! To save the economy we need to consider every single possible measure, and I mean every single possible measure! Further, more Draconian rationing, conscription-based agriculture, yes, even fucking child labour!"

"How about selling the Falklands to Argentina?"

"*chuckles* Now, now! Now you're just being childish. The Falklands constitute British territory. Plus, it would be a PR disaster."

"You just put child labour on the table and now you're saying that this-..."

"PR disaster!!!"
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
They wouldn't sell the islands to Argentina. They might trade them away in exchange for free trade deals or something (which amounts to the same thing) but it would be a vast embarrassment for a British government to do something as crass as trade territory for money (at least to anyone other than the USA in the 19th century), especially one which is so careful about its patriotic credentials in the face of being accused of Soviet sympathies. It's basically admitting that you're in decline.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, I would assume that history goes pretty much OTL-ish with some negligible deviations up until the fateful year of 1982. Then I am curious what will happen...

I'm back from the future, Marty ! :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pompon_(SS-267)

"She departed Brisbane on 12 September for the second patrol. En route to her area in the South China Sea north of Singapore, she was fired on by a "friendly" liberty ship. Luckily the range was too great for damage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_O._Paine

http://dockets.alexandriava.gov/fy07/032707rm/di4.pdf

Have USS Pompon sunk by friendly fire that day, and man walk on Mars a day of 1986...
 
To be honest I think, especially given that the amount of money received would make little difference to Britain's balance of payments, that the Attlee government just wouldn't bother. The Tory opposition and press would scream on about Labour selling out 'kith and kin' to a fascist dictatorship. I rather doubt there would be much enthusiasm on the Labour benches for it either, especially considering that a reasonably large amount of working and even middle class Labour MPs had an emotional connection to Empire and Commonwealth. The situation would be judged very differently to that of India because many people were probably rather glad to be rid of what they saw as a bunch of ungrateful 'wogs', while the Falklands were and are populated by Britons.

Maybe a free trade agreement with Argentina would be enough to tip the Attlee government over the edge, but I doubt a country that still sees itself as a great Empire, and moreover that just won a bloody war, is going to accept the sale as nonchalantly as is being suggested.
 
but I doubt a country that still sees itself as a great Empire, and moreover that just won a bloody war, is going to accept the sale as nonchalantly as is being suggested.

A great Empire that just lost its Jewel, or are the Falklands more important to the British than India? I do agree that the sale happened too nonchalantly though.
 
I think that the real butterfly of this POD would be in 1982, when the Argentine Junta, needing a victory to sway the masses, would engage in a war with Chile over the Beagle Islands.

That might have interesting consequences.

Pinochet vs the Argentine Junta? It would sort of be like Child Molesters vs Zombies. There'd really be nothing to do but make popcorn and hope they both lose.
 
It's possible that the loss of the falklands at that point would be the straw that broke the camels back, and launch imperialists like David Sterling onto the war path, possibly even prompt an Imperialist party, (like a better organised and supported UKIP, British Empire Party, drawing support from the Conservatives, the right wing of the Labour party and Liberals)). Could you see a BEP government in the 60's and what would that have for British involvement in areas they were active in the OTL. I don't see the BEM getting involved in Vietnam, but I could see better support for the Australians who were.

Just a thought.
 
A great Empire that just lost its Jewel, or are the Falklands more important to the British than India? I do agree that the sale happened too nonchalantly though.
Indian independence had been on the table for years. People were used to the idea - plus one of the main justifications for imperialism was that the subject peoples weren't fit to govern themselves and the colonialist powers were bringing them under their protection until such a time as they were. So independence in a way was far less damaging to Britain's self-image than the sale of a colony largely composed of Brits - one is a natural progression along the colonialist road, the other is a down-and-out admittance of decline and inability to govern.

I think the Attlee government would far rather enact temporary cuts - for example in the armed forces - than permanent sales. Regiments can be reinstated. Colonies cannot.

Greece and Palestine are also very different in the sense that they were temporary occupations or mandates. Britain was never meant to be there forever and had never said they would be.
 
Top