First the Falklands, then Belize

bluestraggler

There has been some discussion recently of the Falklands War of 1982 but I don’t think this issue has been raised. If the British had failed to respond to the Argentine invasion or had lost the war, one thing is almost certain. Guatemala would have been encouraged to push its claim to Belize (formerly British Honduras), possibly to the extent of an invasion, as almost happened in the 1970s.
A defeat in the Falklands would have left the Thatcher government in turmoil, and possibly have brought it down. Would the British public have the will to fight another war in faraway places with strange-sounding names? How would the other Central American states react - support for another anti-imperialist adventure or fear of an expanded, aggressive Guatemala? How would the US respond to a conflict of this type on the American mainland - support a traditional ally or the Monroe Doctrine?
 
Fletch

Fletch

Kicked
bluestraggler said:
There has been some discussion recently of the Falklands War of 1982 but I don’t think this issue has been raised. If the British had failed to respond to the Argentine invasion or had lost the war, one thing is almost certain. Guatemala would have been encouraged to push its claim to Belize (formerly British Honduras), possibly to the extent of an invasion, as almost happened in the 1970s.
A defeat in the Falklands would have left the Thatcher government in turmoil, and possibly have brought it down. Would the British public have the will to fight another war in faraway places with strange-sounding names? How would the other Central American states react - support for another anti-imperialist adventure or fear of an expanded, aggressive Guatemala? How would the US respond to a conflict of this type on the American mainland - support a traditional ally or the Monroe Doctrine?
Click to expand...
The Thatcher Government WAS in turmoil just before the Falklands War. The SDP, were ahead in the polls, with one about that time giving them over 50% of the vote, which is unheard of in Britain. If the Falklands had been lost, then Thatcher would have been out in '83 and Britain would have had an SDP Government with Labour reduced to third party status, now if there was another humiliation heaped on top of the Falklands, should Britain lose then the Tories may even have ended up as the third party. It would make one hell of a Timeline.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
FletcherofSaltoun said:
The Thatcher Government WAS in turmoil just before the Falklands War. The SDP, were ahead in the polls, with one about that time giving them over 50% of the vote, which is unheard of in Britain. If the Falklands had been lost, then Thatcher would have been out in '83 and Britain would have had an SDP Government with Labour reduced to third party status, now if there was another humiliation heaped on top of the Falklands, should Britain lose then the Tories may even have ended up as the third party. It would make one hell of a Timeline.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine Britain under an SDP government. I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know that much about the political situation in the period, I just literally can't picture it. It would be a situation as paradigm-breaking as Labour annihilating the Liberals after WW1. Like you say, it'd be one hell of a timeline.
 
Fletch

Fletch

Kicked
Thande said:
I can't imagine Britain under an SDP government. I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know that much about the political situation in the period, I just literally can't picture it. It would be a situation as paradigm-breaking as Labour annihilating the Liberals after WW1. Like you say, it'd be one hell of a timeline.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, given the situation today, and even the situation between the end of the war and the '79 election, but given the reactionary nature of the Thatcher Government, and the temporary capture of Labour by the militants and far left, included with the fact that in the early years of Thatcher, more unemployed were recorded than since before the war, I'm guessing the SDP at one point seemed like the best alternative.

Took this from wiki for you
wiki said:
The Alliance
The SDP formed the SDP-Liberal Alliance with the Liberal Party late in 1981, under the joint leadership of Roy Jenkins (SDP) and Liberal leader David Steel. The Liberal Party, and in particular its leader, David Steel, had applauded the formation of the SDP from the sidelines from the very start. Senior Liberal MP for Rochdale Cyril Smith caused some embarrassment, however, by publicly stating that the SDP "should be strangled at birth". During an era of public disillusionment with the two main parties – Labour and the Conservatives – and widescale unemployment, the Alliance achieved considerable success in parliamentary by-elections. At one point, the party had an opinion poll rating of over 50%. By 1981, David Steel was able to address the Liberal Party conference with the phrase "Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for government!"
In early 1982, after public disagreements over who could fight which seats in the forthcoming election, the poll rating dipped, but the party was still well ahead of the Conservatives, and far ahead of Labour. Labour lost one of their ten safest seats in a by-election in early 1983 to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes: the sitting Labour MP Robert Mellish resigned to work for the London Docklands Development Corporation but being opposed to the selection by his left-wing Constituency Labour Party of Peter Tatchell, supported the former leader of Southwark council John O'Grady as "Real Bermondsey Labour" giving an impression of Labour division and infighting.
However, following victory in the Falklands War in June 1982, the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher soared from third place in the public opinion polls. The standing of the Alliance and Labour declined. The Alliance did well in the 1983 general election, winning 25% of the national vote, close behind Labour's 28%. Because of the British "first-past-the-post" electoral system, only 23 Alliance MPs were elected, six of whom were members of the SDP. Two more SDP MPs were elected in by-elections in the next four years, but in the 1987 general election, with the SDP under the leadership of David Owen, the Alliance's share of the vote fell slightly, and the SDP's parliamentary party was reduced from eight members to five. Roy Jenkins was amongst those who lost their seats. (Mike Hancock had won a by-election at Portsmouth South in 1984 from the Conservatives, and Rosie Barnes had won the bitterly contested Greenwich by-election in 1987 from Labour. Neither victory could disguise the fact that the electorate's "love affair" with the Alliance was beginning to cool: local government election results proved disappointing even after the Portsmouth result.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)
 

bluestraggler

Even with the Falklands factor, the Tories won only 42% of the vote in 1983, against Labour’s 28% and the SDP-Liberals’ 25%. The Conservative vote actually fell by 1½% from 1979. There is virtually no way Thatcher would have survived, even if the election had been delayed until 1984.
 
Fletch

Fletch

Kicked
bluestraggler said:
Even with the Falklands factor, the Tories won only 42% of the vote in 1983, against Labour’s 28% and the SDP-Liberals’ 25%. The Conservative vote actually fell by 1½% from 1979. There is virtually no way Thatcher would have survived, even if the election had been delayed until 1984.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, its just a matter of who replaces her.
thande said:
Wouldn't it be a Liberal-SDP Alliance government rather than an SDP one per se then?
Click to expand...
They fought under a joint ticket, but technically yes, it still shifts the nature of British Politics forever though. Politics would become more than just the two main parties and a small third party.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Interesting as this is, it has little to do with the original WI posted - maybe we should make another thread?
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
bluestraggler said:
There has been some discussion recently of the Falklands War of 1982 but I don’t think this issue has been raised. If the British had failed to respond to the Argentine invasion or had lost the war, one thing is almost certain. Guatemala would have been encouraged to push its claim to Belize (formerly British Honduras), possibly to the extent of an invasion, as almost happened in the 1970s.
A defeat in the Falklands would have left the Thatcher government in turmoil, and possibly have brought it down. Would the British public have the will to fight another war in faraway places with strange-sounding names? How would the other Central American states react - support for another anti-imperialist adventure or fear of an expanded, aggressive Guatemala? How would the US respond to a conflict of this type on the American mainland - support a traditional ally or the Monroe Doctrine?
Click to expand...

Is there actual proof that Guatemala considered invading? "Expanded, aggressive Guatemala" - is that some joke? Neither of the two adjectives I would ever have linked with Guatemala.

The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much dead by the 1980s - or Cuba would have been dealt with. Given the general state of Central America the US probably would have been giving the British whatever satellite information they had.
 

bluestraggler

David S Poepoe said:
Is there actual proof that Guatemala considered invading? "Expanded, aggressive Guatemala" - is that some joke? Neither of the two adjectives I would ever have linked with Guatemala.
The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much dead by the 1980s - or Cuba would have been dealt with. Given the general state of Central America the US probably would have been giving the British whatever satellite information they had.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. There were invasion fears and threats in the 1970s. And if Guatemala had invaded Belize, it would by definition be an "expanded, aggressive Guatemala."
The Monroe Doctrine was not dead, just evolved. For instance, it was indeed invoked as justification for American policy on Cuba.
By the way, I agree with your final assessment.
 

Nicole

The US would not invoke the Monroe Doctrine- an unprovoked invasion of a content colonial territory is not what it was intended to defend in any case, it was written specifically to protect states that actually wanted to be independant... And I thought Belize was de facto independant by this point anyway.

In 1986 the first democratically elected President of Guatamala comes to power, and he has a lot to deal with... I think that the pre-1986 military government of Guatemala also had a lot of problems with anti-government groups in the jungles, I don't know if they had the stability to attempt a takeover of Belize.
 

bluestraggler

Belize was only a year into its independence in 1982 and effectively a protectorate of Britain, due to Guatemala’s long-standing claim. Guatemala did not officially recognize the nation until 1991. War almost broke out in 1972 and again in 1975.
Interestingly, Cuba was the first Latin American country to side with Belize against Guatemala.
Very likely the Guatemalan government would have attacked Belize for the same reason the Argentine government invaded the Falklands - to divert attention from internal problems. There were also political tensions in Belize that Guatemala could have used as a pretext for intervention.
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
Condottiero said:
What about if China had felt that the UK was not going to cede back Hong Kong in 1997 and invaded it?
Click to expand...

Britain and the US switch their recognition to the ROC. India, Japan, the USSR, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, South Korea, Portugal, and Mongolia pay attention. The odds of the PRC joining the other communist regimes in '89 increase.
 

Burton K Wheeler

Moderator
David S Poepoe said:
Is there actual proof that Guatemala considered invading? "Expanded, aggressive Guatemala" - is that some joke? Neither of the two adjectives I would ever have linked with Guatemala.

The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much dead by the 1980s - or Cuba would have been dealt with. Given the general state of Central America the US probably would have been giving the British whatever satellite information they had.
Click to expand...

When my mother's family lived in Guatemala (they left in the early 60's), there were signs on the streets reading "Belize es Nuestro"
 

Wendell

David S Poepoe said:
Is there actual proof that Guatemala considered invading? "Expanded, aggressive Guatemala" - is that some joke? Neither of the two adjectives I would ever have linked with Guatemala.

The Monroe Doctrine was pretty much dead by the 1980s - or Cuba would have been dealt with. Given the general state of Central America the US probably would have been giving the British whatever satellite information they had.
Click to expand...

Cuba was not dealt with due to past embarassments and its ties to Moscow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top