Britain and the Falklands fight over Argentina

sunsurf

In one of my AHCOM episodes, somebody mentions a timeline where Britain and the Falklands fight over Argentina. I wonder if this is doable?

Columbus sails for England, which sends John Cabot and others to explore the coasts all the way down to the tip of South America.

From Wikipedia:
The islands are referred to in the English language as "[The] Falkland Islands". This name dates from an expedition led by John Strong in 1690, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland.

Maybe a pirate named Falk or Falkland made his base here and was so successful he could establish a lasting political state. It becomes a legitimate, recognized power and expands into the S. American mainland...

Or the Falklands would be in a different location--those large uninhabited islands off the coast of Argentina would still be there, but they would have a different name.

In the ATL, maybe some explorer named some of the Caribbean islands after a patron, also a Viscount of Falkland. Somebody then establishes plantations and his heirs become wealthy and powerful...

Or a Britisher named Falk, or Falkland, settles in Cuba and starts plantations in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, etc. (But those places would have different names as well.) Eventually his heirs control the Amazon river valley and start expanding southward. They get so strong and uppity, they declare their independence from Britain and win their Revolutionary War...

Perhaps Argentina is in a different location as well--Argentina could be named because of silver mines in Mexico or Bolivia.

Is this worth doing, or is it too contrived?
 

ninebucks

Banned
Changing the name of any country in the Western Hemisphere to meet a criteria does seem a bit contrived, yes.

Stick to the actual Falkland Islands if you're going to do it. Perhaps have the islands owing allegiance to someone other than Britain, and operating towards Argentina in response to the policy of the state whose influence they are under?

For example, the Falklands Republic could be a satellite state of South Africa (which we'll assume was never part of the British Empire in TTL), basically a glorified Airstrip used as a conduit for Pretoria to operate in South Africa.

Great Britain would then have an amicable relationship with the nations of continental South America, particularly Argentina. The Falklands (or, ooh, let's call them the Volklands...) would get theselves involved in some kind of conflict about the usage of ports - Argentina forbids Volklish ships access to its harbours - the Volklands claim freedom of the sea rights - Britain backs Argentina's decision - South Africa backs the Volklands - the Volkelse Mariene Korpsen invades Argentina's key ports and occupies them - Britain sets an ultimatum for immediate withdrawl - the Volklands do not withdraw - War is Begin.
 

Grimm Reaper

Guys, come on! I know things have been slow on the board the last few weeks but something silly like this isn't going to change things for the better.

What would they be fighting over in the first place? Fish?



:p
 

DMA

Grimm Reaper said:
Guys, come on! I know things have been slow on the board the last few weeks but something silly like this isn't going to change things for the better.

What would they be fighting over in the first place? Fish?



:p
Click to expand...


Well, in the OTL, both the UK & Argentina were willing to fight over sheep... ;)

So why not, in an AH, fish? :D
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
DMA said:
Well, in the OTL, both the UK & Argentina were willing to fight over sheep... ;)
Click to expand...
I believe the rationale was more like 'Look, these islands are so grey, wet and unimportant that by rights they must be part of Britain!' :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top