May 1982 Could Argentina have won the Falklands War?

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

The Falkland Islands are one of the few examples of colonization where there were no indigenous peoples. The competing claims—Argentinean, British and French—all grew out of military outposts. The first Argentinean “settlement’ was the crew of a privateer or pirate ship issued letters of marquise by the United Provinces of the River Plate (a forerunner of Argentina). The captain was an American named Jewett with a crew of most likely of mixed ancestry. Jewett left the island and was next reported to be in Brazil. Next came an Argentinean whaling and seal hunting outpost of about 40-50 people. The islands were “captured’ by the USS Lexington in retaliation for the capture of US fishing vessels and about half of the residents debarked with the Americans. The Royal Navy then returned and ousted the Argentinean governor and his sole warship, which was manned by a British mercenary crew. Those who remained were a mixed group of at least 7 nationalities. The population grew slowly foe the rest of the 19th century under nominal British administration and continued mixed ancestry.

So unlike Goa the native population all descended from immigrants and clearly expressed a preference to remain under British sovereignty. I am not sure of any other colony with a similar history.

In this situation I am not surprised that world sentiment favored the British; especially in light of the human rights abuses in Argentina. As to the outcome of the war it was by all accounts a close call. I expect the best scenario for Argentina would have been a defeat of the Royal Navy before landing. Failing that even if defeated in the landing the Royal Navy would have remained and I thinkt eh world would have tacitly supported Britain.

 

[Orville_third]

Even the British 3rd Commando Brigade commander, Brigadier Julian Thompson admits it when he writes, "It was fortunate that I had ignored the views expressed by Northwood that reconnaissance of Mount Kent before insertion of 42 Commando was superfluous. Had D Squadron not been there, the Argentine Special Forces would have caught the Commando before deplaning and, in the darkness and confusion on a strange landing zone, inflicted heavy casualties on men and helicopters." In other words, if Brigadier Thompson had not taken the precaution of inserting SAS troops into the Mount Kent area the 30 or so Blowpipe SAM equipped members of the Argentinian 602nd Commando Company would've largely wiped out the helicopters carrying 42 Commando Company's K Company before they got a chance to unload the Royal Marines. Now had would've Margaret Thatcher explained the loss of 30 or so Royal Marines killed on the night of 30-31 May 1982 with hardly any loss on the part of the Argentinian Special Forces occupying Mount Kent?

If Blowpipe performed as well for the Argentines as it did for the Brits, things would have gone worse, but not that bad.

One thing that has not been brought up- had the US supported Argentina, Britain might have faced an uphill battle- or the USN. OTL Jeanne Kirkpatrick was backing Argentina, and I'm sure some of the Neocons stood by this. In addition, there is the Monroe Doctrine to worry about- had someone in the US brought it up, there would likely have been criticism of Reagan or others taking the side of the Brits. Then again, there's also the issue of the US trying to push the UK not to intervene for fear of removing troops from Europe in the face of possible Soviet attack.


(I do have a TL/story idea in which the US will join Argentina in taking on the UK and Commonwealth over the Falklands. NATO won't be an issue as the US won't have joined. Close ties won't be an issue since the US and UK had a major diplomatic/espionage problem... Oh, and the Cold War between NATO (Western Europe & Canada) and the Warsaw Pact nearly went nuclear in the 1960's, but both sides backed down- and by 1983, the Soviets are getting ready to fall apart. And you'd never guess whose messing up got the world to this point! It's not a politician but a spy- who is far more known for other things...)

 

[RandomChance]

If the Argentines could have, they should have gone during the Mid 70's, while Britain would have had the military might to retake the Islands, it did not have the political spine to do so.

Either that or build up on the quiet for a couple more years. By then, the RN carriers would have been sold off, the Vulcans scrapped (or possibly even sold off - I seem to recall the Argentinians themselves were interested) and the Argentine forces would be even better equipped (more Exocets?).

The problem if you go back too far, the RN has proper carriers with Phantoms!

 

[sparky42]

Either that or build up on the quiet for a couple more years. By then, the RN carriers would have been sold off, the Vulcans scrapped (or possibly even sold off - I seem to recall the Argentinians themselves were interested) and the Argentine forces would be even better equipped (more Exocets?).

The problem if you go back too far, the RN has proper carriers with Phantoms!

And Bucs and Awac's, so that might come under the heading of "a bad thing" for the Argentinians. It all comes back to the gamble of the UK not fighting, if they had even waited till the refit of their Carrier was done that could have helped them.

 

[Orry]

If they could have held off the attack until just before the start of winter that would have given them a lot longer to dig in and deploy AAA assets. If possible upgrade the Airport for reccon and CAP aircraft....

Deport all the islanders (with compensation even if inadequate) and bring in civilian 'volunter' settlers.

When the Brits try and attack the next spring the fact that the Argies are defending their own civilians might give a number of nations the 'fig leaf' they need to support a resolution in the UN to support Argentina....

Use civilian and forigen flagged ships to bring in food stuffs etc and complain that any RN Blockade is 'collective punishment' and hence a war crime. Make sure that all military equipment if flown in so that no 'contraband' is on the ships incase they do get stopped.

Would it work - probably not but every dead Argie civilian plays to the anti-colonization crowd and helps to show GB as the bully in some quaters.

 

[AdA]

They could have invaded in late 1940, then declared war on Japan in December 1941 like the US asked them (and others) to, but asked for US pressure on letting them keep the islands after the war as a return favour.

 

[Intosh]

Deport all the islanders (with compensation even if inadequate)

Oh yes, very good move from the Argentinian, DEPORT civilian population to face an international uproar.

Very bad PR move...

The best idea to have a UN sponsored embargo and even intervention...

Why a UN sponsored embargo, because the USA, the UK and France will vote the resolution and the Soviet Union and China will not veto a resolution against a militarist far-right junta....

 

[samuelemmerson2012]

Someone mentoned the "Monroe Doctrine" and yes it was raised by Argentinian foreign minister Nicanor Costa Mendez in late April and again in late May 1982. Venezuela in the form of General Vicente Luis Narvaez and Panama in the form of General Efrain Ríos Montt offered to send elite troops to fortify the Argentinian garrison in Port Stanley. I was 12 at the time and remember seeing and reading these reports on Argentinian television and newspapers at the time. Funny thing is that this is not reported in the post-war books I have come across. I am sure that if the SAS had carried out a raid on Argentinian soil, both countries and Peru would've been compelled to send part of their forces to help Argentina.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

Someone mentoned the "Monroe Doctrine" and yes it was raised by Argentinian foreign minister Nicanor Costa Mendez in late April and again in late May 1982. Venezuela in the form of General Vicente Luis Narvaez and Panama in the form of General Efrain Ríos Montt offered to send elite troops to fortify the Argentinian garrison in Port Stanley. I was 12 at the time and remember seeing and reading these reports on Argentinian television and newspapers at the time. Funny thing is that this is not reported in the post-war books I have come across. I am sure that if the SAS had carried out a raid on Argentinian soil, both countries and Peru would've been compelled to send part of their forces to help Argentina.

I am wondering how that would of effected the US support for the UK. My guess is they could of only sent light troops.

 

[Orry]

Oh yes, very good move from the Argentinian, DEPORT civilian population to face an international uproar.

Very bad PR move...

They are illegal imigrants who are being deported - at least thats the way they would have to play it.... its the big lie approuch


(Note: Both my parents served in the British Army so I definetly call them the Falklands)

 

[sparky42]

Oh yes, very good move from the Argentinian, DEPORT civilian population to face an international uproar.

Very bad PR move...

The best idea to have a UN sponsored embargo and even intervention...

Why a UN sponsored embargo, because the USA, the UK and France will vote the resolution and the Soviet Union and China will not veto a resolution against a militarist far-right junta....

I wouldn't be to sure about the USSR and PRC both would most likely object to the precedent of the UN being involved in what could be suggested was the Argentinians taking back their land (I'm not saying it was that I'm just spinning it in a away that would appeal to particularly China given Taiwan.

 

[Intosh]

I wouldn't be to sure about the USSR and PRC both would most likely object to the precedent of the UN being involved in what could be suggested was the Argentinians taking back their land (I'm not saying it was that I'm just spinning it in a away that would appeal to particularly China given Taiwan.

Argentina was a far right militarist dictature who tortured and killed thousands of leftists and others opponents. I'm sure the Soviet Union will support them when the hell will freeze.

And the Soviet Union policy was the same from the thirties, let the capitalist countries in their imperialist conflict and then try to benefits from the ashes. Communist revolution in Argentina after the defeat ???

And for China, it is the same reason.

Please remember than China in 1982 wasn't the economical superpower, it is today. And I'm sure China will probably be more interressed to please the British, in the negociations about Hong-Kong...

And in the UN, the Soviet Union and China can simply abstained while the three others powers can vote the resolution.

And about a long war, an embargo of military equipement supported or not by the UN + destabilization of the military junta by the CIA, the days of Argentina are short.

 

[Colin]

If the Argentines could have, they should have gone during the Mid 70's, while Britain would have had the military might to retake the Islands, it did not have the political spine to do so.

That is speculative and pejorative to the labour government of the time. Whilst Labour have never waved the flag in the way the conservatives have done, the vast majority of the Labour party have always been patriotic and ready to respond to aggression. Of course the Labour govt of the time didn't make the mistake of moving naval forces away from the region therefore encouraging the Argentines in thinking they could win.

Actually it could make an interesting POD. The Conservative Govt of 1982 was in as much a mess of say Labour in 1977 and Margaret Thatcher was colossally unpopular. The Falklands was the making of her and one of the pillars of the conservative political hegemony of the 80's and early 90's. Would, could it have had a similar effect for Callaghan? Now there is a possibility.

To go back to the OP, of course the Argentine's could have won, especially if they had planned for the UK to respond in the way they did rather than assuming the UK would fold.

 

[Riain]

While Argentina had 3 times the fast jets they didn't fly more sorties; between May 21-24 85 Arg planes flew 184 sorties whereas 25 Harriers flew 300 sorties. So despite vastly inferior numbers the British actually had about 60% more airpower.

Similar things apply across the board with the British, possibly most telling that in at least 6 full scale battalion attacks the Argentines mounted only one counter-attack for the entire war.

It's these intangible things that got the British victory in a war where raw numbers can't explain the results.

 

[jamsodonnell]

That is speculative and pejorative to the labour government of the time. Whilst Labour have never waved the flag in the way the conservatives have done, the vast majority of the Labour party have always been patriotic and ready to respond to aggression. Of course the Labour govt of the time didn't make the mistake of moving naval forces away from the region therefore encouraging the Argentines in thinking they could win.

Actually it could make an interesting POD. The Conservative Govt of 1982 was in as much a mess of say Labour in 1977 and Margaret Thatcher was colossally unpopular. The Falklands was the making of her and one of the pillars of the conservative political hegemony of the 80's and early 90's. Would, could it have had a similar effect for Callaghan? Now there is a possibility.

To go back to the OP, of course the Argentine's could have won, especially if they had planned for the UK to respond in the way they did rather than assuming the UK would fold.

Indeed in 1977 the "spineless" Labour government sent a task force to the Falklands, Operation Journeyman to deter potential Argentine aggression

 

[samuelemmerson2012]

Someone (over 30 years later!!!) is still maintaining that the Argentinian Army launched just one counterattack throughout the whole war. This is wrong for there were two platoon sized counterattacks on Mount Longdon alone. At one point in that battle a large number of British wounded were about to fall into the hands of a squad of advancing Argentinians from First Lieutenant Raúl Fernando Castañeda's rifle platoon. 3 PARA's Colour Sergeant Brian Faulkner has gone on record saying: "I picked four blokes and got up on this high feature, and as I did so this troop [in fact a reinforced section of fifteen riflemen] of twenty, or thirty Argentines were coming towards us. We just opened fire on them. We don't know how many we killed, but they got what they deserved, because none of them were left standing when we'd finished with them."

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

It's these intangible things that got the British victory in a war where raw numbers can't explain the results.

Thande did a post on another thread a week or so ago that was a book review from an ATL of a military thriller that was an account of OTL's Falklands War. The reviewer completely ridiculed the book about how implausible it was that the British could be so ill prepared, having to improvise so many things and getting so many strokes of good fortune, yet it did happen for real. The Falklands is one of those events that proves Tom Clancy's oft quoted remark "The difference between fiction and history is that fiction has to make sense!"

 

[Colin]

Indeed in 19977 the "spineless" Labour government sent a task force to the Falklands, Operation Journeyman to deter potential Argentine aggression

Thank you for this, just looked it up.

 

[Intosh]

While Argentina had 3 times the fast jets they didn't fly more sorties; between May 21-24 85 Arg planes flew 184 sorties whereas 25 Harriers flew 300 sorties. So despite vastly inferior numbers the British actually had about 60% more airpower.

Similar things apply across the board with the British, possibly most telling that in at least 6 full scale battalion attacks the Argentines mounted only one counter-attack for the entire war.

It's these intangible things that got the British victory in a war where raw numbers can't explain the results.

I have an explanation, most of the Argentines soldiers were not motivated to fight this war and die for a cause they don't understand for a government they don't like.

As were most of the Soviets soldiers in June - Octobre 1941...

 

[Colin]

That's a huge leap you have made there. Comparisons between the early stages of the Barbarossa campaign and the Falklands war are really really hard to come by, I mean by the standards of even one day in Russia in 1941 (post June 22nd), the Falklands Conflict, (which is how we mainly refer to it in the UK anyway) doesn't really justify being called a war.

Yes the Argentines were badly led, though they did fight well on occasions. Often soldiers fight more for their mates than for their leaders, and they fight to stay alive.

As for Russia, well it's just too big a war to simplify like that.