WI Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands in 1940?

[chris N]

I have little doubt that the British would win any war with the Argentinan forces as they had the ability to project a great deal of military power.
Still Argentina actually joining the Axis in the war would cause a diversion of assets. If this was the case then it might also have been more likely that the Graf Spee would have sailed across to Argentina from Urugary and been interned there. There was a very strong pro Axis tilt to the Argentian military so who knows.

 

[juanml82]

The army was Germanophile - but not the businessmen, those were making their profits with the British. In a reductionist approach, it's sort of who the army likes vs who pays the bills

 

[Shadow Knight]

I doubt if the USN could operate in strength in the South Atlantic by 1940, and the Monroe doctrine in practice was enforced by the RN (keeping other Europeans away). I think the only major navy capable of operating significant forces in the SA in 1940 and before was the RN.

Why would you say that? The US operated a large fleet in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. They could just port in Brazil if they felt the need to refuel, etc. The distance is nothing compared to the distances the USN did battle in the Pacific.

The days of the RN enforcing the Monroe doctrine ended after the Spanish American war and was long dead after WWI.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The US already has seven carriers in service or on the way and many more under construction, likewise 17 battleships. Plenty to crush Argentina, if the British have the slightest problem or hesitation doing so.

So what happens in the aftermath when the US has hastened the arms buildup, particularly the naval and transport capacity? If the US has an Essex class carrier or two already in service in late 1941 does Japan reconsider?

 

[Redbeard]

Why would you say that? The US operated a large fleet in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. They could just port in Brazil if they felt the need to refuel, etc. The distance is nothing compared to the distances the USN did battle in the Pacific.

The days of the RN enforcing the Monroe doctrine ended after the Spanish American war and was long dead after WWI.

The USN by 1940 couldn't just roam the oceans, but was tied to relatively few bases. Only in late WWII was the fleet train extensive enough to make the USN almost independent of nearby bases and thus operate freely in the Pacific. Before that the USN was a navy with relatively limited objectives. A base isn't just a question of refueling, but a complicated logistic set-up. It would of course not be impossible to send USN squadrons into the South Atlantic, but it would be more like a raid than a sustained operation.

The RN in contrast allways had maintained a relatively dense network of bases, as the RN operated globally - that was its raison d'etre. Not that the main RN force could operate from anywhere, that was only possible in the North Atlantic, the Med. and from Singapore, but the bases in the Falklands and South Africa would have had no trouble supporting a force big enough to chase away the Argentinians.

All in all the USN of 1940 was a very different matter from that of 1945, as was the RN.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Shadow Knight]

The USN by 1940 couldn't just roam the oceans, but was tied to relatively few bases. Only in late WWII was the fleet train extensive enough to make the USN almost independent of nearby bases and thus operate freely in the Pacific. Before that the USN was a navy with relatively limited objectives. A base isn't just a question of refueling, but a complicated logistic set-up. It would of course not be impossible to send USN squadrons into the South Atlantic, but it would be more like a raid than a sustained operation.

The RN in contrast allways had maintained a relatively dense network of bases, as the RN operated globally - that was its raison d'etre. Not that the main RN force could operate from anywhere, that was only possible in the North Atlantic, the Med. and from Singapore, but the bases in the Falklands and South Africa would have had no trouble supporting a force big enough to chase away the Argentinians.

All in all the USN of 1940 was a very different matter from that of 1945, as was the RN.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

And you don't think that if the US was helping the UK bitch slap Argentina for attacking the Falklands they wouldn't let USN assets dock at their bases?

 

[Northstar]

Britain will never give up the Falklands. Ever.
Isn't it true theres an international treaty that is going to allow countries in the southern hemisphere access to the mineral resources of Antarctica when oil runs out?
The Falklands are Britains back door to said exploitation.
If Argentina takes them militarily, the allies are gunna be peeved.
The Falklands will never be surrendered in a Hong Kong like treaty, the people on the island consider themselves British.

I believe Britain had the Falklands before Argentina was even fully formed so no 'neutral' country could possibly take Argentinas side on the issue.

Except maybe Germany.

 

[juanml82]

Isn't it true theres an international treaty that is going to allow countries in the southern hemisphere access to the mineral resources of Antarctica when oil runs out?

Not that I'm aware of. The origin of several claims to the Antartica are based in prolonging the limits southwards, but such claims - to be enforced - not only need the expiration of the Antartic Treaty but also a fair amount of political, economical and - perhaps - military power
But in any case the Antartic Treaty didn't exist in the 1940s.

the people on the island consider themselves British

Indeed

I believe Britain had the Falklands before Argentina was even fully formed so no 'neutral' country could possibly take Argentinas side on the issue.

Formed, but in a intermitent civil war. In any case Argentina's independence was recognized by most nations at that time, Britain included IIRC

 

[The Dean]

Technically the French were the first to inhabit the Islands closely followed by the British. The Spanish Empire did have a claim when the French handed their possession to them. They even had settlements there at various times but independent Argentina has no historical claim on the islands.

Stanley was garrisoned as it was a base for the South Atlantic Squadron, as Fell observed. I do believe the shore batteries were 12" naval guns.

 

[Redbeard]

And you don't think that if the US was helping the UK bitch slap Argentina for attacking the Falklands they wouldn't let USN assets dock at their bases?

I think about a lot that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread (appreciate that! ). Certainly the USN or any other navy allied to the British could be allowed use of RN base facilities, but the main point is, that the RN of 1940 could do it all alone, and that the USN of 1940 would have severe difficulties.

The next question is why the USN should take part. If they try to use it to set any agendas towards the British, the British would rather do without US assistance - unless of course a US involvement vs. Argentina in 1940 could lead to participation in the war vs. Germany and Italy - Hitler would be stupid enough to issue guarantees to Argetntina. If so I think Churchill would be happy to let a USN admiral lead the counter-invasion of the Falklands, but I could also think of a lot of 1940 Americans saying: "Stay out!".

The world in 1940 and before was quite different to that of 1945 and after.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Tyr]

Assuming they could take it in the first place Britain would probally take it back rather soon; it gives them a easy victory for propeganda purposes. With a few thousand men required at most, its just a big training exercise.

 

[Northstar]

Was there any British presence on the Island at the time?
(military presence I mean)

 

[The Dean]

Was there any British presence on the Island at the time?
(military presence I mean)

See mine and Fell's earlier posts.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Technically the French were the first to inhabit the Islands closely followed by the British. The Spanish Empire did have a claim when the French handed their possession to them.

This is true, though it could be argued that Spain allways considered the islands Spanish, even if she didn't settled in them. That's why she reacted as she did when she found out of the British and the French settlements. The French agreed to abandon them peacefully. Great Britain didn't.

They even had settlements there at various times but independent Argentina has no historical claim on the islands.

This isn't exactly true. The British were expelled by the Spanish in 1770. The British threatened Spain to go to war, so they were allow to return. According to the Argentine version of history, this was just to save British honour: the British had secretly agreed with the Spanish to abandon the islands. This may be false, and it can be proved in either way anyways. But the facts are that Britain abandoned the islands in 1774, three years after they had returned.

Spain was there till 1811, when she abandoned the islands to defend Montevideo from the forces of Buenos Aires. Nobody else was there permanently from 1811 to 1829. Argentina declared her independence in 1816. It send a ship to claim the islands in 1820. This was based on the principle of uti possedetis: the new countries were entilted to the land they possessed when they were colonies (the Malvinas had always been under the control of the governor of Buenos Aires). This principle was applied in Latin America to delimit the new states in early XIX century, and would be applied in Africa more than a century later, after decolonisation.

Great Britain recognised the independence of Argentina in 1825, without saying anything about the islands. Argentina founded a settlement in 1829. The British took it by force in 1833 (almost 50 years after the last time they had been there), sending its inhabitants back to Argentina.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about the legitimacy of Argentina's claim, but I just wanted to explain you why I disagree with the part of your post in which you said that "independent Argentina has no historical claim on the islands"

 

[Dan1988]

In any case, could Chile and/or other Latin American countries (i.e. Brazil) join the Allies if Argentina attacked the Falklands?

 

[Tyr]

This is true, though it could be argued that Spain allways considered the islands Spanish, even if she didn't settled in them. That's why she reacted as she did when she found out of the British and the French settlements. The French agreed to abandon them peacefully. Great Britain didn't.



This isn't exactly true. The British were expelled by the Spanish in 1770. The British threatened Spain to go to war, so they were allow to return. According to the Argentine version of history, this was just to save British honour: the British had secretly agreed with the Spanish to abandon the islands. This may be false, and it can be proved in either way anyways. But the facts are that Britain abandoned the islands in 1774, three years after they had returned.

Spain was there till 1811, when she abandoned the islands to defend Montevideo from the forces of Buenos Aires. Nobody else was there permanently from 1811 to 1829. Argentina declared her independence in 1816. It send a ship to claim the islands in 1820. This was based on the principle of uti possedetis: the new countries were entilted to the land they possessed when they were colonies (the Malvinas had always been under the control of the governor of Buenos Aires). This principle was applied in Latin America to delimit the new states in early XIX century, and would be applied in Africa more than a century later, after decolonisation.

Great Britain recognised the independence of Argentina in 1825, without saying anything about the islands. Argentina founded a settlement in 1829. The British took it by force in 1833 (almost 50 years after the last time they had been there), sending its inhabitants back to Argentina.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about the legitimacy of Argentina's claim, but I just wanted to explain you why I disagree with the part of your post in which you said that "independent Argentina has no historical claim on the islands"

The British left in the 1770s but they kept their claim.
The settlement founded in 1829 wasn't Argentinian; it was quite a international expedition launched from Argentina having first got the permission of the British there. And it was the Americans who destroyed it.
The British then formally moved in because of all that mess.

 

[Northstar]

See mine and Fell's earlier posts.

Gotcha

There was a garrison there during the Falklands war as well as far as I remember.
I'm not making a point.
Just throwing it in there!

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

The British left in the 1770s but they kept their claim.
The settlement founded in 1829 wasn't Argentinian; it was quite a international expedition launched from Argentina having first got the permission of the British there. And it was the Americans who destroyed it.
The British then formally moved in because of all that mess.

Considering we fought a war - sorry, conflict - over it within recent history, and both governments still claim to the Islands, I doubt it can be resolved on an Internet forum.

 

[zoomar]

I doubt if the USN could operate in strength in the South Atlantic by 1940, and the Monroe doctrine in practice was enforced by the RN (keeping other Europeans away). I think the only major navy capable of operating significant forces in the SA in 1940 and before was the RN.

Anyway a cruiser squadron and a R-class battleship would be sufficient to chase away anything the Argentine navy could send. The two Argentine battleships were obsolete by 1940 (12" main guns) and in bad maintenance and although the three cruisers were relatively modern, they were also small and thin skinned.

If the Argentinians succeed in initially taking the islands in a surprise operation, the following British counter invasion might give valuable experience in amphibious and combined operations.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Agreed. It would also have the unfortunate effect of making Argentina effecively an ally or co-belligerent of the European Axis powers with nothing to gain for it. This would not bode well for Argentina once the war went global and the USA became involved.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

Was there any British presence on the Island at the time?
(military presence I mean)

It was the base of the South Atlantic Squadron and warships were sometimes stationed there. In December 1939 Commodore Harwoods forces were stationed there during the hunt for the Admiral Graf Spee but with little threat from surface ships other than commerce raiders disguised as merchant ships the presence was often reduced to an armed merchant cruiser. 2000 garrison troops were stationed there in 1942 but it was to defend the island against any possible Japanese incursion. This suggests there were few troops in 1940