WI : No Falklands conflict
- Thread starter Custard Cream Monster
- Start date
Sceptical bout the hung parliament talk. A couple of things need to be borne in mind, firstly that Mrs Thatcher didn't have to call an election in June 1983, she could have waited almost another year for more favourable circumstances if she wanted to. Secondly, it's worth looking at the opinion polls to see what was happening at the time - the MORI archive is here if you want to have a look. This tells us a few things -
1. The Falklands Factor basically amounts to a 10 point boost which the government received between April and August 1982 which it pretty much held onto through the general election. Absent this and the government would be going into the election with a lower baseline. However -
2. The government's polling position had begun to recover in spring 1982 as the recession bottomed out and growth started to return anyway - they were 6 points higher in March 1983 than in March 1982 for example. Continue this trend for another year to 18 months and you are probably looking at polling figures of something like Con = 40%, Lab = All = 29% by the time of the general election, which I suspect is enough for a small but workable overall majority. Something like -
Con = 330 (-9)
Lab = 200 (-69)
All = 89 (+78)
Con Maj. 10
with a strong possibility that the Alliance has actually overtaken Labour in terms of the popular vote. This will have effects of its own throughout the 1980's of course - another general election in 2 or 3 years time at some convenient (for the Conservatives) moment while Labour and the Alliance tear lumps out of each other for allowing the Tories back in last time seems likely for starters.
1. The Falklands Factor basically amounts to a 10 point boost which the government received between April and August 1982 which it pretty much held onto through the general election. Absent this and the government would be going into the election with a lower baseline. However -
2. The government's polling position had begun to recover in spring 1982 as the recession bottomed out and growth started to return anyway - they were 6 points higher in March 1983 than in March 1982 for example. Continue this trend for another year to 18 months and you are probably looking at polling figures of something like Con = 40%, Lab = All = 29% by the time of the general election, which I suspect is enough for a small but workable overall majority. Something like -
Con = 330 (-9)
Lab = 200 (-69)
All = 89 (+78)
Con Maj. 10
with a strong possibility that the Alliance has actually overtaken Labour in terms of the popular vote. This will have effects of its own throughout the 1980's of course - another general election in 2 or 3 years time at some convenient (for the Conservatives) moment while Labour and the Alliance tear lumps out of each other for allowing the Tories back in last time seems likely for starters.
Dunno how old you are, but I was around at the time and I remember that conversation about nukes was much more along the lines of "so what do we have these things for then?" than "we must avoid scaring those poor Argies" - oh granted, there might have been some squeamishness over glassing Buenos Aires, but electoral suicide, even revolution, over forex destroying one of the remote Patagonian airbases providing air cover to the islands? I doubt it.
Uh, no. Saratoga and Independence were uprated Forrestals. Coral Sea was an immediate post-WWII Midway class. Comparing either classes to Essexs would be like comparing a Chieftain to a Churchill. And doing so would be so intruding into the conflict as to make it an American one. And where would the UK get the fleet-class naval aircraft, pilots, and crews for such vessels? The crews run up to 6,000!
The carrier deal would have included the full air group and weapons.
The crews are around 4,000; you can save on that by not having the maximum number of planes available (its plane maintenance crews that are the big carrier manpower issue). Given the need, the RN can activate the reserve to get the men. As to pilots - well, again, plenty of RAF pilots available if you take them off desk jobs, reserve crews - it will of course take a month or two to get them certified for carrier ops, while the crew works up and the plane crews get used to the new jets.
And of course, nothing to stop ex USN people from being recruited...
(there is a lovely true story about 2 US marine Harrier pilots on exchange who were really really upset at being told they had to get off, the US government wouldnt allow them to stay even though they wanted to -'how dare they hold a war and not invite the US Marines')
Thats rubbish.
There would certainly have been no support for using them against civilian targets. However if losing, a token nuke against a military target...protests, but the average guy is not going to revolt about hitting the Argies military.
Only electoral? I'm not sure Russia would have been happy with the British or US using nukes on a non-nuclear power (or indeed anyone I suppose).
If the war happened in '84 it may have lasted longer than it did, and may have gone further. I'm going to guess that the alleged plan to invade Argentina via Chile may have actually been done in the end.
Which military target without 'collateral' damage, ie, destroying/radiating a city along the way?
And, in any case, the British could have used gas instead.
Or, the Soviets would be happy and proceed to imitate the British tactics in Afghanistan instead.
Definitely no new term for Thatcher, the Brits won what they were told by all around them was an unwinable war. Mind you their old allies Chile really helped! As far as I know the overall commander of the British forces there was sent to his reward, which must be a rare occurrence in battle in modern times. Also, I remember my father, who's Irish, saying, Britain V Argentina, hah, sure even we would beat them! Actually, no we wouldn't! Mind you Argentina V Serbia would be a tight one if they could find something to have a barney about!