| April 2 |  |
Editor says, what if Britain never sent a Task Force to recapture the Falkland Islands? Please note that this message of peace in no ways detracts from the gallant efforts of members of the Armed Services (who we believe would be better utilised revolutionising British Industry with their specialist skills and capabilities).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1992, with the country focused to a man on the England team's successful bid for the European Football Championship, nine thousand kilometres away in the South Atlantic, the Malvinas celebrated ten years of re-unification with Argentina. Lacking the tactical nous of National Coach Graham Taylor, Her Majesty's Government had scored a spectacular own goal by upgrading the airport at Port Stanley following an invasion scare in 1977.
The Iron LadyAfter Argentine forces seized the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Commander-in-Chief General Galtieri wasted no time installing Exocet missile-armed French Super Ètendards jet aircraft at Port Stanley. And when Margaret Thatcher ordered a Task Force to be sent to recapture the Islands, the Admiralty was forced to admit to the Prime Minister that such a mission objective was impossible to achieve. The Royal Navy simply had insufficient aircraft carriers to defend the fleet from devastating jet aircraft attacks launched out of Port Stanley. Unwilling to accept the constraints of British seapower, Thatcher appealed to Ronald Reagan, making a formal request to lease aircraft carriers from the US Navy. In fact the US Government was willing to loan the carriers, but the planes and pilots were the stumbling block.
Not for the first time, it was absolutely impossible for an American President to overtly support British Imperialism no matter their own personal sympathies. Not only would the United States have "lost" South America, but the Federal Government would have been split in half because Secretary of State Alexander Haig was attempting to prevent a war by engaging diplomatically with Buenes Aires. 
Hailed as a triumph for the "Iron Lady", President of Argentina Isabelle Peron, Thatcher's authority was destroyed. The Sun newspaper ran the derisory headline "Gotcha". Losing the 1983 election over the "Falklands Factor", her successor Michael Foot treated the reversal as a sharp lesson for the role of Britain on the world stage. In fact, the Incoming Prime Minister's only decisive intervention was to agree a a right of return for islanders codified in the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, under which British dependents were granted full citizenship.
Reagan's refusal to provide the planes and pilots would have significant long-term consequences. Because Foot had made a manifesto pledge to pursue unilateral disarmament. With the "Special Relationship" exposed as a sham, the US Government was forced to withdraw cruise missiles from Greenham Common Airforce base. Unshackled from her militaristic past, Britain was better placed to launch meaningful peace initiatives in the world. And in 1999, British Prime Minister Bryan Gould and Princess Diana Spencer would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their determined efforts to achieve a global ban on Land Mines.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© Today in Alternate History, 2004-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: Wikipedia Labels: Falklands War, Thatcher, Eva Peron, Ronald Reagan, Argentina. Editor says, thanks to Scott Palter and David Atwell for their contribution to the development of this story
Comment from Tom Ashwell on Facebook: The political situation at the time was setting the stage for either another Hitler or the prevention of one. The British showed that the siuper powers would not allow one so there was relative peace. If the Falkland Islands war had not happened, there would have been a lot of annexs and invasions and a LOT of global war - escalating into nukes. Not pretty.
~ I've got to say there's several interesting twists here. I do wonder, though, when you take the Cold War period into question, whether Raegan would have refused any help. Personally I'd dare say, if the British couldn't do it themselves, akin to the OTL, some "joint mission" would have taken part wherein the USN & RN take back the Falklands in "partnership". As for the loss of South America - I'd dare say the USA losing the UK would have far greater ramifications, as you've pointed out, than losing South AMerican, & regardless of what one thinks about Reagan, I don't think he'd be that stupid ;)
~ Without Thatcher, would Britain have ever turned around?
~ Eva was quite dead. Wrong Mrs. Perosn - I think you mean Isabell. US in fact was prepared to lease carriers. Issue was lack of British planes and pilots. Changes made. Ed.
Comment on Facebook from Jeff Mayers: The only thing that I think that would have happened is that it might have been a politicial liability for Margret Thatcher, but in the context of global balance of power, it would not have changed much, at least in the immediate aftermath(especially since the cold war was still going on). In the long-term, it would have an effect diplomaticially(most likely for the better).
Comment on Facebook from J Michael Antoniewicz II: Yes it would have. The Junta launched the war to take eyes off of them and the trash they made of the economy. Had they won or just absorbed the Malvinas then they would have had to intergrate them into the economy without collapsing it. Actualle result would probably have been the Argintena Economy imploding, late Soviet and Cuban attempts to intervine and America making a giant humaitarian investment in the country.
When the USSR and Eastern Eruope implode later in the decade then the USA would have learned the lessen that there is a limit to withholding justice to the former regiem and set the limits much lower then we did in RL. Higher ups in regiems would have wound up in Nurmburg or The Hauge with their own files used in their trials, Middle management (for use of a better term) would have been allowed to go free with observation and allowed to work within their old jobs in the government on Merit allone. Oliariges would have come from families that carried their own weight and not from 'well, he's/she's related, give'm a job' much less 'they did the job before and we need it done to keep the country going'. USA would have still sat on Western Europe to allow Easter Europe/Warsaw Pack countries the chance to join NATO.
Emboldened by what was going on in Eastern Europe, the resurgance of Russia would have been more Merit Based and less fast moving Party Members grabbing stuff as the nation lossened it's grip on Centeral Planning. Oliariges that rose would have also been more merit based, kids sent to NON-Socalist Western Schools to learn banking, business, communications, etc.
Public and Governmental statements and policies shutting down major aspects of Socalism (but they'd probably do better with reguards to taking care of their retirees) would shake the Socalist Movements within Western and American Univerities.
All sorts of fun. ;p)
~ I don't know that if Britaain had backed down in the Falklands matter there would have been an escalation--certainly not all the way to nuclear war. But certainly it would have bee humiliating to Britain, and that would have had significant political consequences in London.
I suspect that given Britain's prickly feelings abouut losing one of its last outposts of empire, however small--and to a bunch of "wogs" at that--Foot's pledge of "unilateral disarmament" (and was it really supposed to be "unilateral"?) would have gone out the window, so that Britain would in the latter 1990s not have been so well placed, or even willing, to pursue peace initiatives.
~ Andrew Roberts did a piece along those lines for the Daily Mail, IIRC...
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
