AHC: Falklands War is the spark for a wider, global conflict?

[James G]

Create a situation where the Falklands War, as it is with no geo-political changes beforehand, somehow sparks a global conflict?
I'm thinking that a sneaky Soviet sub gets too close to the RN task force and is attacked with the belief it is Argentinean. But someone must have a better scenario?

[lordroel]

Feb 17, 2019 14:39:06 GMT James G said:

Create a situation where the Falklands War, as it is with no geo-political changes beforehand, somehow sparks a global conflict?
I'm thinking that a sneaky Soviet sub gets too close to the RN task force and is attacked with the belief it is Argentinean. But someone must have a better scenario?

Have Argentina become a Communist country before they invade.

[James G]

Feb 17, 2019 14:57:33 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 17, 2019 14:39:06 GMT James G said:

Create a situation where the Falklands War, as it is with no geo-political changes beforehand, somehow sparks a global conflict?
I'm thinking that a sneaky Soviet sub gets too close to the RN task force and is attacked with the belief it is Argentinean. But someone must have a better scenario?

Have Argentina become a Communist country before they invade.

That goes against the idea of no geo-political changes beforehand though. And, if Argentina had been communist, it would have been a very different led-up and opening. 

[lordroel]

Feb 17, 2019 15:06:02 GMT James G said:

Feb 17, 2019 14:57:33 GMT lordroel said:

Have Argentina become a Communist country before they invade.

That goes against the idea of no geo-political changes beforehand though. And, if Argentina had been communist, it would have been a very different led-up and opening. 

Have the Soviet Union support Argentina in none military form and then have it escalate.

[stevep]

Feb 17, 2019 15:12:11 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 17, 2019 15:06:02 GMT James G said:

That goes against the idea of no geo-political changes beforehand though. And, if Argentina had been communist, it would have been a very different led-up and opening. 

Have the Soviet Union support Argentina in none military form and then have it escalate.

  Possible but very difficult.  I could see the Soviets supporting Argentina simply because it causes problems for the western powers but not that their going to stick their neck out for a right wing dictatorship.  Especially since its so far away from their nearest ally/base that there's damned all they could do to support it militarily.  Unless someone really rash I can't see them plunging Europe into a new conflict over the issues.

  Just possibly with the US distracted by the conflict and possible Soviet bluster the Kim of the time gets the impression that its' the right time [or even that he has Moscow's support] for the 'reunification' of Korea?  Then things escalate from there, although I would think that if Kim started something off Moscow would be as eager as anyone else to try and stop him quickly. 

  Checking Brezhnev was still in power until Nov but IIRC was pretty much comatose so its difficult to see the Soviets making radical decisions in this period until after his death and Andropov replaced him.  Of course he was only in power for ~16 months before he died as well.

[forcon]

How about having things go in the other direction?

Chile never has its coup in 73 and goes communist, becoming a Soviet client state. By the time the war erupts you have a major split in US-UK relations (Foot in the DS & Kirkpatrick in DC maybe?)

Chile attacks Argentina from the north during the war and the US firmly supports Argentina against pro-USSR Chile.

An actual Anglo-American military clash is vanishingly unlikely but not totally ASB with the right build up in the 70s.

[lordroel]

Feb 21, 2019 16:26:38 GMT forcon said:

How about having things go in the other direction?

Chile never has its coup in 73 and goes communist, becoming a Soviet client state. By the time the war erupts you have a major split in US-UK relations (Foot in the DS & Kirkpatrick in DC maybe?)

Chile attacks Argentina from the north during the war and the US firmly supports Argentina against pro-USSR Chile.

An actual Anglo-American military clash is vanishingly unlikely but not totally ASB with the right build up in the 70s.

But does that not violate James first post which was no geo-political changes beforehand.

[stevep]

Feb 21, 2019 16:29:45 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 21, 2019 16:26:38 GMT forcon said:

How about having things go in the other direction?

Chile never has its coup in 73 and goes communist, becoming a Soviet client state. By the time the war erupts you have a major split in US-UK relations (Foot in the DS & Kirkpatrick in DC maybe?)

Chile attacks Argentina from the north during the war and the US firmly supports Argentina against pro-USSR Chile.

An actual Anglo-American military clash is vanishingly unlikely but not totally ASB with the right build up in the 70s.

But does that not violate James first post which was no geo-political changes beforehand.

  Agreed, plus even if the UK somehow became governed by Michael Foot I can't see them clashing with the US over an attack by a communist Chile on Argentina.

[sandyman]

Arginine become communist just before the Invasion they agree a joint defence agreement with the USSR who agree to come to the Juntas defence of attacked. Once the Argentine Cruiser is sunk the Junta declare war on the UK. Move on a few weeks and the British land the Argentinians start panicking and call for Russian help. There we have it WW3 in the making.

[stevep]

Feb 21, 2019 19:17:53 GMT sandyman said:

Arginine become communist just before the Invasion they agree a joint defence agreement with the USSR who agree to come to the Juntas defence of attacked. Once the Argentine Cruiser is sunk the Junta declare war on the UK. Move on a few weeks and the British land the Argentinians start panicking and call for Russian help. There we have it WW3 in the making.

  That would basically mean the junta was overthrown and the new communist regime would be very unpopular in Washington.  I'm not sure whether such a new and vulnerable regime would risk attacking Britain and as I've mentioned before if they did under such circumstances I can't see Moscow sticking its neck out that far for it.  Unless possibly there was some other crisis or some factor that makes the Soviets think they could win a quick war in Europe,  They would see Argentina as expendable as their too far away for the Soviets to support, especially in such a situation where the US would definitely be hostile to Argentina.

[Deleted]

The Argies accidentally Exoceting a Soviet 'trawler' and Moscow siding with Thatcher would be more interesting!

[stevep]

Feb 22, 2019 1:15:50 GMT @vonhitchofen said:

The Argies accidentally Exoceting a Soviet 'trawler' and Moscow siding with Thatcher would be more interesting!

  My 1st reaction was to laugh loudly.  However I suppose there is a chance that Moscow could see an opportunity here.  Their attacked us, we declare war and send a 'task force' and liberate Argentina, installing a 'democratic socialist' [aka totalitarian communist puppet] government.  That wouldn't go down well with Washington but how far would they go.  You could at worse have Britain and the Soviets both fighting Argentina and the US supporting it.  Although in this situation, unless their totally insane [but then their a brutal dictatorship on the verge of internal rebellion ] the junta would quickly withdraw from the Falklands and make peace with Britain to ensure the support of the west against Soviet attack.