What if: Argentinian invasion of the Falklands in 1941

[lordroel]

Feb 2, 2020 1:50:35 GMT markp said:

While Argentina did have a decent surface fleet it had no carriers. Once the allies got around to dealing with Argentina US carrier air power would quickly decimate the Argentine navy. If the POD was in 1939 or 1940. The surface battle between the Argentine navy and RN would be an interesting scenario

As i mentioned before, the Royal Navy can also do that, some carrier strikes against the Argentinian Navy in port and on the sea would be enough.

[markp]

The Royal Navy did have the forces but they had to many higher priorities to deal with until 1945. Either the US or the UK would deal with Argentina after the war. Also the US put a lot of pressure on the UK post war to shed their colonies. The US could pressure the Argentine government to grant the Falklands independence by having a task force undertake some "training exercises in the area while returning home. Some Marshal plan money would help the now liberated islands to form their own government and economy. Trade between Argentina and the Falklands may benefit both sides in the long run. How forceful this effort would be would depend on how close Argentina got to Germany and Japan.

Mark

[lordroel]

Feb 6, 2020 2:58:30 GMT markp said:

The Royal Navy did have the forces but they had to many higher priorities to deal with until 1945. Either the US or the UK would deal with Argentina after the war. Also the US put a lot of pressure on the UK post war to shed their colonies. The US could pressure the Argentine government to grant the Falklands independence by having a task force undertake some "training exercises in the area while returning home. Some Marshal plan money would help the now liberated islands to form their own government and economy. Trade between Argentina and the Falklands may benefit both sides in the long run. How forceful this effort would be would depend on how close Argentina got to Germany and Japan.

Mark

Do not think the Falklands have the population and economy to form their own government.

Also while it is true that US put a lot of pressure on the UK post war to shed their colonies in the 1945 period the United Kingdom took back all of its colonies from Japan, see no difference in the Falklands.

[markp]

There is one difference. The Falklands are in the Americas. The colonies liberated from Japan were taken from an enemy of the US. The US was not at war with Argentina so US would have been more likely to leave the status quo in place. Unless there was an advantage to the US to change it.

[Dan]

So, country A is a global power and is at war with country B, a regional power. Country C has a minor territorial dispute with Country A, however trade between country A and Country C is providing a great benefit to Country C. Country D is, at this point offering Moral Support to Country A. Country C also has territorial disputes with it's neighbours, Countries E & F who are also on very good terms with Country A & D. Country G is in the process of planning to attack country D, who are at the moment, mostly Neutral. This attack, will draw Country D into the war between Country A & B and Country G will then also attack Country A at the same time, leading to Country B declaring war on Country D.

If Country C is in an armed conflict with Country A, while Country A is at war with Country B & G, country C will be viewed at best as a Co-belligerent. This means that now, country C is facing Country A & D. The difference is that Country C can initiate a separate peace with Counties A & D on a negotiated basis, but will definitely be sat in the naughty corner for quite some time, and will find that the formerly beneficial trade between Country A & C will now become reparations to Country A, which will make some very poor people even poorer and probably quite angry, as well as weaking them in the eyes of Countries E & F who would like nothing more than to nick off with varying sized lumps of Country C and would probably actively join Country A at this point as co-belligerents, (on the winning side), in order to do so. This will make Country C very poor, and very sad.

[lordroel]

Feb 7, 2020 1:12:38 GMT markp said:

There is one difference. The Falklands are in the Americas. The colonies liberated from Japan were taken from an enemy of the US. The US was not at war with Argentina so US would have been more likely to leave the status quo in place. Unless there was an advantage to the US to change it.

I do not think that makes a difference, during OTL World War II the United States deployed troops to the Free Netherlands territory of Suriname after FDR offered Queen Wilhelmina to station 3,000 infantry and anti-aircraft defence troops in the colony, the Dutch wartime government and governor Kielstra were surprised but had to accept the 'offer'.

Now after 1945 the US troops left, but if they had wanted to the US government could easily forced the Dutch government to give Suriname its Independence and place it under US protection, but they did not, thus i doubt it will happen to the Falklands who after being freed from the Argentinians will return to British control.

[stevep]

Feb 6, 2020 2:58:30 GMT markp said:

The Royal Navy did have the forces but they had to many higher priorities to deal with until 1945. Either the US or the UK would deal with Argentina after the war. Also the US put a lot of pressure on the UK post war to shed their colonies. The US could pressure the Argentine government to grant the Falklands independence by having a task force undertake some "training exercises in the area while returning home. Some Marshal plan money would help the now liberated islands to form their own government and economy. Trade between Argentina and the Falklands may benefit both sides in the long run. How forceful this effort would be would depend on how close Argentina got to Germany and Japan.

Mark

  I would disagree here.  Apart from the national response in Britain to such an attack as Dan points out below Argentina is now a de facto member of the axis.  Even the fear of its ports being used by Japanese or German subs is likely to cause a lot of concern while apart from popular anger the Falklands are an important base for operations in the S America region, as the events around the Battle of the River Plate showed.  If the allies are willing to invade Vichy Madagascar to avoid the fear of it being used as a Japanese base the UK especially is going to be determined to liberate British citizens in the Falklands and regain the base there.

  I can't see in the foreseeable future the Falklands becoming independent.  It simply doesn't have the population for it, especially with an hostile Argentina not too far away and totally rejecting any acceptance of the Falklander's right to choose how their governed.

[markp]

If Argentina became an active member of the Axis than the ultimate result would have been the Liberation of the Falkands. If the US is not at war with Argentina any liberation would have had to be done by the UK alone. would there have been enough desire on the home front to recover these islands after 6 years of war with an enemy that does have a functioning navy and operating from nearby bases.

A more likely strategy would have been economic sanctions and supplying Argentine rebels to affect regime change. The payback for this assistance would be returning the islands to British rule. The US would stay out of this.

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 8, 2020 5:28:33 GMT markp said:

If Argentina became an active member of the Axis than the ultimate result would have been the Liberation of the Falkands. If the US is not at war with Argentina any liberation would have had to be done by the UK alone. would there have been enough desire on the home front to recover these islands after 6 years of war with an enemy that does have a functioning navy and operating from nearby bases.

A more likely strategy would have been economic sanctions and supplying Argentine rebels to affect regime change. The payback for this assistance would be returning the islands to British rule. The US would stay out of this.

Mark

  Mark

  For the reasons I mentioned I can't see Britain waiting until the end of the war.  It has the strength in 1941/42 to liberate the islands and probably air and naval attacks on the Argentinian mainland until the government either falls or comes to terms.  Things could be complicated if other neighbours, most likely Chile decide they can take advantage of Argentina's problems of course.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Feb 8, 2020 11:05:01 GMT stevep said:

Feb 8, 2020 5:28:33 GMT markp said:

If Argentina became an active member of the Axis than the ultimate result would have been the Liberation of the Falkands. If the US is not at war with Argentina any liberation would have had to be done by the UK alone. would there have been enough desire on the home front to recover these islands after 6 years of war with an enemy that does have a functioning navy and operating from nearby bases.

A more likely strategy would have been economic sanctions and supplying Argentine rebels to affect regime change. The payback for this assistance would be returning the islands to British rule. The US would stay out of this.

Mark

  Mark

  For the reasons I mentioned I can't see Britain waiting until the end of the war.  It has the strength in 1941/42 to liberate the islands and probably air and naval attacks on the Argentinian mainland until the government either falls or comes to terms.  Things could be complicated if other neighbours, most likely Chile decide they can take advantage of Argentina's problems of course.

  Steve

True by 1945 the Royal Navy would have no problem sinking every Argentinian warships they can find.

[markp]

In 1941/42 the British were spread too thin. Providing convoy escorts in 41 and in 42 doing that and holding back the Japanese from India. The Falklands would have to wait. By 1944 after Normandy would be the earliest that I see resources available to deal with this side show. Would Churchill consider that Falkands more important than his worries about the Russians grabbing territory in the Balkans. By 1945 Either the US or the UK could undertake this operation. Given that the US focus was on defeating Germany than Japan they would not help and probably pressure the UK to wait until Germany and Japan had been finished. Again this would be a UK only operation unless Argentina was stupid enough to declare war on the US at some point. If they did the loss of the Falkands would be the least of their problems.

Mark

[lordroel]

Feb 8, 2020 19:51:17 GMT markp said:

In 1941/42 the British were spread too thin. Providing convoy escorts in 41 and in 42 doing that and holding back the Japanese from India. The Falklands would have to wait. By 1944 after Normandy would be the earliest that I see resources available to deal with this side show. Would Churchill consider that Falkands more important than his worries about the Russians grabbing territory in the Balkans. By 1945 Either the US or the UK could undertake this operation. Given that the US focus was on defeating Germany than Japan they would not help and probably pressure the UK to wait until Germany and Japan had been finished. Again this would be a UK only operation unless Argentina was stupid enough to declare war on the US at some point. If they did the loss of the Falkands would be the least of their problems.

Mark

I assume that if Argentina is in war with the United Kingdom before the United States enters the War, than the United States is like to sever diplomatic relations with the Argentinian government and maybe place embargo on it, those two things are going to isolate Argentina a lot as not country will trade with them even more with Brazil entering the war on the allies side in 1942 and Chile in 1943.

[stevep]

Feb 8, 2020 19:51:17 GMT markp said:

In 1941/42 the British were spread too thin. Providing convoy escorts in 41 and in 42 doing that and holding back the Japanese from India. The Falklands would have to wait. By 1944 after Normandy would be the earliest that I see resources available to deal with this side show. Would Churchill consider that Falkands more important than his worries about the Russians grabbing territory in the Balkans. By 1945 Either the US or the UK could undertake this operation. Given that the US focus was on defeating Germany than Japan they would not help and probably pressure the UK to wait until Germany and Japan had been finished. Again this would be a UK only operation unless Argentina was stupid enough to declare war on the US at some point. If they did the loss of the Falkands would be the least of their problems.

Mark

  I think we will have to disagree here both on the importance of trade routes in the S Atlantic and the prestige and moral factor of not allowing the occupation to stand.

[lordroel]

Feb 8, 2020 23:22:50 GMT stevep said:

Feb 8, 2020 19:51:17 GMT markp said:

In 1941/42 the British were spread too thin. Providing convoy escorts in 41 and in 42 doing that and holding back the Japanese from India. The Falklands would have to wait. By 1944 after Normandy would be the earliest that I see resources available to deal with this side show. Would Churchill consider that Falkands more important than his worries about the Russians grabbing territory in the Balkans. By 1945 Either the US or the UK could undertake this operation. Given that the US focus was on defeating Germany than Japan they would not help and probably pressure the UK to wait until Germany and Japan had been finished. Again this would be a UK only operation unless Argentina was stupid enough to declare war on the US at some point. If they did the loss of the Falkands would be the least of their problems.

Mark

  I think we will have to disagree here both on the importance of trade routes in the S Atlantic and the prestige and moral factor of not allowing the occupation to stand.

I also have to agree with this, there is no way Churchill will let Argentina keep occupying the Falklands until 1945, they will launch a invasion of the islands, with ore without the help of the United States.

[gillan1220]

Which reminds me, after WWII, the British and the French got their colonies in the Far East back even when many tried to declare independence. The Falklands will be no different.