Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 13:38:38 GMT
With the loss of 1500 service personal, many more tried in kangaroo courts in Argentina and native Falkland islaners expelled from their homes it is a national disaster and a humiliation for Prime Minister Thatcher who immediately resigned to be replaced by Edward du Cann.
Will a further expedition assisted by the US take place. Public opinion and the labour party is split.
Will the tories even survive as a party in the run up to the 1984 general election. Will the Alliance be forming the next government? Will this be the crisis about which the cold war becomes hot?
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 2, 2014 14:09:54 GMT
Why would the US care afterwards?
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 2, 2014 18:09:19 GMT
The US won't help in this circumstance, the Kirkpatrick faction will win out on this one.
Du Cann is surely entirely the wrong person. Perhaps he might act as caretaker, but the Tories will be looking for someone who wants to boost the military.
The Tories cling on until 1984 and then it is either Prime Minister Foot or Prime Minister Jenkins.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Nov 2, 2014 18:13:11 GMT
The conservatives would probably have been thrown out at the next election. However Thatcher would have probably resigned before that.
As for the next government, probably alliance rather than labour if any party were to gain a majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2014 21:40:15 GMT
Defeat? The possibility did not exist!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 2, 2014 23:06:50 GMT
The idea of Michael Foot entering Downing Street in the wake of a Falklands defeat is a rather discombobulating thought.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 2, 2014 23:10:41 GMT
I dont see Thatcher ever resigning of her own volition for any reason...ever.... ever!
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Nov 2, 2014 23:10:45 GMT
Defeat? The possibility did not exist! Only because the Yanks supplied a load of dud bombs to the Argentinian Air Force that failed to go off. It is probably fair to say that they were not really designed to be used against ships. Many went straight through the deck without exploding. The loss of an aircraft carrier could have crippled the task force and put the whole mission in jeapody.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 2, 2014 23:15:10 GMT
The idea of Michael Foot entering Downing Street in the wake of a Falklands defeat is a rather discombobulating thought. IIRC the opinion polls immediately pre-Falklands episode were in the region of SDP/Lib 50%, Lab and Tories 25% each.
ANy prospect of a Foot premiership would have been scuppered by droves of Tories switching to SPD!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,303
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 3, 2014 19:39:21 GMT
The idea of Michael Foot entering Downing Street in the wake of a Falklands defeat is a rather discombobulating thought. It is at least possible that Foot would have proved a better PM than he was opposition leader - the two jobs require different skill sets. Though to answer the OP, it wouldn't have been the end of the Tory party (though the thought some sort of proto-UKIP might have emerged from the turmoil that would surely have resulted is an intriguing one) but it would surely have been curtains for Thatcher, who would be regarded very differently now. And the ultimate result might well have been a hung parliament a quarter of a century before it actually happened?
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 3, 2014 20:01:01 GMT
If defeat had been a serious possibility, would we not have used our subs to sink anything afloat carrying an Argie flag?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Nov 3, 2014 21:16:03 GMT
If defeat had been a serious possibility, would we not have used our subs to sink anything afloat carrying an Argie flag? That would have gone down well with world opinion including in the U.S. Suez demonstrated that Britain cannot act alone on military adventures without at least the tacit support of the U.S. If the task force had turned back, that would have been it. Some sort of face-saving compromise would have mediated. But not before Thatcher had been deposed or fallen on her sword.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,501
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 3, 2014 22:47:14 GMT
My first thought was: what about Gibraltar? But, thinking in a bit more detail my more crumulant thought is: what about Hong Kong? A Falklands defeat in 1982, 15 years before a standard Hong Kong 15-year mortgage would crash into 1997, would cause financial and political scares in Hong Kong, and if mis-handled, panic.
It would put the UK in a very bad negotiating position in the alt-Joint Declaration talks, While China would likely conclude it would not be in their interests to just walk in 15 years early, I can see a lot of the Chinese concessions to the continuing Hong Kong way of life dropping by the wayside. Certainly Chinese interests would be more inclined to stir up 1960s-style pro-mainland "protests". Many more HongKongers would see the safer option to be to uproot and leave to somewhere safe, like Canada, taking their money and industry with them. The UK government may be more likely to nationalise many more Hong Kong citizens. If there was the threat of tanks at Lo Wu there would be a Uganda-style exodus.
Losing the Falklands results in a very different Hong Kong. In the worst case, losing the Falklands kills the golden goose in Hong Kong.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Nov 3, 2014 23:44:08 GMT
My first thought was: what about Gibraltar? But, thinking in a bit more detail my more crumulant thought is: what about Hong Kong? A Falklands defeat in 1982, 15 years before a standard Hong Kong 15-year mortgage would crash into 1997, would cause financial and political scares in Hong Kong, and if mis-handled, panic. It would put the UK in a very bad negotiating position in the alt-Joint Declaration talks, While China would likely conclude it would not be in their interests to just walk in 15 years early, I can see a lot of the Chinese concessions to the continuing Hong Kong way of life dropping by the wayside. Certainly Chinese interests would be more inclined to stir up 1960s-style pro-mainland "protests". Many more HongKongers would see the safer option to be to uproot and leave to somewhere safe, like Canada, taking their money and industry with them. The UK government may be more likely to nationalise many more Hong Kong citizens. If there was the threat of tanks at Lo Wu there would be a Uganda-style exodus. Losing the Falklands results in a very different Hong Kong. In the worst case, losing the Falklands kills the golden goose in Hong Kong. The problem with that theory is that Hong Kong was the golden goose as far as the Chinese Government was concerned. They could have taken Hong Kong any time they wanted but preferred to let the lease run. The Portuguese tried to hand back Macao before the lease expired in 1999 but this offer was declined. The Chinese needed the cash that Hong Kong and Macao generated for them. Also they provided the model for Chinese Special Administrative Regions to transform their economy.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2014 11:19:11 GMT
Had the Argentine forces sunk one of the two British aircraft carriers, it is highly likely that they would have driven off the initial attack of the Task Force. Each of the five Exocet missiles possessed by Argentina at the outbreak of the war was capable of sinking Invincible or Hermes.
(The UK had made a contingency deal with the USA to borrow the USS Iwo Jima in the event that a carrier was sunk, so there would presumably have been a second Task Force attack in the Southern hemisphere summer.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2014 11:23:25 GMT
Could we have lost? The Argentine Armed Forces were absolutely typical of a dictatorial military regime - focused on exercising internal control of the country and its resources rather than fighting external enemies, and staffed by poorly trained conscripts. These types of armed forces, like Saddam Hussein's, usually crumple when faced with a serious, professional army. Weren't they banking on us not actually trying to take the Falklands back? If we had lost one of the aircraft carriers then yes, we could. Russian roulette with air to sea missiles. The war was determined primarily with the air/naval conflict, so conscripts didn't come into the picture until the final outcome wasn't in any doubt.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,501
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 4, 2014 19:06:24 GMT
The problem with that theory is that Hong Kong was the golden goose as far as the Chinese Government was concerned. They could have taken Hong Kong any time they wanted but preferred to let the lease run. The Portuguese tried to hand back Macao before the lease expired in 1999 but this offer was declined. The Chinese needed the cash that Hong Kong and Macao generated for them. Also they provided the model for Chinese Special Administrative Regions to transform their economy. Yes, the Chinese Government wanted their hands on the golden goose, and could ultimately have just sat and waited for 1997. Everything they did on their side was aimed at getting Hong Kong without scaring away the money. The Joint Declaration negotiations got the UK out of an untenable position (hand back the lease territories and split Kowloon in two? Keep the lease territories and ignore the lease?). Things like One Country Two Systems for 50 years were in China's interest, but if the Falklands were lost China would have been in a stronger position to trim some of their concessions on public and political life post-handover. I remember my ex-wife's family followed the Falklands with interest/concern as there was certainly a concern amongst the people that losing would have a negative impact in Hong Kong. An interesting alt-history POD is if Claude MacDonald had picked the more usual 999 year "forever" lease instead of 99 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2014 16:37:58 GMT
Had the Argentine forces sunk one of the two British aircraft carriers, it is highly likely that they would have driven off the initial attack of the Task Force. Each of the five Exocet missiles possessed by Argentina at the outbreak of the war was capable of sinking Invincible or Hermes. (The UK had made a contingency deal with the USA to borrow the USS Iwo Jima in the event that a carrier was sunk, so there would presumably have been a second Task Force attack in the Southern hemisphere summer.) There was also plans that if needed to the old tiger class cruisers would have harriers placed in the large helicopter hangers and would take off and land vertically. I'd forgotten the Tiger being in Portsmouth Harbour. The ships were ok, as I recall, but it would have been impossible to crew them, and they would have been dreadfully vulnerable to then-modern weaponry. I remember they did quite a bit of work on her at the time, but I think it was more to keep some senior people happy that 'something was being done' than for any realistic purpose.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,404
|
Post by john07 on Nov 7, 2014 20:36:32 GMT
Had the Argentine forces sunk one of the two British aircraft carriers, it is highly likely that they would have driven off the initial attack of the Task Force. Each of the five Exocet missiles possessed by Argentina at the outbreak of the war was capable of sinking Invincible or Hermes. (The UK had made a contingency deal with the USA to borrow the USS Iwo Jima in the event that a carrier was sunk, so there would presumably have been a second Task Force attack in the Southern hemisphere summer.) There was also plans that if needed to the old tiger class cruisers would have harriers placed in the large helicopter hangers and would take off and land vertically. There was a lot of effort put into raising the Mary Rose at the time!
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 7, 2014 21:18:44 GMT
There was a lot of effort put into raising the Mary Rose at the time! The Mary Rose couldn't carry harriers though! Defeatist!
|
|