Argentine Invasion Of Islands? Britain Increases Force.

[Matt84]

Sweden was also neutral during WWII that didn't mean Germans didn't use Swedish territory to invade Norway.

I know for a fact British aircraft used to land in Punta Arenas and when I went to Rio Grande (Tierra del Fuego) the older folks could assure me that helicopters also landed in Argentine land with no problem.

 

[camberiu]

I think the scenarios between Sweden in world war II and Chile in the Falklands were a bit different. Brazil was neutral but openly annoyed at the British presence in the South Atlantic. Chile depended heavily in Brazil back then for protection against Argentina. So the political considerations were very different. Besides, as I said before, Chile back in 1982 was simply not equipped to resupply and service a task force of that scale. Chile was a very poor and agrarian country back then.

 

[camberiu]

I think the scenarios between Sweden in world war II and Chile in the Falklands were a bit different. Brazil was neutral but openly annoyed at the British presence in the South Atlantic. Chile depended heavily in Brazil back then for protection against Argentina. So the political considerations were very different. Besides, as I said before, Chile back in 1982 was simply not equipped to resupply and service a task force of that scale. Chile was a very poor and agrarian country back then.

 

[camberiu]

Another important element that I forgot to include is that the GIUK gap, which was the Royal Navy's main responsibility had been left wide open by the Falklands conflict. It had to be a short campaign no matter what.

 

[Matt84]

Valid point

Another important element that I forgot to include is that the GIUK gap, which was the Royal Navy's main responsibility had been left wide open by the Falklands conflict. It had to be a short campaign no matter what.

Valid point but it was British responsibility of a common Anti-Communist effort of which Argentina, under the Junta, was unambiguously part of, that's why Washington remained neutral during the conflict.

To make an even more ridiculous comparisson with WW2, If Argentina had intended to distract NATO forces in a serious manner, it would have had to face both the Communists and NATO, fighting two superpowers from a small regional standing, kinda like Finland.

 

[camberiu]

Valid point but it was British responsibility of a common Anti-Communist effort of which Argentina, under the Junta, was unambiguously part of, that's why Washington remained neutral during the conflict.

There were a few reason why Washington remained FORMALLY neutral, including the fact that Argentina was essential for fighting against the Sandinistas and communist guerrillas in central America.
There was the fear that an open support to the UK would force both Brazil and Argentina in the the Soviet sphere of influence. Brazil is particular was none too happy about the RN operating in the South Atlantic. The Brazilian presidente at the time, General Joao Figueiredo, directly phoned both Reagan and Thatcher to let them know that any attack on continental Argentina would bring Brazil into the war on the Argentine side.

 

[scotttswan]

Valid point

Valid point but it was British responsibility of a common Anti-Communist effort of which Argentina, under the Junta, was unambiguously part of, that's why Washington remained neutral during the conflict.

To make an even more ridiculous comparisson with WW2, If Argentina had intended to distract NATO forces in a serious manner, it would have had to face both the Communists and NATO, fighting two superpowers from a small regional standing, kinda like Finland.

As they are an overseas territory rather than a part of the UK NATO stayed out of it but I wonder if hypothetically Brazil invaded French Guiana or anyone invaded any French overseas department for that mater, would that constitute an attack on a NATO country and bring the rest of NATO into any war?

 

[nkotb]

Ejcot: No. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which is the legal basis for collective self-defense, refers to "an armed attack against one or more [Nato members] in Europe or North America" only.

 

[scotttswan]

Ejcot: No. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which is the legal basis for collective self-defense, refers to "an armed attack against one or more [Nato members] in Europe or North America" only.

So the French territories that are fully part of France don't count. Interesting

 

[camberiu]

So the French territories that are fully part of France don't count. Interesting

I guess that put there to prevent the US or Germany from becoming embroiled in colonial conflicts.