Joe Biden on the Falklands conflict, 1982

[UK Man]

The islands were too expensive for Great Britain to maintain, and there was a good likelihood control over the islands would be shared with Argentina.

I suggest more opening up of the islands to Argentina and its people which would have benefitted the locals would have taken place but sharing control was never going to happen.

 

[on the brink]

I suggest more opening up of the islands to Argentina and its people which would have benefitted the locals would have taken place but sharing control was never going to happen.

I believe they were working on some kind of face-saving arrangement for both sides.

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Ultimately led to the downfall of the dictatorship which is surely a good thing. I’d have thought 2 barren windswept islands populated only by sheep and inbreds would be a fair price to pay. Although Argentine pride would never admit to it.
More than likely if they had just waited an agreement would have been reached if they had just waited.
Now british blood has been spilt that will never happen.
Quite neatly sums up Argentine political ineptitude.

 

[Renzi]

I suggest more opening up of the islands to Argentina and its people which would have benefitted the locals would have taken place but sharing control was never going to happen.

Maggie didn't even want to share control of Northern Ireland. There are some that believe that her heavy-handed approach there came in part from resentment over the Rep of Ireland's reluctance to back her in the Falklands, over at last that military victory gave her the confidence to pursue a military solution.

Thatcher's threat to scrap Ireland visit over Falklands | ITV News

Margaret Thatcher threatened to scrap a visit to Ireland because it was being "unfriendly" about the Falklands War, new records reveal. | ITV National News

www.itv.com

 

[Alpinista]

I wonder if behind the scenes the US gave a green light to Galtieri in hopes that the almost certain defeat would mean the end of the junta and no longer have to prop it up. Remember that at this time the US was sponsoring other military dictators in Lat Am, but one by one had cut ties with most of them by the end of the 80s.

As Joe pointed out, an attack on Britain would effectively be an attack on NATO, and it's hard to believe (but not improbable) that Argentina would not have been aware of this when they proceeded. As far as I know, that has been the only time any country has been stupid enough to do that.

I am not sure whether it was “certain defeat” at the point when they invaded the Falklands. I am not an expert on this, but I believe
1) the UK response to fight back was not a certainty (although it heped then Thatcher to distract from domestic issues at home). But as on the brink said, the UK’s position was close to abandon the islands before the armed conflict started
2) from a military response, the UK did not exactly put a huge armada on its feet. Military victory was then only possible through fortunate circumstances, help from Chile (information, intelligence) and most of all through a total negligence of Argentinian forces on the ground in the Falklands. When they actually held the ground after the invasion, they had all the strategic and military advantages. There was simply inability and inaptitude from the Argentine military that played a major part in this defeat

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Don’t think you can draw parallels with Northern Ireland. Sharing power would have been seen as giving in to terrorists in the political environment of the time.

Very few people even knew where or what the Falklands were prior to 1982 and I think it could easily have been done.

 

[semigoodlookin]

I am not sure whether it was “certain defeat” at the point when they invaded the Falklands. I am not an expert on this, but I believe
1) the UK response to fight back was not a certainty (although it heped then Thatcher to distract from domestic issues at home). But as on the brink said, the UK’s position was close to abandon the islands before the armed conflict started
2) from a military response, the UK did not exactly put a huge armada on its feet. Military victory was then only possible through fortunate circumstances, help from Chile (information, intelligence) and most of all through a total negligence of Argentinian forces on the ground in the Falklands. When they actually held the ground after the invasion, they had all the strategic and military advantages. There was simply inability and inaptitude from the Argentine military that played a major part in this defeat

This hand gets played a lot and it takes the idea of a UK defeat too far, in my opinion. Or I should say, an eventual long-term British defeat (not reclaiming the islands on that sail was a possibility). A couple of things I take away from it are, a hard war is not won in just a few weeks. Certainly the Argentina military did a poor job, but once UK soliders got feet on the island they claimed them back with relative ease (I mean this while recognizing how flippant it is to suggest war is every easy), even with the Bluff Cove incident.

Many also ignore the fact that Thatcher was simply not the type to let it lie. If the task force had failed, a more potent force would have been sent eventually, whether it was in six weeks, six months, or six years. I also think any re-engagment may have come with the UK declaring war too, and then who knows what would have happened (as in, the Falklands may no longer have been the only target). Let's not forget the task force was hastily put together from what the British had readily available, it was by no means a war-waging fleet, and not a relfection of the country's military capabilities at the time.

Having said all that, many at the time saw the liklihood of British success with that task force as low, with some saying impossible. As well as the negligence of Argentinian forces, it was also the doggedness of the British that took those islands back.

Like you, I am also certainly not an expert on this.

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

How on Earth do you imagine that the Republic of Ireland would support the British In the Falklands conflict? They didn’t even support us in WW2.
In any case the troubles had already been heavily militarised long prior to 1982.

 

[Renzi]

I am not sure whether it was “certain defeat” at the point when they invaded the Falklands. I am not an expert on this, but I believe
1) the UK response to fight back was not a certainty (although it heped then Thatcher to distract from domestic issues at home). But as on the brink said, the UK’s position was close to abandon the islands before the armed conflict started
2) from a military response, the UK did not exactly put a huge armada on its feet. Military victory was then only possible through fortunate circumstances, help from Chile (information, intelligence) and most of all through a total negligence of Argentinian forces on the ground in the Falklands. When they actually held the ground after the invasion, they had all the strategic and military advantages. There was simply inability and inaptitude from the Argentine military that played a major part in this defeat

In purely military terms, you are correct. But again, by treaty NATO would have had the obligation to intervene in the event of a short-term victory by Argentina, which is what Biden was warning them about. Keep in mind that this was the height of the Cold War, and even minor conflicts like this had global repercussions. Galtieri was supposedly beginning to tilt toward the Soviets, so there's no way NATO would have allowed an Argentine victory with that in the background.

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

If the first task force had failed, this would imply even heavier losses to the fleet which simply were not sustainable. There was no second task force.