Carter and the Falklands War

Assuming that Jimmy Carter, riding a successful Eagle Claw, or other vehicle for a win over Reagan, won a second term.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how he would handle the Falkland islands War?
Thanks!
 
Carter was all about human rights, so there's no way his administration would help a bloodthirsty junta like Argentina's. The war would go as it did IOTL.
 
"First we will kill all the subversives; then we will kill their collaborators; afterwards their sympathizers; right after that, those who remain neutral; and, finally, we will kill the fainthearted"
--Brig. Gen. Ibérico Saint-Jean
the conflict with Britain was in fact Plan B, due to Chile's ginormous border that meant BA had to settle the Beagle Conflict after it almost went "hot"
 
Last edited:
Carter was all about human rights, so there's no way his administration would help a bloodthirsty junta like Argentina's. The war would go as it did IOTL.
Right--but would he be more aggressive in helping Britain, or simply loom over Argentina with a Big Stick?
And getting Jeane Kirkpatrick out of the equation is not going to help the Junta...
Right!
the conflict with Britain was in fact Plan B, due to Chile's ginormous border that meant BA had to settle the Beagle Conflict after it almost went "hot"
I wonder if Argentina would be inclined to think that they could get away with the Falklands invasion without Kirkpatrick around, and a president that cared more about human rights.
 
I wonder if Argentina would be inclined to think that they could get away with the Falklands invasion without Kirkpatrick around, and a president that cared more about human rights.
The war was a desperate final gamble, so I could see the junta still invading anyway. Plus, Thatcher will still cut defense spending.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
The war was a desperate final gamble, so I could see the junta still invading anyway. Plus, Thatcher will still cut defense spending.
Yes, but the Reagan administration used the Argentinian Military for its proxy wars in Centro America. This brought the Argentinian Army very close to the Pentagon. Galtieri had a lot of personal relations in Washington and this not being is surely going to affect the equation.
 
Yes, but the Reagan administration used the Argentinian Military for its proxy wars in Centro America. This brought the Argentinian Army very close to the Pentagon. Galtieri had a lot of personal relations in Washington and this not being is surely going to affect the equation.
As if I didn't have enough reasons to dislike the man already.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
If you love old tv series I strongly recommend you Lou Grant. An Spin off about an Californian Newspaper I loved. Just seek why it was cancelled (not in the modern sense, in the old you are fired one)

Edited to add


washingtonpost.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com › ...
Goodbye, Lou Grant - The Washington Post

 
Last edited:
Carter would be very bad for the British. His focus would be trying to end the war, not for the British to win it. I doubt the U.S. would've provided the logistical support it gave Britain. After an initial effort at mediation the U.S. was all in helping Britain. The U.S. shared satellite intel, provided Stinger Missiles, and rushed AIM-9L Sidewinders to the RN Harrier Fleet. Without that help the war would've been a lot harder. 21 of 23 Harrier kills were achieved with the new AIM-9L which was far more lethal than the earlier models than in use.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the Reagan administration used the Argentinian Military for its proxy wars in Centro America. This brought the Argentinian Army very close to the Pentagon. Galtieri had a lot of personal relations in Washington and this not being is surely going to affect the equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charly they were the first to try and wrangle together the (and that meant the advantage of keeping Operation Condor's hangmen several countries away whenever a White House or UN delegation came by)

Argentinean Navy officers also collected ransom money for people they knew had already been murdered back home, ran assassinations from the Embassy in Paris, and even freed Peronists to sabotage Gibraltar (though they were arrested by the Spanish and taken to a bar)
 

Ramontxo

Donor
By the way I am usually accused of being an old Conservative, and to be true so I am. And still I hate the night Reagan defeated Carter (and, not only because of it, I am addicted to @NHBL "The Masquerade Thread II")
(If you think modern times are nasty you should have to remember the Seventies and Eighties)
 
Last edited:

Ramontxo

Donor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charly they were the first to try and wrangle together the (and that meant the advantage of keeping Operation Condor's hangmen several countries away whenever a White House or UN delegation came by)

Argentinean Navy officers also collected ransom money for people they knew had already been murdered back home, ran assassinations from the Embassy in Paris, and even freed Peronists to sabotage Gibraltar (though they were arrested by the Spanish and taken to a bar)
They were quietly put in plane back home
 
We may be over stating the relationship of the Regain administration a bit, the Falklands war happened about 14 months after Ragain took office so it is not like they had been working with Argentina for 5-7 years or something.

And I find it pretty funny that folks tging that Carter would do anything significant to help GB. That administration did do much to help its own citizens that were seized out of its own embassy. Do you really think that it will do anything active or that it will be able to intimidate anyone?
 
Carter would be very bad for the British. His focus would be trying to end the war, not for the British to win it. I doubt the U.S. would've provided the logistical support it gave Britain. After an initial effort at mediation the U.S. was all in helping Britain. The U.S. shared satellite intel, provided Stinger Missiles, and rushed AIM-9L Sidewinders to the RN Harrier Fleet. Without that help the war would've been a lot harder. 21 of 23 Harrier kills were achieved with the new AIM-9L which was far more lethal than the earlier model than in use.
At the end of the day we are still talking about NATO airstrip one in 1982....UK would presumably get given the toys (testing is always usefully anyway for US as well) by the pentagon who ever was in the White House?
 
Last edited:
I'm asking this for use in my timeline, The Masquerade, and looking for a baseline based on OTL, which I will use to help plan for events in the other timeline.
Carter did try to use force to get the hostages back, but failed.
 
By the way I am usually accused of being and old Conservative, and to be true so I am. And still I hate the night Reagan defeated Carter (and, not only because of it, I am addicted to @NHBL "The Masquerade Thread II")
(If you think modern times are nasty you should have to remember the Seventies and Eighties)
More of that coming...Muses have been good, and I posted on three timelines in 2 days. Thanks
 
Top