It is true that Reagan supported the Argentine generals politically during their Dirty War against leftists. This may have encouraged them to think the US would not support the UK if they attacked the Falklands.
They were wrong.
Confronting the Soviets during the Cold War was a much bigger concern than a little local difficulty in the South Atlantic over a few small islands. The UK and US saw the world in much the same way during that period and the relationship was very strong throughout the Reagan-Thatcher years.
‘Europe’ isnt a political entity and most of it would not consider closer military ties with a currently aggressive state like Russia a good thing. I do think it should invest more in its defense however.
Hawaii is a US state with a substantial population density and home to one of the main US Naval bases in the Pacific; perhaps you’ve heard of it, it’s called Pearl Harbor. It’s also home to a major US Army base at Schofield Barracks which has housed the 25th Infantry division since before WWII. The Falklands are a couple of rocks and are mostly the home to sheep with the total human population of the islands coming to a whopping 2,932. Thatcher making a comparison to Alaska and the Russians was deliberate hyperbole to make a political point on her part; calling a comparison with Hawaii and Japan more accurate on your part is knocking hyperbole into deep space orbit. As others have already noted, you are entirely wrong in claiming the US showed extreme reluctance to even side with Britain, let alone provide any material assistance. What you seem to be mis-recalling is this:
There were members of the Reagan administration that supported the Argentines over the UK with regard to the Falklands, in particular Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick. But other members prevailed, and ultimately the administration tilted toward the UK, especially once Argentina invaded.
Personally I’m preparing to colonize Mars. Preparing to loan a ship would be helpful the moment the ship was loaned. Meanwhile Alexander Haig, US foreign minister, worked on a “compromise” which would have transferred sovereignty of the islands to the Argentines, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US ambassador to the UN, directly sided with the Argentine junta (for which the British called her “more foolish than fascist” - which would have been a close call since she had a wet spot for right wing tyrannies), calling the British insistence on sovereignty colonial anachronism. Reagan himself favored a neutral position, which only later in the conflict was nudged a bit towards the Brits, although actual support remained on the whole symbolic. Thatcher herself noted to Reagan that Britain had been forced to “act alone, with no outside help.” Probably she was not moved to say this by feeling overwhelmed by US support.
The population of Hawaii in 1943 was around 0.3% of the total US population, the Hawaii economy is about 0.4% of the USA economy, and the size about 0.2% of US total size. I think you’ll manage without. I proposed Hawaii over Alaska because it’s a much smaller territory and they are islands far away from the mainland. But whatever.
Good luck with that. I’m sure when the real chips are down that Europe will be able to rely on itself and it’s Russian allies MUCH better than it has for the past 60 years on the US because we didn’t send in troops and planes to help the UK fight for the Falklands…
What on earth does the year 1943 have to do with anything? Thatcher’s point in her analogy was that Britain considered the Falklands to be theirs, nothing more and nothing less. Your proposal that Hawaii being seized by Japan works better because it’s a much smaller territory and islands far away from the mainland and that the US would manage without it beggars the imagination. Hawaii has twice the population of Alaska. Hawaii has a population of over 1.4 million, a population density of 188.6 persons per square mile and has enormous strategic value. The Falkland Islands have a population of 2,932, a population density of 0.65/sq mi and has not had any strategic value since ships stopped being coal-fired. Its population is about 0.00004% of the total population of the UK.
Exactly, and the comparison is entirely absurd.
She was an honest to god, dyed in the wool pacifist who had also voted against going to war in WWI. As you can imagine, voting no on the declaration of war against Japan cost her her political career.
I don’t think the comparison had anything to do with the land area, population density or strategic value. Nor did the Falklands response.
If Japan had invaded a territory of less population density and strategic value, do you think the US would have shrugged and accepted that Japan could carve off a piece of America?
If only because a successful invasion of Hawaii would mean Japan had far greater capabilities than she had in our timeline.
It took the Japanese two goes to successfully capture Wake Island, there’s no way they could have landed sufficient forces to take any of the islands of Hawaii.
Although the force that attacked PH was fairly massive and they acheived a solute.suprise. it was an amazing feat. I agree that an invasion would not have succeeded.
I’m sure when the real chips are down that Europe will be able to rely on itself and it’s Russian allies MUCH better than it has for the past 60 years on the US because we didn’t send in troops and planes to help the UK fight for the Falklands…