Let's say that the UK simply let Argentina have the Falklands that it seized in 1982

[Colibri]

@madsircool

Although the force that attacked PH was fairly massive and they acheived a solute.suprise.

It was small compared to what an invasion would have needed. The Japanese fleet included 30 ships, including supply ships (but not counting submarines). The US fleet that invaded Iwo Jima contained 450 ships.

[TokyoBayer]

nm

[TokyoBayer]

@Rune

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.

You didn’t respond the my quote which showed that the US provided a large amount of material supply. Can to comment?

@Colibri

It was small compared to what an invasion would have needed. The Japanese fleet included 30 ships, including supply ships (but not counting submarines). The US fleet that invaded Iwo Jima contained 450 ships.

We just did this.

There’s no way they could have invaded. They didn’t have enough tankers for a larger fleet, for starters.

[notquitekarpov]

@Colibri

It was small compared to what an invasion would have needed. The Japanese fleet included 30 ships, including supply ships (but not counting submarines). The US fleet that invaded Iwo Jima contained 450 ships.

This.

It has been extensively wargamed and was beyond the capabilities of the Japanese sea-lift capability to undertake in addition to seizing the South East Asian resources of Malayan rubber and Dutch East Indian oil which were absolutely required to fight a war at all.

Pearl Harbor was viewed as a pre-emptive strike, there was no economic reason to invade Hawaii. Seizing their ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ was both urgent and essential. Disabling the US Pacific Fleet was jam. Anything else was beyond them.

[Jackmannii]

Will Gibraltar be the next colonial territory that the U.K. gives up?

[silenus]

Not if the residents of the rock have any say in the matter.

[Nema98]

Nothing inherently bad or wrong with the Falkland Islands becoming part of Argentina.

Now to answer your question precisely, yes had the war taken a drastic different course, things would have looked grim for Thatcher. Had Britain under her leadership gave back to islands to Argentine rule, I don’t know if it would have been for Maggie’s government. Really up in the air.

[carnivorousplant]

It would have also been grim for the British folks who live there.

[Grim_Render]

@Nema98

Nothing inherently bad or wrong with the Falkland Islands becoming part of Argentina.

Except for, you know, the fact that none of the inhabitants wanted to join Argentina. And giving away the inhabitants of a democracy to a third-world junta that tortures and murders its own population is probably as close to “bad” and “wrong” as you can get.

What do you think would have happened to the population if the “dirty war” junta had kept the islands?

[Baron_Greenback]

@Nema98

Nothing inherently bad or wrong with the Falkland Islands becoming part of Argentina.

Yeah, invaded by a military dictatorship is just a mere detail for the inhabitants.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Nema98

Had Britain under her leadership gave back to islands to Argentine rule, I don’t know if it would have been for Maggie’s government. Really up in the air.

“Gave back”? OK.

[lisiate]

Reported, even though it should be a great game to watch.