CIA planned to return Falklands to Argentina

In Argentina maybe but not South America as a whole.

The US government had made plans to loan an aircraft carrier to the task force had one of ours been lost at sea. They gave us fuel for the task force, sidewinder for the harriers and Stinger manpads too. In fact as far as I know the first time a stinger was actually used in war time was by the SAS. The CIA also gave us sigint and satelitte images of enemy positions (and stopped the Paras running head on into larger forces than expected as a result). It is strange but not surprising that there was such a large difference of opinion between the government of America and the CIA.

I dI'd read a few years back that one of the big driving forces behind American and later French help was due to a leak about Thatchers intention to use a Polaris Nuke against Argentinas biggest navalue base.

Think it was in the Telegraph but I can't be sure.

originally posted by: SprocketUKleak about Thatchers intention to use a Polaris Nuke against Argentinas biggest navalue base..

Wow Fake news even back then?


I give the chances of that being true 1 x 10^80 ......in other words not...

NO WAY........

a reply to: edsinger

It was one of those 30 yr rule things I think.

More like her exploring options than genuinely intending to but you know her reputation. Maybe no one wanted to see if she would really do it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Maybe no one wanted to see if she would really do it.

Well that makes me think, maybe you are right about that. She could have let the idea slip and see if it got back to the Argentinians.

Hahaha Prior to 1982, your average Joe blow from England had never heard of the Falklands. Nowadays, you'd have an even harder time taking it away from us. Not by the hairs on my chinny chin chin.

It's like giving Hawaii to ISIS. It's never going to happen. EVER.

Now, you can say what you want, but I know many lads my age had fathers or family members fight there and still have fists clench at the thought of an Argentinian. I'm sure they are nice people. But don't even think of stepping what is ours.

We have and will travel 1000's of miles to come and kick your ass.

originally posted by: edsinger

originally posted by: SprocketUKleak about Thatchers intention to use a Polaris Nuke against Argentinas biggest navalue base..

Wow Fake news even back then?


I give the chances of that being true 1 x 10^80 ......in other words not...

NO WAY........

I also remember that too. Some people said it was a psychological war tactic. There was a lot of panic between the population in Buenos Aires. They thought the British were about start with bombardments over the city.

a reply to: crazyewok

AGREED.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Hahaha Prior to 1982, your average Joe blow from England had never heard of the Falklands. Nowadays, you'd have an even harder time taking it away from us. Not by the hairs on my chinny chin chin.

It's like giving Hawaii to ISIS. It's never going to happen. EVER.

Now, you can say what you want, but I know many lads my age had fathers or family members fight there and still have fists clench at the thought of an Argentinian. I'm sure they are nice people. But don't even think of stepping what is ours.

We have and will travel 1000's of miles to come and kick your ass.

That is not the topic. We are discussing a CIA document.

It's unclear when the memos were written. It's obviously after the invasion but before the islands were recovered by the British. My best guess is that they were written during the "shuttle diplomacy" period which US Secretary of State Al Haig undertook in mid/late April 1982.

You had to "be there" to understand what was going on. Despite having Reagan and Thatcher in the driving seats, the US State Department and UK Foreign Office seem to operate to their own agendas. Both regarded the Falkland Islands as a tiresome annoyance, a trivial post colonial issue of little consequence. After all, this was during a period when the Cold War was getting decidedly chillier and when a general war with the Warsaw Pact looked like a real possibility.

The British were giving mixed messages about the islands future before the invasion. The regular ice patrol ship was going to be withdrawn, the 1981 Defence Review also planned to scrap one aircraft carrier (Hermes) and sell the other (Invincible) to Australia. The two new British carriers (illustrious and Ark Royal) were then intended to cover anti submarine duties in the North Atlantic.

And the Foreign Office had been trying to dispose of the islands for years previously. Hardly surprising, then, that the Argentine government took advantage.

I doubt either the Foreign Office or State Department had any plans for an invasion, as the Ministry of Defence had no plans in place to recover the islands either. So policy was quickly made on the hoof once the islands were taken.

I don't put much significance on these documents. They were written at a time when the British fleet was on route to the islands and when both sides still wanted to avoid conflict. A discussion document, ideas being floated, that kind of thing.

Al Haig's diplomatic mission was a complete failure. He consistently underestimated Thatcher's intention to recover the islands and, by trying to negotiate with a military dictatorship in Argentina, gave them the impression that the British were less resolved to re-take the Falklands than they actually were. This was one mis-step which contributed to Al Haig leaving office.

US equivocation on the issue and the fence sitting of the State Department caused great offence in the UK and could've led to the cancellation of Reagan's later 1982 state visit to the UK, especially had hostilities dragged on or if the outcome been unfavourable to UK.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

This country CAN no longer afford to play that kind of game with ALLIES.

a reply to: Freeborn

I remember following any news of the Falkland's war daily as a kid, reading everything I could find. I was so proud of the Brits. It was in the middle of the cold war, and Argentina was in the Russian sphere of influence ... in the 1980's. It was a ray of hope, in the Reagan/Thatcher years ... and it gave me something more conventional to distract from my fear of total global thermonuclear war....

a reply to: Trueman

That is not the topic. We are discussing a CIA document.

Yep, yes it is. Plus America has nothing to do with the Falklands or British interests when it comes to the Falklands.

I notice the yanks didn't climb into any boats to lend a hand? Including the concerned CIA.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoada reply to: FreebornArgentina was in the Russian sphere of influence ... in the 1980's.

I am not to sure about that...

No Russian equipment, nothing. Actually more aligned with the US.....

a reply to: LABTECH767


Don't often agree with you LABTECH767 but well put

When I have simulated this 'action', if the Argentinians would have had more Exocet's, this could have turned out vastly different. The Brits would have still won but the cost would have been vastly higher. I think they only had 11 of them.

When you see A-4s dropping iron bombs on ships you know they were down to the last vestige of a chance.

They were some good pilots, but with the AIM9L's and the highly trained Brit pilots, they did not stand much of a chance.

Here is some fun for those that are interested,

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Trueman

citation required for premise # 3 :

" an ultimate turnover of the islands to argentine sovereignty as the british are said to be prepared and have been prepared for some time to do "

that sir // madame is utter bollox

Now, yes. At the time, however, if the Argies had kept their great flapping mouths shut and their ships in port, the UK government was considering letting the Falklands go.

Once foreign boots landed on British soil, it became a matter of principle. Britain was prepared to give away territory, but hell would freeze over before it would let some piss-poor Spanish wannabes take it.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
piss-poor Spanish wannabes take it.

Ouch a bit hostile eh?

Well I was for the Brits in this case but I hold the governments at fault for the conflict not the peoples. Once it started however the nationalistic fervor started and there was no stopping it on both sides. Maybe one day they can all be friends?


I mean we are now allies with them darn redcoats now right?





I had to get one of these,



Then again it has lost 75% of its value since I bought it, but I thought it neat as the Argentinians still have not got over it. Still have some Typhoons there I bet. Now also there might be oil.

a reply to: edsinger

Maybe one day they can all be friends?

You may or may not be aware but it is suspected that there are large oil deposits in the territorial waters surrounding The Falklands.

The UK offered Argentina a full and equal partnership locating, extracting and refining these oil deposits.
The UK would have funded all development costs including a brand new oil refinery on the Argentinian mainland.

If proven successful this would provide a massive boost to the constantly ailing Argentinian economy.
It would also have resulted in improved relationships between the two governments and the Islanders and the Argentinian people.
Who knows how this might have panned out in the future.

Unfortunately the then President Kirchner dismissed the offer outright and preferred to exploit and manipulate the Argentinian people in order to increase her own profile on the international stage and deflect from her many domestic failings.

It seems every single Argentinian administration seeks to use the Falklands issue in such a manner rather than putting the interests and well being of the Argentinian people first.

And the source of this supposed plan is?

I really have a hard time believing this was even a serious plan. Given the close relationship between the US and Great Britain.

As I understand it, intelligence was given Britain, by the US, concerning Argentine military plans/movements prior to the war.

This makes no sense to me what so ever...