Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Are you saying that the Argentinians didn't expect a military reaction? I suppose they thought it highly unlikely, but in military intelligence, one must look at enemy capabilities instead of trying to divine enemy intentions.
|
True, but the British had given some indication of their intentions. The lone warship down there, HMS Endurance, was due for retirement later in 1982. One or both of their carriers was nearly sold to India (or was it Australia?). There was a negotiating team in place to talk about transfer of the islands. Unfortunately, there was some dust-up between some scrappers, and Argentinian sub, and some Marines on South Georgia-- I forget the details, but it spooked the Argentinians into jumping the gun and launching the invasion.
Quote:
|
The British had the capability of sending a military task force to retake the Falklands and the Argies knew this. Failing to take the possibility seriously was a colossal mistake. My argument is that, if they'd taken the possibility seriously, they could have prepared a welcome that would have stood a very good chance of securing a strategic victory.
|
A better way to "win" would have been to wait 6-12 months, and then walk in when the British couldn't have done a darn thing about it. If they had timed it closer to the Antarctic winter, they would have had the weather to support them. The Royal Navy was very anxious to avoid operations in the winter, as hard on ships and planes.
[quote] I contend that the Argentinians were taking a gamble, hoping and praying that the British would not be willing to expend the blood and treasure necessary to win back a strategically insignificant imperial afterthought. Clearly, they miscalculated badly. But, the possibility of a British military response was an obvious possibility. It didn't/doesn't take hindsight to come to that conclusion. [\quote]
Agreed.
Quote:
|
I'm arguing that if the Argies had played smarter, they could have won the war.
|
Agreed.