Argentina would invade Chile after The Falkland?

Discussions on other historical eras.
Post Reply
Leonardomiregi
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 09 Nov 2015, 02:39
Location: Brazil

Argentina would invade Chile after The Falkland?

#1

Post by Leonardomiregi » 09 Nov 2015, 02:51

Is true The the Military Junta had plans to invade Chile after The Falkland campaing?

Of course that the Argentians were 100% confident of the victory against GB, but would that be to risky to beacame a global conflit?

GB helping The Chileans
Brazil and Peru would probably be involved in The conflict
Bolívia always blames Chile for not having exit to The sea would probably get involved to

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Cristo Redentor de los Andes.

#2

Post by Robert Rojas » 27 May 2018, 00:53

Greetings to both citizen Leonardo Miregi and the community as a whole. Howdy Leonardo! Well sir, in reference to your introductory posting of Sunday - November 08, 2015 - 4:51am, it is the "understanding" of old yours truly that the governing military junta in Argentina were planning to seize the long disputed Chilean islands of Picton, Lennox and Nueva which are geographically situated at the South Atlantic Ocean entrance of the Beagle Channel in year 1978. Apparently, the Argentinian Junta was furious with the final decision of a BRITISH supervised Internationl Court of Arbitration to allow Chile to remain in control of the islands of Picton, Lennox and Nueva on May 22, 1977. The Argentinians were planning to initiate their coup de main on December 22, 1978 under the guise of Operation Soberania. Shortly before the scheduled launch of this operation, the Vatican intervened with a timely diplomatic initiative of its own which would ultimately grant Argentina maritime and economic concessions at the expense of Chile while Chile would remain in physical possession of the islands of Picton, Lennox and Nueva. The completed diplomatic understanding between Buenos Aires and Santiago was finalized in year 1984. Beyond the events of year 1978, I have no specific knowledge of any future Argentinian designs on Chilean territory. Now, with all of that said, I cannot imagine too many Chilean citizens crying elephant tears over Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri's subsequent merde de toro in the Falkland Islands in year 1982. Finally, I would like remind both you and your disparate readership that there is a quite poignant statue of Jesus Christ that straddles the mountainous border of Argentina and Chile. The name of this statue is CHRIST THE REDEEMER OF THE ANDES. At the base of this statue is the following apropos inscription: SOONER SHALL THESE MOUNTAINS CRUMBLE INTO DUST THAN CHILEANS AND ARGENTINIANS BREAK THE PEACE WHICH AT THE FEET OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER THEY HAVE SWORN TO MAINTAIN. That sounds like sage wisdom to me. Well, that's my two initial cents worth but very far from my last two cents worth on this distinctly Western Hemispheric topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in the ever exotic land of Brazil.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee


User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Cristo Redentor de los Andes.

#3

Post by Robert Rojas » 27 May 2018, 06:08

Greetings to both citizen Leonardo Miregi and the community as a whole. Howdy Leonardo! Well sir, as an addendum to your introductory posting of Sunday - November 08, 3025 - 4:51pm, old yours truly is not at all certain how to broach your subsequent inquiries gravitating upon the potential participation of additional South American nation states into the regionalization of the Falklands Island War in year 1982. I will be happy to entertain whatever hypothetical scenario that might tickle your fancy, but I would require a bit more material to work with before I sail off into the unknowns of topical escalation. Now, unbeknownst to you, since the inception of the Axis History Forum in year 2002, there have been a fair number of threads dealing with both the actual Falklands Island War of 1982 and hypothetical variations of the Falklands Island War of 1982. Now, before you engage your computer keyboard, It might not be a terribly bad idea if you perused a sampling of these disparate topics to gain an intuitive "FEEL" for the extended community's overall world view of the Falklands Island War of 1982. You will find, much to your personal discomfort, that offering a dissenting point-of-view from the accepted and expected norm of British invincibility will inevitably result in a torrent of much colorful derision. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this expansive topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day down in the ever exotic land of Brazil.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Argentina would invade Chile after The Falkland?

#4

Post by South » 27 May 2018, 16:58

Good morning all,

Whenever discussing military conflicts in South and Central America, never, ever, ever forget the PANAMA CANAL.

Place the ditch on the top of the index card next to Roman-numeral I.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Feet Notes:

1. Forgot what happened to Naval Station Rodman
2. Forgot what happened to Howard AFB

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Cristo Redentor de los Andes.

#5

Post by Robert Rojas » 27 May 2018, 22:20

Greetings to both brother South and the community as a whole. Howdy Bob! Well sir, in light of your installment of Sunday - May 27, 2018 - 6:58am, old yours truly will heartily concur with your geopolitical sentiments concerning the strategic importance of the Republic of Panama and the canal that bisects it. The world, as we all presently know it, would certainly acquire a very different complexion if the Panama Canal had never existed. I also suspect that the very same commentary could also be made about the Suez Canal. Of particular annoyance to Uncle Bob was the United States of America's relinquishment and subsequent demilitarization of the Panama Canal Zone itself. I need not tell you what the consequences might be for both global commerce and the maritime security for the entire Western Hemisphere if the physical control of the Panama Canal fell into "unfriendly" hands. Of equal annoyance to old Uncle Bob has been the benign neglect demonstrated by both successive Democrat and Republican administrations in regards to the total modernization of the existing Panama Canal OR in the engagement of a Herculean effort to design and construct a SEA LEVEL Panama Canal that is VERY DEEP and VERY WIDE and VERY STRAIGHT. The physical size constraints of the world's contemporary commercial shipping (super tankers, container vessels and cruise ships) and fleet aircraft carriers of the United States of America and France clearly dictate the necessity for such an alternative approach to the Isthmus of Panama. The financial cost you ask!? Well, I will NOT broach that highly contentious aspect to the equation - at least for the time being anyway. One just has to ask about how many trillions of dollars have been expended across the greater Islamic Crescent since year 2001. Enough said! Well, that's may latest two cents worth on this Western Hemispheric topic of interest - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in the Old Dominion that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Argentina would invade Chile after The Falkland?

#6

Post by South » 28 May 2018, 01:17

Good afternoon Uncle Bob,

I do believe there are non-Panamanian hands.....can't make judgment if hands are friendly or unfriendly......managing portions of the Panama Canal. The basic ports management is by Hutchinson Whampoa. They handle both sides of the canal. Another non-Panamanian company, Landbridge Group, manages Margareta Port.

Concur about Suez Canal - although believe Suez is semi-safe because China runs Piraeus/Athens port and Suez is part of the network.

I've heard of "talk" re a sea-level canal through Nicaragua.

Financing these projects ? My guess is that anything arriving at the Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia, will have costs incorporating the projects. I am guessing that other places will also participate in financing these projects.

Can't discuss aircraft carrier "needs". This is real current-events !


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Argentina would invade Chile after The Falkland?

#7

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 May 2018, 09:04

Hi Roberto,

There can be no such thing as a "British supervised International Court of Arbitration". If it were "British-supervised" it wouldn't be "international".

Besides, didn't the fact that the mutually agreed "neutral" Vatican largely found in favour of Chile rather confirm the impariality of the International Court of Arbitration?

More generally, every General Staff with any professionalism will have contingency plans against conflict with its neighbours, but this does not necessarily mean they have a political will to use them.

Victory in the Falklands might have made the Galtieri government so confident that it risked war with Chile to resolve the dispute over the islands, but, while the Galtieri Government was guilty of many sins, it cannot be held accountable for things it did not do.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE Cristo Redentor de los Andes.

#8

Post by Robert Rojas » 30 May 2018, 02:04

Greetings to both citizen Sid Guttridge and the community as a whole. Howdy Sid! Well sir, in deference to your point OR points-of-view as articulated within your posting of Monday - May 28, 2018 - 11:04pm, old yours truly will be the first to acknowledge that my "expertise" in the science of state craft is often found wanting. Now, since I am NOT a Juris Doctor by professional training, I will also duly concede that my technical knowledge of the bureaucratic machinations of either the International Court of Justice in The Hague or the United Nations Organizations in New York is also found to be more than quite wanting. Now, it is not a great concern of mine how any International Tribunal is selected, organized or lead, but with most institutions, there is usually a CHAIR who ultimately passes a judgement. I guess it is merely coincidental that the CHAIR of the arbitration in question also happened to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. Until today, I never new that anyone in United Kingdom could retain dual citizenship also under the creative guise of CITIZEN OF THE WORLD. Thank you for setting myself straight on this weighty matter of transnational jurisprudence. And yes, the intervention of the HOLY SEE ostensibly reconfirmed the overall judgement of the International Court of Arbitration. I believe it was akin to getting a second opinion from your trusted parish priest over that of a not so trusted barrister. In short, it is a case where moral authority clearly carries more weight than prescribed legal authority. As you undoubtedly are aware, the nihilism of the two military juntas notwithstanding, both Argentina and Chile are decidedly Roman Catholic in their theological outlook. Incidentally, I also whole heartedly concur with your assertion that ANY General Staff worth its salt will have contingency plans to deal with any eventuality with its neighbors, but they SHOULD NEVER HAVE the political will to use them. The exercise of that POLITICAL WILL is the sole perview of elected civilian officials. Finally, I have more than my fair share of reservations about the likelihood of ANY armed aggression initiated by Buenos Aires against Santiago. After his pyrrhic "victory" in the Falkland Islands in year 1982, Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri will have his hands amply full dealing with both wholesale domestic discontent and mending his badly damaged relationship with the Reagan administration. Well, that's my latest two cents worth on this topic into the not so hypothetical - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you a copacetic day no matter where you might happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”