James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 18, 2019 19:48:39 GMT
Belize was a British colony on its way to independence at the beginning of the 80s.
Guatemala had a claim to it as dubious as Argentina had to the Falklands; there were no oppressed Guatemalans there and the claim was all about some old maps from some empire long ago etc. In Guatemala, the regime there was busy fighting a nasty civil war against its own people and a foreign distraction would likely have done them 'good'. Britain meanwhile was handholding Belize towards independence to get rid of the economic cost. Most of that process was in UN hands though there were British forces there - and have bene on and off since - to ensure that Guatemala stays out.
Belize wasn't full of Britons like the Falklands nor was it really British territory.
Let us say Guatemala invades right ahead of independence in September 1981. They'd clash with the British who were still there, no way around that was possible.
Does Britain go to war to liberate Belize? Can Guatemala fight off a counter-invasion? Does the US sit on its hands as Guatemala and Britain are both allies - in different ways, in different ideological conflicts - or get involved too?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 18, 2019 19:56:04 GMT
Belize was a British colony on its way to independence at the beginning of the 80s. Guatemala had a claim to it as dubious as Argentina had to the Falklands; there were no oppressed Guatemalans there and the claim was all about some old maps from some empire long ago etc. In Guatemala, the regime there was busy fighting a nasty civil war against its own people and a foreign distraction would likely have done them 'good'. Britain meanwhile was handholding Belize towards independence to get rid of the economic cost. Most of that process was in UN hands though there were British forces there - and have bene on and off since - to ensure that Guatemala stays out. Belize wasn't full of Britons like the Falklands nor was it really British territory. Let us say Guatemala invades right ahead of independence in September 1981. They'd clash with the British who were still there, no way around that was possible. Does Britain go to war to liberate Belize? Can Guatemala fight off a counter-invasion? Does the US sit on its hands as Guatemala and Britain are both allies - in different ways, in different ideological conflicts - or get involved too? I would think so, they did a show of force in 1972 with HMS Ark Royal, this time I think they will send in more than a single carrier and also it will not be a show of force but a real war. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 18, 2019 21:47:58 GMT
Belize was a British colony on its way to independence at the beginning of the 80s. Guatemala had a claim to it as dubious as Argentina had to the Falklands; there were no oppressed Guatemalans there and the claim was all about some old maps from some empire long ago etc. In Guatemala, the regime there was busy fighting a nasty civil war against its own people and a foreign distraction would likely have done them 'good'. Britain meanwhile was handholding Belize towards independence to get rid of the economic cost. Most of that process was in UN hands though there were British forces there - and have bene on and off since - to ensure that Guatemala stays out. Belize wasn't full of Britons like the Falklands nor was it really British territory. Let us say Guatemala invades right ahead of independence in September 1981. They'd clash with the British who were still there, no way around that was possible. Does Britain go to war to liberate Belize? Can Guatemala fight off a counter-invasion? Does the US sit on its hands as Guatemala and Britain are both allies - in different ways, in different ideological conflicts - or get involved too? I would think so, they did a show of force in 1972 with HMS Ark Royal, this time I think they will send in more than a single carrier and also it will not be a show of force but a real war. I didn't know about 1972. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2019 6:34:36 GMT
I would think so, they did a show of force in 1972 with HMS Ark Royal, this time I think they will send in more than a single carrier and also it will not be a show of force but a real war. I didn't know about 1972. From Ark Royal Wikipedia page: In 1972, the Buccaneers aboard Ark Royal took part in a long-range strike mission over British Honduras in Central America shortly before its independence as a constitutional monarchy named Her Majesty's Government of Belize to deter a possible Guatemalan invasion, who had long-standing territorial claims. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 19, 2019 8:19:35 GMT
Belize was a British colony on its way to independence at the beginning of the 80s. Guatemala had a claim to it as dubious as Argentina had to the Falklands; there were no oppressed Guatemalans there and the claim was all about some old maps from some empire long ago etc. In Guatemala, the regime there was busy fighting a nasty civil war against its own people and a foreign distraction would likely have done them 'good'. Britain meanwhile was handholding Belize towards independence to get rid of the economic cost. Most of that process was in UN hands though there were British forces there - and have bene on and off since - to ensure that Guatemala stays out. Belize wasn't full of Britons like the Falklands nor was it really British territory. Let us say Guatemala invades right ahead of independence in September 1981. They'd clash with the British who were still there, no way around that was possible. Does Britain go to war to liberate Belize? Can Guatemala fight off a counter-invasion? Does the US sit on its hands as Guatemala and Britain are both allies - in different ways, in different ideological conflicts - or get involved too?
I think popular opinion would have forced Britain to fight. The Belize weren't full citizens like with the Falklands but they were still under British rule and faced with an invasion by a brutal dictatorship it would have been an issue of pride. Also a clear threat to the rule of law as established after 1945. True Belize didn't have oil like Kuwait but there were other examples, such as neighbouring nations stepping in to prevent border changes after Ida Amin's disastrous war with Tanzania and also that while El Salvador 'won' the football war similarly there was a determination to prevent any border changes. With the Soviet empire still powerful in the east I doubt anybody in the western alliance would have wanted to allow a presidence to be established. Plus of course Thatcher's polices had already made her very unpopular with the massed unemployment and other policies so a quick victorious foreign war would be attractive to her as well and somewhat obscure her deep naval cuts - although the latter may have to change as a result.
The two interesting questions are: a) How does the scenario end? Guatemala borders Belize and has a much larger population so event if it was occupied and a democratic government installed I'm not sure the problem would go away.
b) What does the junta in Argentina do? Are they deterred by a British military response to defend Belize or do they see Britain weakened by battle losses and probably a significantly increased longer term deployment of forces to Belize? Possibly they might even jump in immediately, deciding that Britain can't face two simultaneous crisis?
Since Belize is part of the Commonwealth and other members in the region have challenges to their independence I wonder if other Caribbean states might help out, either in the initial conflict or protecting it afterwards and also if there might be an attempt to reform a Confederation of the Commonwealth states in the Caribbean and Mexican Gulf.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2019 9:30:18 GMT
I do wonder if Guatemala is able to deploy enough resources to invade Belize as it is also suffering from the Guatemalan Civil War.
Taking a look the Guatemalan Air Force had in 1981 the following:
10 Cessna A-37 Dragonflys (can be armed).
4 Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars (can be armed).
12 Pilatus PC-7s (armed for combat).
1 DC-6 transport plane.
11 C-47 transport planes.
8 UH-1s helicopters (armed for combat).
8 Bell 206B civilian helicopters (armed for combat).
3 Aérospatiale Alouettes helicopters (armed for combat).
8 Arava IAI-201 twin engine transport aircraft (can be fitted with rocket pods).
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 19, 2019 10:04:19 GMT
I do wonder if Guatemala is able to deploy enough resources to invade Belize as it is also suffering from the Guatemalan Civil War. Taking a look the Guatemalan Air Force had in 1981 the following: 10 Cessna A-37 Dragonflys (can be armed). 4 Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars (can be armed). 12 Pilatus PC-7s (armed for combat). 1 DC-6 transport plane. 11 C-47 transport planes. 8 UH-1s helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Bell 206B civilian helicopters (armed for combat). 3 Aérospatiale Alouettes helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Arava IAI-201 twin engine transport aircraft (can be fitted with rocket pods). There were four or six RAF Harriers detached to Belize. While not operated like Sea Harriers did in the Falklands as interceptors, they'd be a complicated opponent to face. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2019 10:30:32 GMT
I do wonder if Guatemala is able to deploy enough resources to invade Belize as it is also suffering from the Guatemalan Civil War. Taking a look the Guatemalan Air Force had in 1981 the following: 10 Cessna A-37 Dragonflys (can be armed). 4 Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars (can be armed). 12 Pilatus PC-7s (armed for combat). 1 DC-6 transport plane. 11 C-47 transport planes. 8 UH-1s helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Bell 206B civilian helicopters (armed for combat). 3 Aérospatiale Alouettes helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Arava IAI-201 twin engine transport aircraft (can be fitted with rocket pods). There were four or six RAF Harriers detached to Belize. While not operated like Sea Harriers did in the Falklands as interceptors, they'd be a complicated opponent to face. They and whatever the RAF ore RN can send to Belize will be able to dominate the skies over bothe Belize and Guatemala. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 19, 2019 14:53:59 GMT
I do wonder if Guatemala is able to deploy enough resources to invade Belize as it is also suffering from the Guatemalan Civil War. Taking a look the Guatemalan Air Force had in 1981 the following: 10 Cessna A-37 Dragonflys (can be armed). 4 Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars (can be armed). 12 Pilatus PC-7s (armed for combat). 1 DC-6 transport plane. 11 C-47 transport planes. 8 UH-1s helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Bell 206B civilian helicopters (armed for combat). 3 Aérospatiale Alouettes helicopters (armed for combat). 8 Arava IAI-201 twin engine transport aircraft (can be fitted with rocket pods). There were four or six RAF Harriers detached to Belize. While not operated like Sea Harriers did in the Falklands as interceptors, they'd be a complicated opponent to face.
I think the big problem would be what ground forces Guatemala would be committing to the invasion and what defensive forces they would face. If they can capture most of the colony before any aid can arrive its going to be more difficult liberating it as you would have to rely on basically an amphibious assault. Also given the amount of racism Britain faced in 1982 OTL you could see a number of the other Spanish speaking states in the region giving at least political and economic support to Guatemala. However I would expect that the Commonwealth nations would support any liberation, in part because they - generally being relatively small islands - would be vulnerable themselves if a precedent is set. This would include basing for air and naval forces if nothing else.
There is the question, since a right wing regime is suppressing radical elements, whether Britain might seek to support them? However given that both Britain and the US have pretty right wing governments I doubt that London would consider this or if they did that Washington would support such a move. Which is a pity as it would be one way to remove, at least for a while the Guatemalan claims and also to remove a government that could well be a continued threat.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2019 19:12:00 GMT
There were four or six RAF Harriers detached to Belize. While not operated like Sea Harriers did in the Falklands as interceptors, they'd be a complicated opponent to face. I think the big problem would be what ground forces Guatemala would be committing to the invasion and what defensive forces they would face. If they can capture most of the colony before any aid can arrive its going to be more difficult liberating it as you would have to rely on basically an amphibious assault. Also given the amount of racism Britain faced in 1982 OTL you could see a number of the other Spanish speaking states in the region giving at least political and economic support to Guatemala. However I would expect that the Commonwealth nations would support any liberation, in part because they - generally being relatively small islands - would be vulnerable themselves if a precedent is set. This would include basing for air and naval forces if nothing else. There is the question, since a right wing regime is suppressing radical elements, whether Britain might seek to support them? However given that both Britain and the US have pretty right wing governments I doubt that London would consider this or if they did that Washington would support such a move. Which is a pity as it would be one way to remove, at least for a while the Guatemalan claims and also to remove a government that could well be a continued threat.
Here are some interesting links. Guatemala's armed forces 1972a US defense intelligence report 1985So I did some searching and the Guatemala special forces who most surely would be in the foreground of a invasion would as far as I can tell made up of: PARACAIDISTAS: 1 Parachute Battalion made up of the 1st Paratrooper Company, the 2nd Pentagono Paratroop Riflemen Company, 3rd Flecha Paratroop Riflemen Company and the Special Forces Company. CUERPO DE POLICIA MILITAR AMBULANTE: Mobile Military Police Corps organized to function as a rural police force and to provide support to the National Police. FAG Tactical Security Group (AGRUPAMIENTO TACTICO DE SEGURIDAD [ATS] DE LA FAG). The Tactical Security Group ( belonging to the Guatemalan Air Force): 3 Infantry Companies. 1st Naval Infantry Company (operated by the army and consist of 5 infantry platoons. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 20, 2019 8:43:03 GMT
I think the big problem would be what ground forces Guatemala would be committing to the invasion and what defensive forces they would face. If they can capture most of the colony before any aid can arrive its going to be more difficult liberating it as you would have to rely on basically an amphibious assault. Also given the amount of racism Britain faced in 1982 OTL you could see a number of the other Spanish speaking states in the region giving at least political and economic support to Guatemala. However I would expect that the Commonwealth nations would support any liberation, in part because they - generally being relatively small islands - would be vulnerable themselves if a precedent is set. This would include basing for air and naval forces if nothing else. There is the question, since a right wing regime is suppressing radical elements, whether Britain might seek to support them? However given that both Britain and the US have pretty right wing governments I doubt that London would consider this or if they did that Washington would support such a move. Which is a pity as it would be one way to remove, at least for a while the Guatemalan claims and also to remove a government that could well be a continued threat.
Here are some interesting links. Guatemala's armed forces 1972a US defense intelligence report 1985So I did some searching and the Guatemala special forces who most surely would be in the foreground of a invasion would as far as I can tell made up of: PARACAIDISTAS: 1 Parachute Battalion made up of the 1st Paratrooper Company, the 2nd Pentagono Paratroop Riflemen Company, 3rd Flecha Paratroop Riflemen Company and the Special Forces Company. CUERPO DE POLICIA MILITAR AMBULANTE: Mobile Military Police Corps organized to function as a rural police force and to provide support to the National Police. FAG Tactical Security Group (AGRUPAMIENTO TACTICO DE SEGURIDAD [ATS] DE LA FAG). The Tactical Security Group ( belonging to the Guatemalan Air Force): 3 Infantry Companies. 1st Naval Infantry Company (operated by the army and consist of 5 infantry platoons.
Very useful. The forces are small and poorly trained/equipped and by the sound of it the bulk wouldn't be that willing, being Indian or mixed race conscripts bossed about by the predominantly Spanish speaking 'elite'.
A lot would depend on what defence forces were based in Belize and what Britain could send quickly. Apart from local forces I think there was a small British or possibly Gurkha force and Belize was used for jungle training by the British army. Hence there might be additional forces there and the army is going to have troops familiar with the country that could be sent in.
What you could see would be some initial successes, especially if the Guatemalans did some planning and got surprise. Their not got much of an airforce but could gain superiority, at least until reinforcements arrived as the RAF detachment mentioned earlier is very small, especially if the attackers could get some strike, by air or ground on the airbase as the invasion started. A lot might depend on how leaky or not their military and political establishment is. However, their likely to pay a bloody bill against professional forces and locals defending their homes. Plus if the defenders can hold onto some coastal position until reinforcements arrive then their likely to get smashed back pretty damned quickly.
In terms of the local opposition it might well be communist by this date although that was often a term used by the right wing to get support from the US just as "extreme reform policies" of the President in power in 45-51 which eventually lead to a military coup against him generally means land reform to take some land from the great plantation owners for the peasants, which the former obviously oppose bitterly. As such, especially if there's a serious military defeat which seems likely and consumes a lot of the Guatemalan military and security forces, you could see a lot of unrest and possibly the overthrow of the junta, although that US and probably powerful elements in Britain will oppose this.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 20, 2019 21:28:13 GMT
Brits deploy and smack the Guatemalans around, which either results in Argentine making a play for the Falkands early due to British distraction or the show of force cows the Junta. Given additional time for the victory to fade and it being less dramatic overall, it's possible Labour wins the 1983 election.....which then throws the whole world into hell via a handbasket.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 23, 2019 15:16:26 GMT
Brits deploy and smack the Guatemalans around, which either results in Argentine making a play for the Falkands early due to British distraction or the show of force cows the Junta. Given additional time for the victory to fade and it being less dramatic overall, it's possible Labour wins the 1983 election.....which then throws the whole world into hell via a handbasket.
Labour are very unlikely to win in 83, or 84 if the election is delayed until then, given their leader and electoral programme at that point. A military victory could well boost the Thatcher government so that they get another absolute majority in Parliament with only about 40% of the electoral vote as OTL - the problem with the FPTP system. Or you could see an hung Parliament with, given the extreme stances of both Labour and Tories, an unclear future. There is a chance that the alliance could get enough momentum to really break through, especially if both Thatcher and Foot do enough stupid things, which is quite possible, but again given FPTP a party with broadly spread support is at a serious disadvantage compared to those with support more concentrated in separate regions.
A Labour majority in government in 83/84 period would be bad for Britain, quite possibly in the shorter run worse than what happened OTL. However as well as being extremely unlikely to occur it probably wouldn't last very long. Also unless the more extreme policies, such as leaving the EEC [can't remember Foot's view on NATO] and removing Britain independent nuclear deterrent were actually implemented their unlikely to have much impact on the wider world.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 24, 2019 20:19:43 GMT
Brits deploy and smack the Guatemalans around, which either results in Argentine making a play for the Falkands early due to British distraction or the show of force cows the Junta. Given additional time for the victory to fade and it being less dramatic overall, it's possible Labour wins the 1983 election.....which then throws the whole world into hell via a handbasket.
Labour are very unlikely to win in 83, or 84 if the election is delayed until then, given their leader and electoral programme at that point. A military victory could well boost the Thatcher government so that they get another absolute majority in Parliament with only about 40% of the electoral vote as OTL - the problem with the FPTP system. Or you could see an hung Parliament with, given the extreme stances of both Labour and Tories, an unclear future. There is a chance that the alliance could get enough momentum to really break through, especially if both Thatcher and Foot do enough stupid things, which is quite possible, but again given FPTP a party with broadly spread support is at a serious disadvantage compared to those with support more concentrated in separate regions.
A Labour majority in government in 83/84 period would be bad for Britain, quite possibly in the shorter run worse than what happened OTL. However as well as being extremely unlikely to occur it probably wouldn't last very long. Also unless the more extreme policies, such as leaving the EEC [can't remember Foot's view on NATO] and removing Britain independent nuclear deterrent were actually implemented their unlikely to have much impact on the wider world.
Labour was leading in the polls until after Thatcher pulled off the victory against Argentine. Given Guatemala is very much a lesser opponent, or that a war there could give the Junta the room it needs to take the Falklands, which would prevent any sort of "Rally to the Flag" effect. As for said Labour government, they wanted to disarm the nuclear deterrent as well as eliminate BOAR. Given the existing stance of France, there would never be a better time for the Soviets to attack West Germany and Gorby won't come in to temper the Red Bear until 1985 at the earliest..... |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 24, 2019 21:11:27 GMT
Labour are very unlikely to win in 83, or 84 if the election is delayed until then, given their leader and electoral programme at that point. A military victory could well boost the Thatcher government so that they get another absolute majority in Parliament with only about 40% of the electoral vote as OTL - the problem with the FPTP system. Or you could see an hung Parliament with, given the extreme stances of both Labour and Tories, an unclear future. There is a chance that the alliance could get enough momentum to really break through, especially if both Thatcher and Foot do enough stupid things, which is quite possible, but again given FPTP a party with broadly spread support is at a serious disadvantage compared to those with support more concentrated in separate regions.
A Labour majority in government in 83/84 period would be bad for Britain, quite possibly in the shorter run worse than what happened OTL. However as well as being extremely unlikely to occur it probably wouldn't last very long. Also unless the more extreme policies, such as leaving the EEC [can't remember Foot's view on NATO] and removing Britain independent nuclear deterrent were actually implemented their unlikely to have much impact on the wider world.
. Given Guatemala is very much a lesser opponent, or that a war there could give the Junta the room it needs to take the Falklands, which would prevent any sort of "Rally to the Flag" effect. As for said Labour government, they wanted to disarm the nuclear deterrent as well as eliminate BOAR. Given the existing stance of France, there would never be a better time for the Soviets to attack West Germany and Gorby won't come in to temper the Red Bear until 1985 at the earliest.....
You sure about that as I remember it differently. The polls were very volatile at that point and they might have been ahead in a few but generally it was thought to be between the Tories and the Alliance. Also there is likely to be enough opposition to leaving NATO, which is effectively what eliminating the BAOR would mean, that even a Labour government that could obtain a small majority, which is pretty unlikely to happen, would be likely to be deposed by Parliament with a number of defections. However your right that there's a chance the instability and uncertainty that this political conflict would cause might prompt some idiot in the Kremlin to stupidity.
|
|
