|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 25, 2019 23:57:56 GMT
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.....
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.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841 
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 26, 2019 10:03:41 GMT
Thanks, very useful reminder of the situation at the time. Before the founding of the SDP Labour were in a strong position, probably because of the policies of the Tory party, which were so divisive and destructive. After 6 months they were supplanted by the Alliance was the major factor for the following 6 months, taking votes from both parties, but especially a Labour party that had drawn support from a anti-Thatcher up-swell then as you say the Falklands war, despite in part being due to her policies - naval cuts and ignoring warnings about Argentina there was a strong swing towards the Tories.
There is the danger that the same may occur again with a Belize conflict replacing the Falklands one. Also there is the problem of lack of knowledge in the electorate. I remember canvassing in the early 80's and people saying "we would like to see you win but will vote Labour to keep the Tories out". No matter how many times you explained that in a predominantly rural seat in southern England where Labour were running a distant 3rd voting for them would be an utterly wasted vote and only the alliance had a chance of defeating the Tories in this constituency!   " src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png">
However there is the hope that a shorter and markedly less costly war might not see such a surge. Given the FPTP system its unlikely that a party with broadly spread support like the Alliance would be able to get a Parliamentary majority. There was too much blind loyalty in the core regions of the two old parties. Even getting say 40-42% of the total vote with the rest split between the other two parties probably wouldn't do that but could well make us the largest party - which might be possible without either conflict. I think the most likely result would be a hung Parliament in which case you could have a fairly unstable period with two extreme parties unwilling to co-operate with each other or with the alliance but there is the chance of reform or at least an earlier ending of the extreme destructiveness of Thatcherism for the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Oct 3, 2019 19:09:11 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.
El Salvador and Honduras had brutal military dictatorships much like Guatemala's. ES was very occupied crushing a popular uprising, and only narrowly avoiding being overthrown a year earlier. Argentina actually military advisers aiding Guatemala in torture and counterinsurgency. So did the Israelis. Both were outnumbered by US advisers, who also outspent them in weapons and esp a public relations campaign claiming the genocide vs Maya Indians about to begin was commie propaganda. Thatcher had UK troops aiding Guatemala's dictatorship too. They shared intel, carried out surveillance for them, and even turned over rebels they captured. So yes, it's very unlikely the UK will aid the rebels. Argentina might send weapons, but Honduras and Salvador are unlikely to help since they depend on the US. Israel had advisers and sent aid to all the right wing Latin American dictators so probably stays neutral to avoid alienating the UK.[/quote] |
|
sandyman
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 99
Likes: 94
|
Post by sandyman on Oct 24, 2019 18:43:46 GMT
Belize in the 80’s normally had a Infantry infantry battalion on a four month tour and from memory a fair few chaps from 22 . I had the pleasure of doing 4 mother out there in the mid 80’s and can safely say it was a right s**t hole. We were based at Air Port Camp we had a daily competition on how many mosquitoes we could catch in 24 hours or we could pop over the road to a dive called Rouls Rose garden for a beer or some shall we say female company that charged by the hour. One lad in my Company on his last day in Belize turned up with his new wife and her five children. You can imagine what our CO said he was shall we say going mental. Said Soldier was taken to one side and given the opportunity of saying good bye and getting on the plane in the hope that his new wife would just wait for another new husband from the incoming battalion, fair play to him he stud his ground and was allowed to stay with his wife until the battalion head shed could work out how to get his ready made family over to the UK. The Familie finally made it to the UK he did his time and went back home to Australia as he was a duel national his wife sorted his admin out as he was a admin vortex. He now has a thriving company and is worth a fair few dollars and happy as anything.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 24, 2019 18:49:36 GMT
Wonder if Canada also might aid the British in a recapture of Belize, after all, Belize is a Commonwealth member.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Oct 24, 2019 19:02:03 GMT
Wonder if Canada also might aid the British in a recapture of Belize, after all, Belize is a Commonwealth member.
Quite possibly. Also I think a number of the Caribbean states would be willing to do so as allowing the Guatemalan attack to stand would expose at least some of them to risks as well. For instance Trinidad and Tobago has problems with a Venezuelan claim to its territories.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 24, 2019 19:12:56 GMT
Wonder if Canada also might aid the British in a recapture of Belize, after all, Belize is a Commonwealth member. Quite possibly. Also I think a number of the Caribbean states would be willing to do so as allowing the Guatemalan attack to stand would expose at least some of them to risks as well. For instance Trinidad and Tobago has problems with a Venezuelan claim to its territories.
Like the invasion of Grenada, but with the United Kingdom replacing the United States and those countries you mentioned being part of the Caribbean Peace Force. |
|
|
|
Post by vikingtank on Oct 30, 2019 20:22:35 GMT
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? Short answer - Yes absolutely the UK forces in-country would not simply be abandoned, no they could not stop a full UK counter-invasion although Guatemala's borders are unlikely to be crossed apart from Harrier/Fleet Air Arm strikes near the border, no overt involvement from US - maybe some covert but unlikely to be needed anyway. Longer answer - I was with my Battalions anti-tank platoon based in the south of Belize in late 1982/early 83; we were equipped with the 120mm CONBAT (CONverted BAT) recoiless rifle. With a full Battalion spread between 4 locations (Airport camp being a holiday camp when compared with those in the south of the country (sorry Sandyman)) in 2 battle-groups the UK is unlikely to abandon them to the tender mercies of the Guatemalans. While I would not, even now, discuss the full battle plan for stopping an invasion we did lots of jungle patrols and also deployed into our war positions with dug in CONBAT's in coastal and inland positions; once (we were told) for real with live ammo although for all I know it could have just been a drill. The Harrier force was a real deterrent and often overflew our camp (which had its own air and ground defenses) as a show of force; Puma helicopters also were in country. Should we have been over run the survivors could have hidden in the jungle for a limited time; enough said. So 2 options; hold-ish and be reinforced from the UK or a full Falkland Islands type amphibious landings would be required if the country was occupied. Good landing areas, especially in the south of Belize are very limited; I know as we had a defensive position dug at one location by my own hands! However the Guatemalans preventing a full counter-invasion with Royal Marines, Naval gunfire support and carrier support etc is highly unlikely. Like the Falkland Islands I do not see the UK striking major targets in Guatemala although strikes on troop concentrations across the border or even a landing on the Guatemalan coast to the south of Belize (if possible and required) to secure the southern flank is a possibility. So fighting off a counter-invasion is going to be limited to these areas I think. It is noteworthy however that UK friendly countries/bases are a fair way off so the counter-invasion, like the Falkland Islands, would need to be self sufficient. As for the Argentinians taking advantage of the situation this is a good possibility in 1981 but British force could, after a suitable pause and reinforcement, have carried on further south! As for US involvement see above. A personnel message for Sandyman - you had the ice cream in Airport Camp, in the south we lived on compo all the tour! Yes we were annoyed! Regards, Vikingtank. |
|
" src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png">
