OTL, the Falklands War of 1982 didn't fit the parameters of the ongoing Cold War, as it was a conflict between two conservative governments(albeit of rather different governing styles!), who under most circumstances would have been at least comfortable with, if not outright ecstatic about, each other's existence. But, as we all know, they managed to get into a bloody, basically non-ideological war fought over territory and national pride, eventually leading to the collapse of one government, and the re-election of the other.
So, is there a way to make the Falklands a war between two adversaries diametrically opposed on ideology and/or Cold War alignment? The most obvious thing to do would be to reverse the ideology of one side, while keeping the other the same. So for example...
...hard-left Argentina vs. Thatcherite Britain. Maybe the Peronists stay in power into the 1980s, with the leftists in ascendancy, and grab the islands much for the same reasons as the generals did, but with more rhetorical focus on typical third-worldist, anti-colonialist themes? They'd likely get portrayed by the UK Tories and Fleet Street as a cross between the IRA and Fidel Castro. They might also garner some support from the shallower sections of the international anti-imperialist movement, and the Soviets would probably throw in a token "Hip hip hooray". The USA's support for Britain in the conflict would fit the Peronist narrative well here.
OR...
...hard-right Argentina vs. left-wing UK. Labour wins in '79, and maybe by '82 someone more left-wing than Callaghan becomes PM, exciting a lot of the party's militant base(is it too much to wish for Michael Foot under the circumstances)? So, we've got perceived radicalism(in the good sense of the word) running the show in Westminster, and the grassroots maybe finds it easy to rally around the government against a bunch of old-school Latin American fascist tinpots. In this instance, the initial dithering in Reagan's cabinet gets portrayed by the British left as major backing for Argentina's position, though the government, still grudgingly commited to NATO and the Special Relationship, does not openly endorse this view.
The OTL USSR's quiet support for Argentina might overflow into the British far-left, but in the second scenario, with the left in power, they probably wouldn't have much choice but to defend the islands, and portraying it as a fight against fascist militarism will appeal to both ends of the political spectrum, ie. the Finest Hour cultists on the right, and the street-fighting anti-fascists on the left.
So, is any of this at all plausible?
So, is there a way to make the Falklands a war between two adversaries diametrically opposed on ideology and/or Cold War alignment? The most obvious thing to do would be to reverse the ideology of one side, while keeping the other the same. So for example...
...hard-left Argentina vs. Thatcherite Britain. Maybe the Peronists stay in power into the 1980s, with the leftists in ascendancy, and grab the islands much for the same reasons as the generals did, but with more rhetorical focus on typical third-worldist, anti-colonialist themes? They'd likely get portrayed by the UK Tories and Fleet Street as a cross between the IRA and Fidel Castro. They might also garner some support from the shallower sections of the international anti-imperialist movement, and the Soviets would probably throw in a token "Hip hip hooray". The USA's support for Britain in the conflict would fit the Peronist narrative well here.
OR...
...hard-right Argentina vs. left-wing UK. Labour wins in '79, and maybe by '82 someone more left-wing than Callaghan becomes PM, exciting a lot of the party's militant base(is it too much to wish for Michael Foot under the circumstances)? So, we've got perceived radicalism(in the good sense of the word) running the show in Westminster, and the grassroots maybe finds it easy to rally around the government against a bunch of old-school Latin American fascist tinpots. In this instance, the initial dithering in Reagan's cabinet gets portrayed by the British left as major backing for Argentina's position, though the government, still grudgingly commited to NATO and the Special Relationship, does not openly endorse this view.
The OTL USSR's quiet support for Argentina might overflow into the British far-left, but in the second scenario, with the left in power, they probably wouldn't have much choice but to defend the islands, and portraying it as a fight against fascist militarism will appeal to both ends of the political spectrum, ie. the Finest Hour cultists on the right, and the street-fighting anti-fascists on the left.
So, is any of this at all plausible?
