Britain/Germany in WW2 vs. Britain/Argentina during the Falkland War: Which was more evenly matched?

More evenly matched conflict?

  • Britain/Germany in WW2

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Britain/Argentina in Falkland

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6
Dec 2014
380
Wales
#11
Apart from anything else I think there diplomatic reasons for that, the UK was receiving vital if discreet support from the USA which didn't want to mess up its relations with Latin America.
I agree - too much too lose and note enough to gain. look at how difficult it was getting a single bomber all the way to the Falklands - any real attack would have been near impossible, and the political fallout if Argentine civilians had been killed would have been a disaster.
 
Jun 2017
2,555
Connecticut
#12
Germany was clearly more powerful than the UK, especially considering naval disarmament which meant that the UK's larger navy while still much bigger than Germany's, was also much smaller than in the past. The UK did have a colonial empire but the UK also had less people and this didn't make up for German advantages in Europe IMO. The UK being separated from mainland Europe by the Channel combined with Hitler's prioritizing the attack was a huge advantage in terms of the UK's defense that probably had more to do with the UK's survival than any UK superiority. That being said it's still relatively close compared to the others, both were great powers but I think it's clear the Germans were more powerful.

That being said, UK versus Argentina was much more distant. The UK and Germany had been peers several decades before the world wars, but Argentina was not a great power. regardless of one's definition of the term and did not perform as one in the Falklands Wars. Even the neutered post WWII UK RN was able to easily defeat the Argentine's with an EF like others have mentioned rather than their full might. Don't want to say the Argentines were "trying harder" but this was a larger priority for the Argentines compared to the British, who were holding quite a bit of force back(nukes, invasion of the mainland, bombing as someone mentioned etc) and the British still won fairly easily and quickly. That being said the British would never have had reason to do any of those things they held back and occupation would in no way, shape or form have been worth it in any scenario, Argentina is one of the largest countries on earth.
 
Oct 2016
928
Merryland
#13
the Brits were only able to project a small force to the Falklands.
could Argentina project any force at all to the UK? I think not.

were it not for the Channel I think Germany defeats the UK in WWII.
suppose Argentina and UK were land neighbors? don't think Argentina would have lasted long.
I think Germany / UK is fairly even, but I think GB / Argentina is a mismatch.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,692
Georgia, USA
#14
....I do well remember the Falklands War. It wasn't Britain against Argentina, it was Argentina agaisnt 'what power Britain could project to the South Atlantic' and also living within bizarre rules. Such as the whole world throwing it's hands up in horror whilst the SAS destroyed Super Etendards on the ground in Argentina. with a little help from general Pinochet of course....

This was planned but never executed.

Perhaps you're thinking of the SAS destroying Argentine Pucara aircraft on Pebble Island ?
 
May 2016
277
Greater Manchester
#15
Britain/Argentina wasn't a war at all - no declaration of war by either side,
It was still a war, whether or not it was declared. Britain hasn't declared war on any country since it declared war on Thailand in 1942, but it has still fought in wars since then.

neither side made any sort of attack on the enemies home territory
Apart from Argentina, which attacked British territory.