Argentina planned to ‘disappear’ hundreds of Britons on eve of Falklands War

[Craiglxviii]

Original article is paywalled, but if anyone has a Torygraph account here it is:

https://apple.news/AUgu4MdboQXyDToW_Jjx2Dw

I’m in contact with Ricky Philips on Quora, might see if I can get anything more from him on this.

Argentina planned to massacre hundreds of Britons on the eve of the Falklands War, according to newly discovered CIA papers.
The previously unseen documents from 1982 reveal Argentine plans to “disappear” 500 British subjects and more than 100 US embassy staff.
They were unearthed by historian Ricky D. Phillips, who specialises in the conflict, while researching a new book, the Mail on Sunday reported.

The papers, dated April 12 1982, highlighted the ruthless plans of Gen Leopoldo Galtieri, the Argentine dictator.

Mr Phillips has previously written four best-selling books on the 74-day war, in which more than 250 British military personnel were killed.
“I was researching my new book and suddenly found this incredible CIA file that nobody knew about,” he told the paper.
“It showed the Argentines formulated a military-run plan to snatch and ‘disappear’ hundreds of people in one fell swoop and to blame it on an internal terrorist organisation called Montoneros.”
He likened it to the Kristallnacht – a pogrom carried out by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis where thousands of Jewish people were rounded up and sent to concentration camps to be killed.

The CIA report, which has the subject line “Contingency plans for violence against US and British citizens”, reads: “As of the early evening of 11 April 1982 the 601st Intelligence Battalion, the operational arm of the Argentine Army Intelligence Service was making contingency plans to ‘disappear’ US citizens in Argentina if the US government adopts the British position in regard to the dispute in the Falkland Islands.
“In the terminology used by the 601st battalion ‘disappeared’ does not mean ‘put in jail’. ‘Disappeared’ probably means ‘killed’.”

It added that teams from the Argentine battalion were “moving into position on the evening of April 11”.
Mr Phillips said the unearthed document explained why Americans “appeared to stall” in their support of Britain – so that they could allow innocent Britons and Americans to get out of Argentina.

[jemhouston]

Were they trying to get the US to join the party?

[Paul Nuttall]

Yep, thats what it says.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Disclosure: I *probably* lost an aunt and cousin to the 'domestic' disappearances.

Cousin was teen, he probably shared my 'Foot in Mouth' gene.

Alternative was they shredded / burned everything related to their UK connections, changed address several times and thus 'Went Dark'...

[Zen9]

Were they trying to get the US to join the party?

They read US support for themselves across from anti-communist to support for Argentina's claims against the British.

Enough voices inside the US government were being raised along such lines. It's plausible they felt they had a free hand to remove anyone who might produce critical information sent back to their countries.

[jemhouston]

If I remember correctly, Al Haig (Sec State) was in favor of support Argentina due to their help in Central America. Caspar W. Weinberger favored the UK including loaning them the Iwo Jima in case a UK carrier was knocked out.


I'm hoping if Argentina killed American and UK civilians, that would have killed any US support for them.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

If, and its a big IF, this is true was the junta trying to nuclear strike on Buenos Aires?? They thought that the US, under command of Reagan, would've fallen for it?

[Craiglxviii]

If, and its a big IF, this is true was the junta trying to nuclear strike on Buenos Aires?? They thought that the US, under command of Reagan, would've fallen for it?

Knowing Ricky Philips, I’ve a pretty good sense of the validity of this. He’s an excellent researcher.

[Pdf27]

Knowing Ricky Philips, I’ve a pretty good sense of the validity of this. He’s an excellent researcher.

It's worth keeping in mind what he's actually found though - a CIA document saying what the US government of the time was being told by it's intelligence arms, NOT an Argentinean document saying that they planned to do this themselves. And Mr Philips is smart enough to note this when saying that it impacted the US public position and not commenting on Argentina.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Two thoughts:

Was the DIA around at that time, and what was their contrary take ?

Were RN to go nuclear, surely their target would be the big naval base further South, whose name currently escapes me...

[Bernard Woolley]

And Mr Philips is smart enough to note this when saying that it impacted the US public position and not commenting on Argentina.

He's also found some interesting CIA docs that show the US was secretly backing left-wing revolutionary movements in Latin America as a way of controlling the various right-wing militaty governments. I can only imagine the furore if that had come out back then!

[Craiglxviii]

Two thoughts:

Was the DIA around at that time, and what was their contrary take ?

Were RN to go nuclear, surely their target would be the big naval base further South, whose name currently escapes me...

I <may> be inventing this from whole cloth, but I believe there had been back-channel warnings to the Argentine government that, if they really pushed things, we had one Polaris targeted on Buenos Aires and one on Puerto Belgrano.

Admittedly I may have conflated this with a TBO book but I don’t think so…

[Bernard Woolley]

Wasn’t that a (dubious) claim made by a doctor who treated Mitterrand?

[Craiglxviii]

Wasn’t that a (dubious) claim made by a doctor who treated Mitterrand?

It could be. For the life of me I can’t remember where I read it now. I can see a profitable day ahead of me now trying to scratch that itch, so much for mowing the back garden!

[Paul Nuttall]

Wasn’t that a (dubious) claim made by a doctor who treated Mitterrand?

It could be. For the life of me I can’t remember where I read it now. I can see a profitable day ahead of me now trying to scratch that itch, so much for mowing the back garden!

He was one who did make that claim.

[M.Becker]

Wow, this is idea is retarded on steroids.

The only question is who would have gone (possibly literally) nuclear first: Ronnie or Maggie?

PS: I know US doctrine on WMD use, so Buffy would have dropped no artificial sunshine but she doesn't need to to make a point.

[jemhouston]

Wow, this is idea is retarded on steroids.

The only question is who would have gone (possibly literally) nuclear first: Ronnie or Maggie?

PS: I know US doctrine on WMD use, so Buffy would have dropped no artificial sunshine but she doesn't need to to make a point.

US doctrine can change. That said, no instant sunshine, but unless we can get basing in South America for tankers, Miss Buffy would be limited since the UK had Ascension Island full used.

[MikeKozlowski]

Wow, this is idea is retarded on steroids.

The only question is who would have gone (possibly literally) nuclear first: Ronnie or Maggie?

PS: I know US doctrine on WMD use, so Buffy would have dropped no artificial sunshine but she doesn't need to to make a point.

US doctrine can change. That said, no instant sunshine, but unless we can get basing in South America for tankers, Miss Buffy would be limited since the UK had Ascension Island full used.

...In 82, the conventional side of SAC was at Dyess and Anderson, so Dyess would have gotten the call. A three-cell ARC LIGHT would have been more than sufficient to erase Comodoro Rividavia (I think that's the base we are talking about) from the face of the earth, and tanker support would not be as challenging as you might think.

It's 5727 miles from Dyess to Rividavia, and even with a full load of -82s a D should be able to make it if they refuel over the southern Gulf of Mexico, press on to hit the target, turn north, then tank up one more time off the eastern coast of South America and recover in Puerto Rico. The Ds at that point had some of the better EW systems, and there were still a lot of LINEBACKER vets around. They could have made it happen.

Mike

[Craiglxviii]

Wow, this is idea is retarded on steroids.

The only question is who would have gone (possibly literally) nuclear first: Ronnie or Maggie?

PS: I know US doctrine on WMD use, so Buffy would have dropped no artificial sunshine but she doesn't need to to make a point.

US doctrine can change. That said, no instant sunshine, but unless we can get basing in South America for tankers, Miss Buffy would be limited since the UK had Ascension Island full used.

...In 82, the conventional side of SAC was at Dyess and Anderson, so Dyess would have gotten the call. A three-cell ARC LIGHT would have been more than sufficient to erase Comodoro Rividavia (I think that's the base we are talking about) from the face of the earth, and tanker support would not be as challenging as you might think.

It's 5727 miles from Dyess to Rividavia, and even with a full load of -82s a D should be able to make it if they refuel over the southern Gulf of Mexico, press on to hit the target, turn north, then tank up one more time off the eastern coast of South America and recover in Puerto Rico. The Ds at that point had some of the better EW systems, and there were still a lot of LINEBACKER vets around. They could have made it happen.

Mike

No EW needed, the Argentinians at that point only had Roland SAMs. Stay above 20,000’ and they’re safe. Add to that all they would be facing as interceptors were Mirage III armed with -9D(? I think) so a brief escort screen would have taken care of those too.

[Pdf27]

No EW needed, the Argentinians at that point only had Roland SAMs. Stay above 20,000’ and they’re safe. Add to that all they would be facing as interceptors were Mirage III armed with -9D(? I think) so a brief escort screen would have taken care of those too.

Range would probably be a bit long for escorts, but the FAA of the time was very much a day/clear weather force. Cyrano II was theoretically capable against B-52s but as I understand it was only ever tied to the cannon and R530 - I'll bet they never paid to tie it in to Sidewinder. In a tail-chase at night and in a severe electronic warfare environment the difference between a pair of 30mm and for .50s isn't all that big, particularly given how much tougher the B-52 will be to shoot down and the fact that the Argentines won't be trained in the blindfire mode.

image_2025-09-11_182601271.png