Ronald Reagan issued a last-ditch appeal to Margaret Thatcher to abandon her campaign to retake the Falklands and to hand over the islands to international peacekeepers, according to official documents made public today.
Files released by the National Archives at Kew, south-west London, under the 30-year rule show that as British troops closed in on final victory, the US president made a late-night phone call to Mrs Thatcher urging her not to completely humiliate the Argentines.
However, his request fell on deaf ears as a defiant prime minister insisted that she had not sent a British task force across the globe just "to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group".
Mr Reagan made his call to Downing Street at 11.30pm London time on May 31, 1982, as British forces were beginning the battle for Port Stanley, the Falklands capital.
The Americans had already proposed sending a joint US-Brazilian peacekeeping mission, and the president suggested the time had come to show magnanimity.
"The best chance for peace was before complete Argentine humiliation," he told her.
"As the UK now had the upper hand militarily, it should strike a deal now."
Mrs Thatcher was having none of it. The United Kingdom, she said, could not contemplate a ceasefire without Argentinian withdrawal.
According to the official No 10 note, she told him: "Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group.
"As Britain had had to go into the islands alone, with no outside help, she could not now let the invader gain from his aggression. The prime minister asked the president to put himself in her position.
"She had lost valuable British ships and invaluable British lives. She was sure that the president would act in the same way if Alaska had been similarly threatened."
The prime minister said "the most sensible thing" would be for the Argentinians to withdraw, before she ended the conversation with a familiar refrain: "There was no alternative."
As the battle reached its climax she even drafted a telegram to the Argentinian leader General Galtieri – although it was never sent –demanding for a final time that he withdraw his forces.
"In a few days the British flag will be flying over Port Stanley. In a few days also your eyes and mine will be reading the casualty lists," she wrote.
"On my side, grief will be tempered by the knowledge that these men died for freedom, justice and the rule of law. And on your side? Only you can answer that question."
It was not the only time during the conflict that Britain had problems with her closest ally.
On April 21, as the British task force approached the islands, US secretary of state Al Haig told the British ambassador to Washington, Sir Nicholas Henderson, he intended to inform the Argentinian junta that UK troops would be landing on South Georgia, the first of the islands to be seized by the Argentines.
"If the Americans acted in this way, they would be able to show even-handedness to the Argentinians and this would enable them to continue their role as go-between," Mr Haig argued.
The ambassador was appalled. He told Mr Haig he was going far beyond the obligations of a neutral negotiator and that the information could be used by the Argentines to mount a submarine or suicide air attack on the task force.
Reluctantly, Mr Haig promised to keep quiet.
Overall, however, Mr Henderson concluded that Britain had cause to be grateful to Mr Haig for ensuring a divided Reagan administration ultimately came down on the side of the UK.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article