What was the nature of the U. S. military unit stationed at the RAF
base near St. Eval, Cornwall, during the Falklands War?

Hello chorn-ga,

1. A day researching the Falklands War as well as any US involvement
was enlightening for me.  There is no record of U.S. activity at St.
Eval, Cornwell other than World War II.

Perhaps the activity you mentioned came from RAF St Mawgan, Cornwall
where the U.S. Military is active even today. However, searches on St
Mawgan and Falklands and U.S. support resulted in no useful websites.

" St.Mawgan is still  very active in 2001 although 42 Squadron ( now
42 Reserve Squadron) and their Nimrods are now based at Lossiemouth.
There is a large US Marine presence manning the submarine
communications complex..."

Yes.  Other researchers have confirmed the "supportive maintenance"
efforts of the U.S. of fuel, missiles, etc, and Pres Reagan did offer
such military aid as mentioned below, but I could find no record of
direct U.S. military involvement especially by military manpower in
the air or on the ground at the Falklands. Very surprising to me as it
seems that it would have compromised/damaged the old Rio
Treaty(although Argentina did not sign it).
Considering the heavy involvement of British submarines in the
Falklands effort, I cannot confirm, but would not be surprised to find
that the submarine communications activities involved U.S. Marines
stationed at St. Mawgan, Cornwell; and this may very well be the
source of your suspicions.
http://jim.ball.net/stmawgan/info.htm
http://www.jmf.navy.mil/


"Although never officially acknowledged there are reports that during
the conflict the United States offered Britain the loan of a US Navy
aircraft carrier should the worst happen to either Invincible or
Hermes. One source claims the American carrier in question was the
U.S.S Eisenhower* while another source suggests that it was the
Keersage† . The Guam and Oriskany are also mentioned and it is
rumoured that Royal Navy officers visited the Norfolk navy yard to
inspect two Iwo Jima class vessels. Regardless of the ship and
regardless of weather the offer was even made it is almost certain
that it would have been turned down or would never have materialised.
The problems involved with manning and equipping a foreign vessel of
this size in a time of the war would be difficult to say the least.
Where would the Royal Navy get the manpower for a capital ship of this
size? After all there were and still are significant technical
differences between RN and USN equipment. Then there are the political
implications. The US and UK had always had a 'special relationship'
but this would be pushing it to its limits. By merely supporting UK
the USA were jeopardizing relations with South America and
additionally the American public may not have the same resolve to lend
American equipment to fight a battle thousands of miles from not only
the United States but also from Britain. * The Secret War for the
Falklands by Nigel West † Falklands Documentary on the Discovery
Channel."http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/falk.htm

2. "Across the Atlantic, President Reagan tries to stay neutral and
agrees to Secretary Haig starting his shuttle diplomacy......
....(Activity in) Washington D.C. - President Ronald Reagan, Secretary
of State Alexander Haig, British ambassador Sir Nicholas Henderson,
Argentine ambassador Snr Esteban Takacs.....Over the next four weeks,
America's attempts to be even-handed are not appreciated by Mrs
Thatcher, although in US terms, having to choose between Latin
American friend and main European ally is no easy matter....US Support
- By the last day of April, President Reagan has come to accept there
is little chance of a settlement and declares American support for
Britain. He offers military aid and announces sanctions against
Argentina. Mr Pym now returns to Washington as an ally, but still
committed to the search for peace, and as he does, proposals are
independently launched in the UN and by Peru.......
"
http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm

I believe I've exhausted most possible sites on the Falklands and US
involvement expecially from British stations.  And conclude that St.
Eval, Cornwall definitely played no military part, either British or
U.S., other than the aforementioned WWII activities.

brad-ga

I did not find any evidence of physical military presence.  Here are
several accounts of US involvement in the Falklands War, and the aid
that was offered.

Weinberger supported Thatcher's decision-he saw Argentina as the
aggressor, and Great Britain as a principal U.S. ally. He privately
criticized Secretary of State Haig for his use of shuttle diplomacy
between England and Argentina in an effort to settle the controversy
peacefully. Reagan agreed with Weinberger on the need to assist
Britain; the United States provided missiles, aircraft fuel, military
equipment, and intelligence information to the British government. In
a little over two months, British forces defeated the Argentines, who
surrendered on 14 June 1982.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/weinberger.htm

"It should be noted that while the United States proclaimed its
neutrality, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger provided upwards of
$60 millinon in aid to Britain through the Pentagon, and even offered
to replace destroyed British aircraft carriers with the USS
Eisenhower. (Freedman and Gamba-Sonehouse, at 190; Reichardson, at
147)
See footnote #39 at the bottom of page 10 of the following document.

http://users.rcn.com/shyuhan/docs/pol388.pdf

Here is a book for general reading on the topic:
Alexander Haig, Caveat (New York: Macmillan, 1984), chapter 13 (on the
Falklands/Malvinas war).

As an interesting aside, a former US ship, owned by Argentina at the
time, was involved. This extensive document gives a good account of
the entire conflict, with an long list of sources including magazine
articles at the end.

Author:     Haggart, James A. Lieutenant Commander U.S. Navy

Title:      The Falkland Islands Conflict
            Air Defense of the Fleet

Publisher:  Marine Corps Command and Staff College

Date:       1 May 1984


 "The other large Argentine vessel was the ill-fated

light cruiser--General Belgrano.  A World War II veteran,

the ship was formerly operated by the United States Navy.

While it is true the ship was quite old, its fifteen six

inch guns nevertheless posed a significant threat to the

British fleet."

http://198.65.138.161/military/library/report/1984/HJA.htm

I wish you well in finding the information you are seeking.

Regards,

historybuff

Dear Chorn, 

Two of the bases near St. Eval (St. Eval and Perranporth) were closed
in the years following WWII. St Mawgan, the third base, is a RAF base.
The Joint Maritime Facility (http://www.jmf.navy.mil/) is also
stationed there, since the 1990s. This unit's mission is "provide the
highest quality Anti-Submarine Warfare and Ocean Borne Acoustic
information to tactical platforms and shore-based commands through
integrated teamwork of US/UK Forces" (see
http://www.jmf.navy.mil/Pages/Overview.html). Maybe you can contact
them for more details.

In addition to History Buff's intersting remark, let me add that the
Argentinian regime was pretty "surprised" by the change of Reagan
Administration policy towards it in 1982, and some analysts claim that
with this change in American support towards the Argentinian
dictatorship, began its democratisation.