PDA

View Full Version : Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one



Panzerknacker
04-02-2007, 09:38 PM
Interesting article extracted from the Guardian newspaper.


Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one

Regardless of the islanders' wishes, the issue of sovereignty will at some point have to get back on the agenda

Richard Gott
Monday April 2, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)


Nearly 40 years ago, in November 1968, I travelled to the Falklands with a group of diplomats in what was Britain's first and last attempt to get shot of the islands. Lord Chalfont, then a minister at the Foreign Office, was the leader of this expedition. He had the unenviable task of trying to persuade the 2,000 islanders that the British empire might not last for ever - and that they should start to entertain the notion they might be better off being friendly to their near-neighbour, Argentina, which had long claimed the islands. This was the moment when Britain was abandoning its "east of Suez" policy for financial reasons, and thinking of ways of winding up its residual empire.

We had already forcibly deported the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in 1967 without much hostile publicity, and settled them in Mauritius and the Seychelles, handing over their islands to the Americans to build a gigantic air base. The Falklands were next on the list. Maybe the islanders could be paid to set up sheep farms in New Zealand.


Over 10 days, we visited just about every farm and homestead in the two principal islands. We were greeted everywhere - and we could see the slogans and the union flag from the air before we landed - with the same messages: "Chalfont Go Home" and sometimes "We Want To Stay British". The islanders were adamant. They wanted nothing to do with Argentina, and Chalfont left them with a promise that nothing would happen without their agreement. Fourteen years later, in 1982, Britain and Argentina were at war over the islands, and nearly a thousand people lost their lives. Today we are invited to recall the 25th anniversary of that event, and the Argentinian government has reminded us of its claim, pulling out of the 1995 agreement about joint oil exploration that had been fondly embraced by the Foreign Office as an alternative to discussing anything as conflictive as sovereignty.



People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.

The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of dramatic colonial expansion. Captain John Onslow of HMS Clio had instructions "to exercise the rights of sovereignty" over the islands, and he ordered the Argentinian commander to haul down his flag and withdraw his forces. Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar. Britain and Argentina have disagreed ever since about the rights and wrongs of British occupation, and for much of the time the British authorities have been aware of the relative weakness of their case.

An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-back". Though its title survives, the document itself has been embargoed until 2015, although it may well exist in another archive. It was presumably an offer thrown out to the pro-German government of Argentina at the time, to keep them onside at a difficult moment in the war, though perhaps it was a draft or a jeu d'esprit dreamt up in the office.

The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan, when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable."

Of course, some people argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all comers, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Some believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates their original claim. Britain, above all, owes some debt to the heirs to the settlers who were originally sent there, a debt recognised in the Foreign Office mantra that, in all dealings with Argentina about the islands' future, the wishes of the islanders will be "paramount". Yet no such debt was recognised in the case of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, perhaps because Britain inherited them from the French rather than planting the settlers themselves.

Ironically, the Falkland islanders are the outcome of a 19th-century scheme of settlement not very different from the experience of Argentina in the same century, which brought in settlers from Italy, Germany, England and Wales, and planted them on land from which the native Indians had been cleared and exterminated. The record of the islanders looks rather cleaner by comparison. Yet the Argentinian claim is still a good one, and it will never go away. At some stage, sovereignty and lease-back will have to be on the agenda again, regardless of the wishes of the islanders. Ideally, the Falklands should be included in a wider post-colonial cleanup of ancient territories. This would rid Britain of responsibility for Northern Ireland (almost gone), Gibraltar (under discussion), and for Diego Garcia (de facto given to the Americans), and anywhere else that anyone can still remember.

This post-colonial policy should have been adopted many years ago (and perhaps Harold Wilson's government was groping towards this end in the 1960s when Denis Healey abandoned British commitments east of Suez, and when Chalfont was sent to Port Stanley), and it should at least have been considered when we abandoned Hong Kong in the 1990s. Yet the strength of Blair's imperial revivalism, forever echoed in the popular press, suggests that this prospect is as far away as it was in 1982.

Cuts
04-03-2007, 04:49 AM
Oh dear, this is too funny for words !
Otto West should check the sources of the article.

Lord Chalfont:
- Minister of State for Foreign Affairs under the Wilson government...

Richard Gott:
- fan of Guevara.
- unsucessful 'Radical Alliance' candidate for Parliament.
- accused by a defector as being an agent of the KGB.
- admitted being paid by the KGB.

Guardian
- as a source for serious journalism.
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/1186/laugh02lv4.pnghttp://img133.imageshack.us/img133/1186/laugh02lv4.pnghttp://img133.imageshack.us/img133/1186/laugh02lv4.png

Panzerknacker
04-03-2007, 06:59 AM
I think The guardian is a more reliable source of information than the "The Sun" for example, of course everybody knows that The sun is a clearly Anti-argentine newspaper.

Thanks for your input anyway.

Rising Sun*
04-03-2007, 08:38 AM
I think The guardian is a more reliable source of information than the "The Sun" for example, oof course everybody knows that The sun is a clearly Anti-argentine newspaper.

Thanks for your input anyway.

Yes, newspapers can be relied upon for a careful consideration of historical events and national titles to disputed lands.

This is why the best universities in the world have nothing in their libraries but recent editions of newspapers rather than more frivolous works by historians and others who have actually studied a subject.

As to the Falklands, do you prefer the Spanish title (in which case Argentina has a bit of a problem with its own independence) or the subsequent events in which, Dutch, French, British, and other nations were involved? Generally without much involvement by Argentina.

Or. for a really radical proposition, how about letting the people who actually live in the Falklands make their own decision?

It's not all that different to letting people in Argentina decide that it's up to them and not to Spain to decide who runs their land.

Or maybe there's one rule for people in Argentina and a different one for people in the Falklands?

Panzerknacker
04-03-2007, 11:15 AM
As to the Falklands, do you prefer the Spanish title (in which case Argentina has a bit of a problem with its own independence)


I m not sure what you mean in here, in any case the word Malvinas came from "Malouines" the french name of the islands.


The rule is simple and sad for most of the history of the world...the land conflicts were and are solved with wars, Argentina independence wasnt a excepcion, the last spaniard soldier had had to be take out the country by sabre point in 1820.

The islands were taken by force in 1833 and again in 1982....you see, nothing really change.:rolleyes:

Cuts
04-03-2007, 05:29 PM
I think The guardian is a more reliable source of information than the "The Sun" for example, of course everybody knows that The sun is a clearly Anti-argentine newspaper.

Thanks for your input anyway.


The Sun is a newspaper, (in the loosest possible sense of the word,) which changes it's bias day by day.
The various editors of this rag have had no sense of allegiance apart from that to Mammon.
By the way, the revolting "Gotcha" front page of it's early editions concerning the demise of the Gen. Belgano was vilified by every professional serviceman I knew at the time.

The Grauniad is a self-centred rag in it's own particular way.
It's presentation is as the thinking socialist's journal, (although that could be an oxymoron,) and believes itself to be a cut above the red tops. In reality it works on a similar psycological level, albeit aimed at an audience that can understand words of more than two syllables. It's one saving grace is that it sticks doggely to it's belief.
Unfortunately that belief seems to be that everything a non leftist government does is at the bidding of Satan and is therefore to be destroyed.

Richard Gott's history speaks for itself - he is a card-carrying loon of the first water who, despite having had the opportunity to study at an impressive seat of learning, has failed to grasp reality - or facts.
That he has been allowed to return as a Grauniad hack is a deeply telling comment on that paper's credibility.


As Rising Sun mentioned, using tomorrow's chip wrappers for reasoned debate is seldom a good idea as the days of them actually reporting news items impartially went out of fashion with the quill - if not before.



Edited to correct a typo.

Panzerknacker
04-03-2007, 06:32 PM
In reality it works on a similar psycological level, albeit aimed at an audience that can understand words of more than two syllables


:D :D



That he has been allowed to return as a Grauniad hack is a deeply telling comment on that paper's credibility.


Probably is true, but honestly is really remarkable. ( From the argentine point of view)

There are in here a lot of newspaper of the most varied political colors but nobody dispute the official claim.

Man of Stoat
04-04-2007, 02:42 AM
I think The guardian is a more reliable source of information than the "The Sun" for example, of course everybody knows that The sun is a clearly Anti-argentine newspaper.

Thanks for your input anyway.

Ah yes, the paper which produced a eight-page pull-out colour supplement about Robert Mugabe's socialist nirvana at the height of the murders and evictions of white farmers. Nuff said.

All I can imagine about the above article is that because Thatcher's government retook the islands, the Grauniad has to support the Argentine "underdogs" (they're not British, after all). Had a hardcore left-wing Labour government done it you could guarantee that the above article would read totally differently.

Rising Sun*
04-04-2007, 08:05 AM
The islands were taken by force in 1833 and again in 1982....you see, nothing really change.:rolleyes:

You're right about that.

Britain won both times.

Argentina lost both times.

2nd of foot
04-04-2007, 09:48 AM
What would happen if the islands declared independence?

Panzerknacker
04-04-2007, 06:01 PM
Very unlikely scenario.

But if so we can integrate the islands to the MERCOSUR :rolleyes:

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 03:12 AM
The Islands ARE independent. They rely on Britian for one thing, and one thing only... DEFENCE from Argentine Aggression.

Had the Junta not decided to go and invade, to save their skins and do some sabre rattleing in 1982, the military presence (as in British Presence) by now would be minimal going on zero, and the Islands would probably be trading with the Argentines.

Instead, a petty desicison to go to war, has led to animosity from the islanders and a wish to have nothing ot do with the Argies.

And a much heightened military presence in the Falklands.

The UN will always go with the wishes of the islanders, who have been present since 1833 and beyond (some were there priot to the Argentine/British Handover/Takover in 1833. Rather than some historic precedent.

Otherwise, for example, the Argentines could find themselves under Spanish rule again in short order.

And the British under the Italians!!!!! :D

Dani
04-10-2007, 05:19 AM
And the British under the Italians!!!!! :D

Quod erat demonstrandum.;)

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 07:46 AM
Latin could also be introduced in such a move Dani :D

32Bravo
04-10-2007, 03:29 PM
I have a question which I think is related to this topic. It's something that I have been wondering about since 1982:

Why do the people of Argentina have such strong feelings regarding their ownership/sovereignty of the Malvinas (I say Malvinas as a courtesy and because I wish to stress the 'strong feelings').

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 03:48 PM
After the abortion that was the invasion of '82 they feel they have invested a great deal in getting them back.

As for before, I think it was merely because they lost them in 1833, and because we had a small tiff with them in the early 1800s when we invaded and held BA for a while.

The Islands have a particular murky past, with France, Spain and Britain all having claim (before Argentina existed as a Sovereign Nation) and obviously for Nationalist purposes, their eviction in 1833 is a bit of a slap in the face.

I do wonder how many Argentines realise that some stayed on the Islands, and have descended from these, and that the Argentine position after their settlement was razed by the prisoners in the penal colony was tenous at best (wrt to actual survival).

There were several mutinies, the settlement was shelled by the American sloop USS Lexington, in retaliation for the seizure of several sealling vessels (American) in some sort of fishing dispute.

The top Argentine on the island was killed in one mutiny.

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Port Louis is a settlement on northeastern East Falkland. It was established by Louis de Bougainville in 1764 as the first French settlement on the islands, but was then transferred to Spain in 1767 and renamed Port Soledad (cf East Falkland is known as Isla Soledad in Spanish).

History
For a time, the town became the Spanish capital of the islands, which were claimed by Spain as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. The Spanish abandoned the settlement in 1811 after Argentina became independent.

On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor at the service of Buenos Aires, and captain of the frigate Heroina, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina) at Port Louis. He warned the British and American sealing ships present that they did not have authorization to hunt seals in the area, and then returned to Buenos Aires; the sealers ignored his warning.


The Heroina at Port Louis in 1820In 1823, Argentina granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet, who finally succeeded on establishing a permanent settlement three years later. After a fishing rights dispute, the USS Lexington destroyed Port Louis in 1832, an act which was later condoned by the American ambassador in Buenos Aires, who declared the Falkland Islands free from any power.

Amid the turmoil, the British took over the settlement in 1833 -see 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands- and the name reverted to Port Louis. In April of that year, Charles Darwin visited on the Beagle. After they transferred the administration to Stanley in 1845, it became the quiet sheep farming settlement it is today, known for its nineteenth century houses, waterfowl and wading birds.

from the wiki.


The United Kingdom mounted an invasion of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) on January 2, 1833, after the destruction of the Argentine Puerto Louis settlement by the American corvette Lexington (December 28, 1831) in response to the Argentine governor Luis Vernet having seized U.S. fishing boats. This incident served the Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. The Argentine Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new Governor of the Islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on November 15, 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him.

Under the command of Captain James Onslow, brig-sloop HMS Clio, previously stationed at Rio de Janeiro, reached Port Egmont on December 20, 1832. It was later joined by HMS Tyne.

Onslow arrived at Puerto Soledad on January 2, 1833. Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, who had quelled the rebellion and was in charge of the settlement, sent an officer to the British ship. He was presented a written request to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location. Pinedo entertained plans for resisting the invasion, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew. The British forces disembarked at 9 am of January 3 and promptly switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on January 5.

HMS Beagle arrived on 15 March 1833. Charles Darwin commented that

After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered. A British officer was next sent, unsupported by any power: and when we arrived, we found him in charge of a population, of which rather more than half were runaway rebels and murderers. (The Voyage of the Beagle.)
The United Kingdom has held the territory ever since, but for a two months period after the 1982 invasion, during the Falklands War.

The events of the invasion took place 24 years after the last British invasions of the Río de la Plata, when the British Crown attempted to take control of Buenos Aires and thus, over the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.

1000ydstare
04-10-2007, 03:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

Panzerknacker
04-10-2007, 06:12 PM
I have a question which I think is related to this topic. It's something that I have been wondering about since 1982:

Why do the people of Argentina have such strong feelings regarding their ownership/sovereignty of the Malvinas (I say Malvinas as a courtesy and because I wish to stress the 'strong feelings').


Probably because is the only territory lost to a foreing country since the declaration of independence in 1816. Argentina blasted by sword point everyother claim from Brasil, Paraguay, Spain and France.

32Bravo
04-11-2007, 03:02 AM
Probably because is the only territory lost to a foreing country since the declaration of independence in 1816. Argentina blasted by sword point everyother claim from Brasil, Paraguay, Spain and France.

Nation building

I haven't looked at this, beyond the obvious. I tend to look for political/economic reasons for war. I would begin (in this case) by looking at Argentine socio/economic history. I seem to recall that Argentina was quite wealthy, with a very strong gold reserve, early in the twentieth century. The collapse of the gold market created a certain instability which resulted in shaky governments and coup de tat. A common theme with countries experiencing such, is to unite the people by utilising some event or seeking some endeavour or other to appeal to their sense of national pride.

For example: towards the end of the American Civil War, Lincoln declared 'Thanks-giving' a national holiday. This served to remind all Americans that, despite their differences, they were Americans first and above all.

This would be the avenue I would pursue. For example: when did the Malvinas become such an issue that it was being taught about in schools and what was happening to the economy at the time?

Panzerknacker
04-11-2007, 06:43 PM
Hehe, I know what you tring to make, wise boy, you should be a lawyer :rolleyes:


By the way in my last post I forgot to mention that the Argentine militia ( it wasnt an army is those days) defeated two british attemps to invade the mainland, in 1806 and 1807.

William carr Beresford the commander of the invation Forces in 1806.

http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2003/SAN_LUIS/128/imagenes/beresf.jpg

32Bravo
04-12-2007, 02:44 AM
Hehe, I know what you tring to make, wise boy, you should be a lawyer :rolleyes:


By the way in my last post I forgot to mention that the Argentine militia ( it wasnt an army is those days) defeated two british attemps to invade the mainland, in 1806 and 1807.

William carr Beresford the commander of the invation Forces in 1806.

http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2003/SAN_LUIS/128/imagenes/beresf.jpg


Thank you for the compliment - or was it?

No, I am sincere in my motives, although I can see why you would think otherwise.

There is much debate about british occupation and the resident people. It would be difficult for any British politicians to order a withdrawal since forces gave their lives to re-tale the islands.

From an economic view point, I doubt Britain would want to give up its claims to Antarctica, something to do with mineral depositis and how the continent is divided by the surrounding nations. A little vague now, but there is where the route of the problem probably lies.

Yes, Beresford was one of those fantastically, incompetent, British generals. He commanded some excellent regiments, but he was hopeless....lucky for you fellows, hey?

Panzerknacker
04-12-2007, 05:51 PM
Thank you for the compliment - or was it?


Yes it was a compliment.

I undestand...it would be almost suicidal (politically) to order the british withdraw. That is way I get shocked when 1000yds post that the islands are an independent state :shock:



Yes, Beresford was one of those fantastically, incompetent, British generals. He commanded some excellent regiments, but he was hopeless....lucky for you fellows, hey?



The year after John Withelocke came with 6 times more soldiers (12000) but...it didnt suceeded either :rolleyes:


http://www.cienciahoy.org.ar/hoy95/invasiones2.jpg

32Bravo
04-13-2007, 01:44 AM
You are beginning to get to the point of the matter. British generals, with a few exceptions, were gentlemen, not soldiers. :)

Panzerknacker
04-13-2007, 09:31 AM
British generals, with a few exceptions, were gentlemen, not soldiers.

At list they were in those times, this general surrender his sword to the Bs As garrison commander, pretty elegant. :roll:

32Bravo
04-13-2007, 11:06 AM
At list they were in those times, this general surrender his sword to the Bs As garrison commander, pretty elegant. :roll:


Yes, this is what I was referring to:

The 95th subsequently saw action at Colonia against a Spanish force that had crossed from Buenos Aires where the Rifles held off the force until it could be repulsed, with the 95th gaining much praise from Auchmuty for their part in the defeat of the Spanish force. The 95th subsequently saw action in June at San Pedro where they, the 40th and light companies, fought against the Spanish force that had crossed from Buenos Aires and defeated them. Lieutenant-General John Whitelocke, the newly-arrived overall commander, subsequently launched an ill-advised and mis-managed assault on Buenos Aires in which the companies of both battalions of the 95th were involved as part of the Light Brigade, commanded by Robert Craufurd. During the assault on Buenos Aires on 5 July, the 95th and the rest of the British force suffered heavy casualties in bitter fighting to capture the city. The Light Brigade had suffered so heavily that they had to take refuge in a church and surrendered soon after. Whitelocke eventually surrendered his force. After Whitelocke negotiated the withdrawal of British forces, the men were released and they returned home later that year. In the aftermath of the disastrous expedition, Popham and Whitelocke were court-martialled, with Popham reprimanded and Whitelocke dismissed from the Army.

I haven't read much on it. It was more of a vague memory from the days when I was studying the 'Rifles' and the history of the Peninsular War. The exeptional generals were Sir John Moore and Sir Arthur Wellesley(Wellington).
Naturally, the 95th were not much impressed by Whitelocke. :)
http://www.peninsularwar.org/penwar_e.htm

Panzerknacker
05-09-2007, 07:27 PM
1000yds
Basically Panzerknacker, Rising Sun* is spot on.

I applaud you RS for putting your thoughts forwards so well and so clearly.

Panzerknacker, read, learn and absorb. YOUR country started it, MY country finished it. Any losses on your side, were caused (ultimately) by your own leadership.

Belgrano could well have caused severe damage to the RN task force. Her guns and her armour were from another era, one that we had forgot. That she was sunk is indeed unfortuante, but a key part to OUR winning of the war.

Or you could sulk.


First of all I have nothing to learn neither from RS ( no ofense RS) or you.

Second the war might be over but the conflict continue and it will continue until :

- A meteorite hit the Earth and finished with all the freaking planet.

- The island returned to Argentine hands. ( radical aproach but fair one)

-Another war began.


The military 1982 Goverment only exploit the historical uncomformity for ther british takeover of Malvinas, but is not the responsible for his creation.

Is always the same when some take another s territory by force there be always trouble, a close example in here in the appropiation of Peruvian and Bolivian territory by Chile in 1879, ( actually Bolivia was cut off his sea shore) and this caused conflict today and forever.

Rising Sun*
05-09-2007, 09:37 PM
First of all I have nothing to learn neither from RS ( no ofense RS) or you.

None taken.


Second the war might be over but the conflict continue and it will continue until :

- A meteorite hit the Earth and finished with all the freaking planet.

- The island returned to Argentine hands. ( radical aproach but fair one)

-Another war began.

Or Argentina just accepts things as they are, and have been for getting on for a couple of centuries, and changes its constitution by removing the rights asserted over the Malvinas. ;)

The central logical problem with Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas / Falklands, as with all irredentist arguments, is that it stands up only if everybody accepts the arbitrarily selected point in time at which the irredentists claim their ownership began. That time is invariably the one most favourable to the irredentist position. Naturally it will rarely be accepted by the opposition.

If we look at the chronology of the Falklands, there are points at which various nations can claim entitlement.

http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm

Irredentists of European origin in former European colonial possessions never want to take their arguments to their logical conclusion by going back to the first known ownership of the land, which is the native peoples in those colonies (As far as I can work out, the Falklands were not inhabited by anyone before Europeans, which destroys any claim based on ethnic or geographic connection with South America). The original occupants have the best irredentist claim to the land. The Incas have a better claim to the whole of Argentina than does anyone of European descent. After all, it’s only about 420 something years since Spain first landed there. The Incas were there first. Same situation in Australia with the Aborigines; America with their Indians; and Canada with their Indians.

The reason that the native peoples’ claims are ignored is because, rightly or wrongly, they were conquered or dominated by the invaders. They couldn’t hold their land. Which brings us to the concept of colonial ‘possessions’. As the term suggests, a possession is something possessed, or held, by a colonial power. Sooner or later, the world comes to accept that long possession equates to ownership in fact as well as acquiring possession in earlier international law by occupation.

Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816. Britain has held the Falklands since 1833. Britain has held the Falklands continuously for the past 174 years of Argentina’s 191 years of existence.

The days of international law recognising acquisition of territory by military force and civilian occupation have long gone. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm , which came into force in 1950, makes it a war crime for an occupying power to remove civilians from occupied territory and or to import its own civilians. As a party to that Convention, the only way that Argentina can reclaim the Falklands in any practical sense is to commit war crimes.

Another major problem with Argentina’s claim is that it derives from Spain’s claim. As Argentina declared independence from Spain and fought a revolutionary war early in the 19th century to achieve that independence, Argentina cannot rely on Spain’s territorial claims when it had repudiated Spanish rule. Such a claim is as absurd as would be an American claim now that it owns Canada because Canada comprised British possessions at the time of the American War of Independence which repudiated British rule.

I don’t see that Argentina’s claim has any real foundation beyond national emotion, while Argentina is prohibited by international law from giving effect to its ambitions.

1000ydstare
05-10-2007, 12:08 AM
It is always the British who have to give up isn't it?

It isn't going to happen. The Islanders have the say, and they want to be part of Britain.

The Islands incidently ARE independant, in the same was as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, look them up and read about them.

They rely on UK for one thing only... defence.

As we have discussed before, with Eagle. If the Argentine "rules" governing who owns what are followed correctly, then half the globe will be rearranged. Because the Argentine "rules" are flawed and cock-eyed to be generous to the Argies in this instance only.

Rising Sun*
05-22-2007, 07:44 PM
Why, apart from irredendist claims, and perhaps a desire to avenge the humiliation of losing the Falklands War, is it so important to Argentina to grab the Falklands? It's not like it will make a major contribution to Argentina's economy, defence, international prestige (the reverse on this point) or any other positive reason for having them. I sense strong feeling from Argentinians about the Falklands but I can't see any rational basis for those feelings apart from weak and confused irredentist arguments.

Why is it that Argentina is so focused on reclaiming the Falklands when it has much better historical title, arising around the same time, to Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia? Is it just that the Falklands is an easy target that Argentina thinks it can pick off? If not, then to be consistent Argentina should be maintaining claims to those countries as well as the Falklands.

royal744
05-22-2007, 10:32 PM
I suppose it's a little like thinking about winning the lottery. For a few minutes after purchasing an essentially worthless ticket, one's mind can take a vacation and think of all the wonderful possibilities that would open up if only one won! It's like a nearly free vacation from the workaday cares of the world. That must be what the Falklands are to the Argentinians, something outside of themselves, a shining city on the hill, a taliesin of the mind, or a free ticket to an all-nude Club Med on the Isle of Guadaloupe. That must be it!

But, like all such fantasies, it will not come to pass. El condor, no pasa....

Panzerknacker
05-27-2007, 12:47 PM
Sorry man, but I have no the slightest idea of what a hell you try to say in your last post.

Any chance that you explain or is that you just like the garblings post ?

My knowledge about non-argentine South American music is extremely limited but I know that El condor pasa is a peruvian song...so just for the record.


This is Peru:

http://www.donquijote.org/destinations/images/Peru-map.jpg



And this is Argentina:


http://www.aventurevoyages.com/argentina/general_map.jpg

Panzerknacker
05-30-2007, 07:25 PM
No response ???

Ha.

Rising Sun*
05-31-2007, 02:12 AM
No response ???

Ha.

Huh?

Ah!

Aha!

Ha! Ha!

That should clear it up. :D

Rising Sun*
05-31-2007, 02:15 AM
No response ???

Ha.

Or was that 'ha' in Spanish? Which clears it up less. :D

Rising Sun*
05-31-2007, 02:19 AM
No response ???

Ha.

And just for completeness, Babel translates the quote from Spanish to English as

"not response? it has."

That definitely clears it up. :D

I do so like mystical posts.

royal744
06-01-2007, 09:47 PM
Second the war might be over but the conflict continue and it will continue until :

- A meteorite hit the Earth and finished with all the freaking planet.

- The island returned to Argentine hands. ( radical aproach but fair one)

-Another war began.

At least, Panzer, you are quite consistent and I have to salute you for hanging in here and robustly defending the Argentinian point of view. I think that is quite commendable. I can't agree personally with any of it, but that's why they call it DISagreement. I can't help but be surprised at the some of the more or less violent imagery - a meteorite hit the Earth (holy smokes) - that sometimes accompanies your posts, but perhaps that is the latin passion for you. What I don't get is why the Argentinians waste so much energy on this issue. It reminds me a bit of arguments between university professors which tend to be almost unbelievably vicious over completely trivial topics and where the stakes are practically nil.

I suppose the US could always just annex the Canadian province of Quebec. We did invade it once but unfortunately got roundly thrashed on the PLains of Abraham on top of the cliff in front of Quebec City. After all, Quebec is basically the same land mass as America, and so what if the people there speak a different language? I'm sure that the Quebecois who don't like the English Canadians very much would like their raucous neighbors to the south even less, and if it came to a vote, wouldn't vote to join us either. I mean, who cares, really, what they think?

Tell you what, maybe we could propose that Canada seize the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which lie menacingly at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Quebec for these two islands - what a deal.

Nah, Panzer, I'm sorry, that doesn't make any more sense than Argentina laying claim to the Falklands either. Sorry. I admire your pluck, Panzer, but can't bring myself to buying your reasoning, no matter how hard I try.

Panzerknacker
06-02-2007, 08:56 AM
At least, Panzer, you are quite consistent and I have to salute you for hanging in here and robustly defending the Argentinian point of view. I think that is quite commendable


Thanks. And by the way, I dont try too sell nothing, I am just giving a opinion wich (I think) represent a large portion of the argentine public.

And remember the firt post of this issue, was a british who said the the islands should be Argentines....I agree with him.

Panzerknacker
06-11-2007, 06:49 PM
OAS unanimous support for Argentina’s Falklands’ claim


Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Direct Link: http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10660&formato=html (http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10660&formato=html)

As has been the rule the 37th Organization of American States Foreign Secretaries summit unanimously approved a declaration in support of Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas/Falklands islands while Argentina pounded Britain for its unilateral actions ignoring cooperation understandings.


The OAS meeting this time was held in Panama and the main topic energy, however recent events in Venezuela overshadowed the summit with a strong clash between Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who walked out of the meeting applauded by the delegates.

Argentina’s Foreign Secretary Jorge Taiana said that “UK does not cease to carry out unilateral actions contrary to the cooperation convened under the (Falklands/Malvinas) sovereignty formula” and exemplified recalling the awarding of oil exploration and production licences in the disputed area.

This attitude contradicts the Argentine/British joint declaration of September 27 regarding activities in the South western Atlantic, and the international community mandate, “forcing Argentina to end such understanding”, added the Argentine delegate.

Taiana said the issue had been recently addressed by all Latinamerican leaders during the first South American Energy Summit, which approved a presidential declaration supporting Argentina’s decision to conclude the 1995 Argentina/UK Joint declaration.

Taiana further on said that on the 25th anniversary of the conflict, “I would like to pay respectful homage to all those who gave their lives and efforts in the South Atlantic”. But “this (1982) conflict did not alter the legality or nature of the dispute” and this has been recognized by the international community, which has repeatedly called on both sides to resume talks on the issue.

Finally Taiana said that for over a year Argentina has repeatedly invited the United Kingdom to maintain an open dialogue over the current situation of all existing provisional understandings, and particularly the context framework: the existence of the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute and the obligation on both sides to solve it by the resumption of bilateral negotiations, “unfortunately the UK intransigency has not allowed so far this frank and open dialogue”.

The declaration in support of Argentina’s Falklands/Malvinas “legitimate claims” and call for resumption of dialogue and a peaceful solution was presented by the Uruguayan delegate.

According to Taiana OAS has passes ten resolutions and 14 declarations in support of Argentina on the Falklands sovereignty dispute.

Rising Sun*
06-12-2007, 07:14 AM
OAS unanimous support for Argentina’s Falklands’ claim


Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Direct Link: http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10660&formato=html (http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10660&formato=html)

But “this (1982) conflict did not alter the legality or nature of the dispute”

Was there a rush of bog Irish immigration to Argentina at some stage?

Do you just enjoy banging your heads on a brick wall to no purpose?


... and this has been recognized by the international community, which has repeatedly called on both sides to resume talks on the issue.

Evidence?

BDL
06-12-2007, 12:31 PM
As soon as the OAS becomes even slightly relevent to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I'm sure the vote will effect our stance...

Why are you so keen to have a couple of islands where none of the residents want you?

Lone Ranger
06-12-2007, 02:48 PM
I see Argentina continues with their "charm" offensive and then they wonder why the Islanders tell them to "get stuffed".

You know the Islanders might wish to have closer relationships with South America if perhaps they were allowed to have any sort of relationship with the OAS. But since the OAS refuses to recognise them as Argentina would fling its rattle from the pram probably not.

The Islanders aren't even allowed to compete in the South American games, well not exactly true, they could if they competed as Argentines but as thats known to be unacceptable to them it amounts to the same thing.

You really don't get it.

Panzerknacker
06-13-2007, 05:56 PM
My intention with the last post is to show that Argentina is not alone in his legitime claim.


Why are you so keen to have a couple of islands where none of the residents want you?

I have a better and more modern example of a military involved in a conflict far more bloody and complicated than the 1982 war, in a country that none of the residents like him and with no solution in the near future, even more that military is not commanded by a dictatorial "junta" but for a democracy ( even there is still some blue blood people in that country)....but for respect to the people who is fighting there (several of them members of this forum) I will not mention further details.


I see Argentina continues with their "charm" offensive and then they wonder why the Islanders tell them to "get stuffed".


Always better than a bombing offensive.

Chevan
06-14-2007, 02:19 AM
I have a better and more modern example of a military involved in a conflict far more bloody and complicated than the 1982 war, in a country that none of the residents like him and with no solution in the near future, even more that military is not commanded by a dictatorial "junta" but for a democracy ( even there is still some blue blood people in that country)....but for respect to the people who is fighting there (several of them members of this forum) I will not mention further details.

this is amazing ... but true ,Panzerknacker
I/m supporting the respect to the members of our forum ( who is fighting in Iraq) but nevertheless i have to say the British involvement in this pro-Israel adventure is more then disputable then the Argentinians claims for the Falklands;)
This is pure dual standarts to blame the " Argentinian junta" for the couple pitiful islands and at the same time participate in the full scale war agression ( for the alien interests) the whole country.
Just IMO


Always better than a bombing offensive.
But sometimes the bombing offensive ( that could kill a handreds thousands civil peoples ) could safe the millions?;)
Don't you understand it already?;)

Man of Stoat
06-14-2007, 02:31 AM
The difference is that we don't want to own Iraq... surely that is obvious?

BDL
06-14-2007, 02:46 AM
in a country that none of the residents like him

The ones I met were pretty happy to see us.

Chevan
06-14-2007, 03:14 AM
The difference is that we don't want to own Iraq... surely that is obvious?

So why did you come in Iraq?
May y be you wish the "own oil fields" in Iraq;)?
If serious i/m sorry for the Britains who was simply deceived by the biased mass media histeria and "CIA datas" but ....... i readed somewhere about british average IQ ( it was one the highest in the Europe and more then in USA) so i think you should think before believe something, right;)
Just kidding....

Egorka
06-14-2007, 03:31 AM
The difference is that we don't want to own Iraq... surely that is obvious?

Of course you don't. Who in sane mind would want such responsibility!

Chevan
06-14-2007, 03:47 AM
The ones I met were pretty happy to see us.
You will laugh sir but when nazy come to the Ukraine they at the first moment also saw the "happy faces". And when the Red Army "liberated" the Eastern Europe they also saw the mostly "happy peoples".
Do you know what this means for them indeed;)
I think the problem of Washington strategy to "install the democraty by the wearpon" is not the best shoice for the Iraq peoples who belong the other specific religion and ancient culture.
Even the most richest arabian states like Saudi do not chosed the western democraty model. So it silly to demand it from the poorest Iraq IMO.
This is conflict of civilisations but question is ...... have we the right to determine what is better for them?
Cheers.

Man of Stoat
06-14-2007, 04:17 AM
I'm sorry, did I miss Britain declaring any part of the Iraq British territory? Did I miss our setting up a permanent colonial administration, and declaring that we would occupy it militarily permanently?

Chevan, do you know what an absolute monarchy is? Royal families in absolute monarchies tend to choose for absolute monarchies, so your argument is like "Germany didn't choose for a democracy between 1933 and 1945" (although, having voted for Hitler, this argument is stronger than yours about Saudi, although after the "enabling act" it was only Hitler who did any choosing).

Chevan
06-14-2007, 07:35 AM
I'm sorry, did I miss Britain declaring any part of the Iraq British territory? Did I miss our setting up a permanent colonial administration, and declaring that we would occupy it militarily permanently?
Just do not misundertand me MoS.
I did not wish to touch your national feelings. It is not my point.
But to your questions ...... i think you should agree that the aims of coalition was to change the gov of Iraq by the military means,right? This is obvious fact , thus the whatever were the palns of occupation of Iraq for the long time or not is not such importain.
From the pure international law it was an agressive military offesive - the attempt to capture the independent state. May be for the oil , may be for defence of Isreal - does not matter.( i heared for instance the Bush promised the everybody who join the coalition the right for the development of the Iraq oil fields, for instance the Poles get a such promises)
So there is no any doubt thw agressive intentions toward the Iraq really were.


Chevan, do you know what an absolute monarchy is? Royal families in absolute monarchies tend to choose for absolute monarchies, so your argument is like "Germany didn't choose for a democracy between 1933 and 1945" (although, having voted for Hitler, this argument is stronger than yours about Saudi, although after the "enabling act" it was only Hitler who did any choosing).
Really is the Nazy supporting in Germany a better agrument then my?
I/m doubt. The Germany was a part of Europe that was simply ill (temporary) by the Hitler.
So the liberation of Germans ( as European) was a real positive act( although very hard for us).
But from whom do you wish liiberate the Arab world sir?;)

Cheers.

Rising Sun*
06-14-2007, 07:47 AM
Who in sane mind would want such responsibility!

Agreed, my friend. :D

However, where is the evidence of sanity in anything to do with getting into Iraq?

Or, bearing in mind the thread topic, Argentina getting into the Falklands?

Man of Stoat
06-14-2007, 07:49 AM
The German people voted for Adolf Hitler. Nobody voted for the house of Saud.

I'm sure if you organised a free and fair referendum in Saudi they would vote for a democracy over their current absolute monarchy.

Anyway, back on topic more or less: Argentina wants to directly rule the Falklands, in Iraq the coalition replaced an absolute dictatorship with a democracy and did not interfere with who could run for office (there were plenty of loony Islamist parties), or who could vote (the insurgents tried very hard to keep people at home though).

If it wasn't for the insurgents, we might have been gone by now.

Chevan
06-14-2007, 08:03 AM
The German people voted for Adolf Hitler. Nobody voted for the house of Saud.

I'm sure if you organised a free and fair referendum in Saudi they would vote for a democracy over their current absolute monarchy.

True they could vote for democraty free if....... they forget about its past and religion.
Their past and presents is the monarchy - and it hold the oreder and peace intide the state. Does it like you or not - this is their choise.
Try to demolish it and you will get the situation like in Iraq- absolut anarhy and civils and religion war.


Anyway, back on topic more or less: Argentina wants to directly rule the Falklands, in Iraq the coalition replaced an absolute dictatorship with a democracy and did not interfere with who could run for office (there were plenty of loony Islamist parties), or who could vote (the insurgents tried very hard to keep people at home though).
The insugrements were not such succesfull if they have no the supporting among the people.
And this is not the "democraty" when the peoples died much more then during the "absolute dictatorship" - this is a pure anarchy.
Whetever you try to say as justification of this situation.

Cheers.

Rising Sun*
06-14-2007, 08:06 AM
I'm sure if you organised a free and fair referendum in Saudi they would vote for a democracy over their current absolute monarchy.

I'm not so sure.

It's hard overnight to alter centuries of a particular culture that has no experience of democracy, and one where layered segments of society depend for maintenance of their current existence upon continuation of the current regime. There is also the significant factor that there are family, clan and tribal aspects in a country which operates on medieval principles, and which principles are the exact opposite of everything that underpins the individualistic bases of Western democracy.

It'd be rather like trying to convince the Japanese in 1940 to ditch the god emperor and institute democracy. It was just unthinkable.

Panzerknacker
06-14-2007, 09:26 AM
But sometimes the bombing offensive ( that could kill a handreds thousands civil peoples ) could safe the millions?;)
Don't you understand it already


Sorry Chev, but I am still unable to understand that :neutral:




The ones I met were pretty happy to see us.


Good for you,it dont seems to be the rule.

Man of Stoat
06-14-2007, 09:35 AM
How many islanders were happy to see the Argentines?

I would wager that they could be counted on the fingers of less than one hand...

Chevan
06-14-2007, 11:36 PM
I'm not so sure.

It's hard overnight to alter centuries of a particular culture that has no experience of democracy, and one where layered segments of society depend for maintenance of their current existence upon continuation of the current regime. There is also the significant factor that there are family, clan and tribal aspects in a country which operates on medieval principles, and which principles are the exact opposite of everything that underpins the individualistic bases of Western democracy.

.

That's exactly what i mean Rising Sun.

Chevan
06-14-2007, 11:37 PM
Sorry Chev, but I am still unable to understand that :neutral:
.
I/m too unable to understand it.
It was just irony ;)

Rising Sun*
08-03-2007, 08:29 AM
You still dont get my point, is not a sentiment created by any goverment, is a sentiment that lay in every person. It can be exploited, but no invented.

How would Argentinians respond to Chileans or Brazilians, or Falkland Islanders, having in their hearts that they are entitled to occupy and exploit Argentina, and taking steps to achieve it?

Doesn't there come a time when reality overtakes emotional historical claims which deny to the FI people the same rights which Argentinians want for themselves?

Panzerknacker
08-03-2007, 08:46 AM
Bad probably but the diference lays the our country was devoted to no create that type of conflicts, the Argentine army have no the custom to ocupy territory ilegally.

Did you know that the Argentine Army occupied the south Brasil in 1828?

Did you know that in 1870 completely destroy the Paraguayan army and took over the entire country?

However the generals at that time were smart enough to leave those countries to avoid any trouble like Malvinas one, never a war was fought to gain territory of another Sudamerican nation, just to eject the spanish Armym and to defend the own borders.

Rising Sun*
08-03-2007, 09:07 AM
Bad probably but the diference lays the our country was devoted to no create that type of conflicts, the Argentine army have no the custom to ocupy territory ilegally.

Did you know that the Argentine Army occupied the south Brasil in 1828?

Did you know that in 1870 completely destroy the Paraguayan army and took over the entire country?

However the generals at that time were smart enough to leave those countries to avoid any trouble like Malvinas one, never a war was fought to gain territory of another Sudamerican nation, just to eject the spanish Armym and to defend the own borders.

Mate, I know that there were lots of armed conflicts between the interests that became the modern South American nations of Spanish descent.

Common sense would suggest that you'd all have united to give the Portuguese lot a flogging instead of squabbling among yourselves.

The fact you preferred to fight among yourselves says something about the history which informs Argentina's attitude to the FI.

Firefly
02-25-2009, 06:36 AM
Im always amazed by the fact that Argentine continuilly carps on about the Falklands but in reality if they actually took over the Islands they would do absolutely nothing with them. No one in Argentina really wants to live there. Its just a mythical prize that a whole country can feel good about wanting to own. A sort of shared gripe, 'life may be abd, but imagine how good it would be with the Malvinas back'.

Utter foolishness if you ask me, the bottom line is that this isnt 1830 or even 1982 and the Islanders should decide what they want to do, on their own after all, its them that really own the Islands. Let the people who want to live there do so in peace.

Lone Ranger
02-25-2009, 08:01 AM
The War of the Triple Alliance resulted in Argentina retaining part of Paraguay. It wasn't handed back. And most of Argentina's early history involves attempts to re-unite former elements of the Viceroyalty of the Rio Del La Plata, i.e. conquer Uruguay and Paraguay.

The spin that Argentina didn't try to shift borders is nonsense.

Nickdfresh
02-25-2009, 08:17 AM
Wasn't there an ongoing border dispute between Chile and Argentina that resulted in Chile sort of aiding the British in certain situations?

Firefly
02-25-2009, 03:47 PM
I think they still have the dispute, somewhere south I think and if I recall some of the best Argentine troops were left there during the conflict while untrained and ill disciplined conscripts were sent to fight against the Best Army in Europe. Good plan that.

Lone Ranger
02-25-2009, 05:47 PM
You're thinking of the Beagle Channel dispute over the Picton, Lennox and Nueva islands.

It was a dispute submitted to international arbitration. This ruled in Chile's favour and in 1978 upon the announcement Argentina mobilised for war. The intention being to impose a military solution favouring the Argentine claims. War was averted through a papal intervention and the dispute was more submitted to arbitration. Again the arbitration ruled in Chile's favour.

After the successful invasion of the Falkland Islands Galtieri made a comment to the effect that they intended to solve the Beagle Channel dispute once and for all. Chile took that as an implied threat and moved troops to defensive positions, Argentina repositioned its best troops fresh from the Falklands Invasion to counter. Chile assuming Argentine victory would result in an invasion felt compelled to support Britain.

After the Falklands War, the dispute was finally settled in 1984 but it took a national referendum to accept the arbitration. 82% voted in favour of a compromise that recognised Chilean sovereignty but granted Argentina certain rights.

The dispute arose from 1881 boundary treaty between Argentina and Chile. This demarcated the region into Argentina and Chilean territory. What killed the Argentine case stone dead was that until 1891 Argentine maps showed the islands as Chilean, then Argentina had a change of heart and decided on a new interpretation of the treaty and that the islands were in its territory.

Its common to find the Argentines very bitter about the support Chile gave to Britain but given the background, Chilean support was contingent upon the threat Argentina posed to Chile. In this respect, Argentine threats pushed Chile into supporting Britain but that seems to be conveniently forgotten.

Cojimar 1945
02-26-2009, 11:38 AM
I think Spain should reestablish its empire starting with Argentina.

Panzerknacker
02-26-2009, 05:14 PM
The War of the Triple Alliance resulted in Argentina retaining part of Paraguay. It wasn't handed back. And most of Argentina's early history involves attempts to re-unite former elements of the Viceroyalty of the Rio Del La Plata, i.e. conquer Uruguay and Paraguay.

The spin that Argentina didn't try to shift borders is nonsense.


Argentina retained part of the Paraguayan territory that is correct, however Argentina was pretty much forced into war by the same Paraguay, this country had a defensive alliance with Uruguay and invaded the Province of Misiones to made its way short to Uruguay. Obviously Argentina couldnt stay neutral after its territory invaded, its merchants ships captured and towns looted. Too bad for Paraguay in the final account but that happen when you got a maniac as Solano Lopez as ruler.


I think Spain should reestablish its empire starting with Argentina.


:rolleyes:...Spain have several troubles keeping its own territorial integration , the Basque Country, Galicia and Catalunya had all independentist ambitions, so honestly I dont think they are in conditions to pull out that enterpreise.

Lone Ranger
02-27-2009, 03:39 AM
Argentina retained part of the Paraguayan territory that is correct

Just to point out you claimed that Argentina had never retained territory seized by force.


Argentina was pretty much forced into war by the same Paraguay, this country had a defensive alliance with Uruguay and invaded the Province of Misiones to made its way short to Uruguay.

That Paraguay invaded Argentine territory is indeed true but there is more to it than that. Such as throughout the 19th Century the Government of Buenos Aires tried to recreate the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata by incorporating Paraguay and Uruguay into its territory without success.


a maniac as Solano Lopez as ruler.

Just for the edification of those not familiar with the history, the war started when Brazil invaded Uruguay deposing the Government, Paraguay came to the aid of their allies declaring war on Brazil and later Argentina when it refused permission for troops to transit its territory en route to Uruguay. The triple alliance was formed by the new Government of Uruguay allying itself with Brazil and Argentina against Paraguay.

After defeating Paraguay Argentine intentions were to split the country in half with Brazil. The reason why the country still exists is that Brazil preferred to keep a buffer between itself and Argentina. Argentine ended up with about 16% of the pre-war territory of Paraguay.

Kinda different from the initial picture painted isn't it?

As regards the impact of the war on Paraguay. 90% of the make population was killed in the war, the population dropped from over 500,000 to a little over 200,000 of which only 28,000 were male.

Of the troops of the Triple Alliance taking part, mortality rates were very high about 50% of the troops died. The main cause of mortality being disease rather than battle casualties.

Panzerknacker
02-27-2009, 06:34 PM
My point was that if you continue war alone, against 3 countries wich had 15 times more soldiers that you, 25 times more ships ( the brazilian navy contribution to the war was not really important I must say) and 50 times more artillery...well you are a maniac.

If Argentina was the devil or the saint in the war...well I think that depend in wich historian you read, everyone had its own variant of the political and geographical justifications.

Lone Ranger
02-28-2009, 04:31 PM
To which you can add, muzzle loading flintlocks against modern repeating rifles.

Which by the why is not to condemn or excuse Argentina either way. You raised the issue to say that Argentina never fought a war for or retained territory and included in that the War of the Triple Alliance.

Well the Triple Alliance included a provision for the seizure of territory, thats more or less the reason Argentina went to war.

Care to retract that comment?

Panzerknacker
02-28-2009, 09:06 PM
There were no repeaters in the Argentine army , mostly there were percussion rifled muzzleloaders, the first breech loader adopted was the Remington Rolling block cal .43 in 1871.



Care to retract that comment?


No I wont, the main reason for war for Argentina was not capture any land but the total defeat of Solano Lopez. The demonization of the Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay victory comes from the 1960s when some historians ( wich had the tendency to write with the left hand) transformed Lopez from a dictator to an antiimperialist freedom fighter.

This is the same as blaming the UK, USSR and USA for the destruction and occupation of Germany in WW2...and forgetting Hitler.

reydelcastillo
03-01-2009, 08:46 PM
Gentleman

Zona Militar , has open a thread in English , were War Veterans can bring to us their accounts , it's exclusive to Military Accions that have happen during the Conflict of 1982-

There are several War Veterans , invitations have been summited to :

Military Photos
key Publishing Aviation Forum
PPrune

All of them with British War Veterans - With whom we exchange stories and accounts -

Here is the link www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/...ad.php?t=18569


It will be an Honor for us to have you visit our forum and join us Thank You - Enrique

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 04:14 AM
Gentleman

Zona Militar , has open a thread in English , were War Veterans can bring to us their accounts , it's exclusive to Military Accions that have happen during the Conflict of 1982-

There are several War Veterans , invitations have been summited to :

Military Photos
key Publishing Aviation Forum
PPrune

All of them with British War Veterans - With whom we exchange stories and accounts -

Here is the link www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/...ad.php?t=18569


It will be an Honor for us to have you visit our forum and join us Thank You - Enrique

That looks like a great site, and one that might teach some people on this site how to conduct a mature conversation between former enemies, but unfortunately when I click on your link it comes up with a 'link broken' message.

Perhaps you could check the site and post a fresh link?

EDIT: I've tried logging onto the main site www.zonamilitar.com.ar also the www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros page. In both cases I get an introductory page which resolves to a 'database error' page.

It may be a fault with the site or with access to it from my end.

Panzerknacker
03-02-2009, 05:49 AM
Enrique the forum is not working, but that does not make sad at all. A forum like that in wich you arent allowed to talk about politics isnt a forum, is a joke, is useless.

And yes if some of the moderators have trouble with me saying that the zonamilitar is useless, worthless ( I have stronger words but let get away of that for a moment) just visit us here and I going explain with luxury of details my reasons.

In the meanwhile publiciting a forum in other does not seems very ethic.

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 06:23 AM
PK Your motivation and or purpose in such posts seems to be to offend not only the British for whom you repeatedly express contempt but also to denigrate and offend all of your countrymen who actually fought the war and who dare to express any opinions contrary to your peculiar chauvinistic opinions.

.....

Edited by RS

reydelcastillo
03-02-2009, 07:22 AM
I understand your point of veiw about Politics -

But this forum al Zona Militar has the only Purpuse of bringing together the accounts of War Veterans from both sides -

We have started several month ago , we slowly went into :

Military Photos
Key Publishing Aviation Forum
PPrune

And it was a success - You should see how wonderfull it is to exchange accounts between War Veterans , they are able to bring to life war accions that have taken place during the conflict - Many of us Argies War Veternas have been talking and exchanging info on Military Accions - I would add to this the valuable contribution that we have gotten from Historians , from both sides -

This same objective is what has been imposed at Zona Militar , we have invited them to Join us at the Forum , to bring to us theire experiences , to talk about the War with us -

There is always two stories about something that has happen , the truth is somewere in the middle , so we try to "replay" what actualy happen based on the accounts from both sides - And we have never had to go into Politics , because we soldiers do not talk Politics -

Take a look , get into PPRUNe ( Military Aircrew ) see how we talk there , how we exchange with most respect ideas , stories and experiences -

View the conversations between Spencer ( Harrier Pilot ) Jualbo ( Historian ) Cosmicomet ( Dagger Pilot ) Ken ( HMS Cardiff ) Me ( Long Range Radar at Falklands ) Mercantiland ( Navy Historian ) Rivas ( Air Force Historian ) and many more -

This is what is going to happen at Zona Militar -

We do not want , we do not care about Politics - We only care to talk about the war - Most of us :

Talk the talk and have walk the walk -

It is so much interested to talk about the War , than to talk about Politics -
Besides most of us do not earn enough to talk about Politics , but we know what it is to fight at war -

Regards Enrique

Let me see what is going wrong with the link -

reydelcastillo
03-02-2009, 09:04 AM
www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/index.php

The thread is Falklands/Malvinas war -

Thank You

Iconoclasta
03-02-2009, 09:24 AM
EDIT: I've tried logging onto the main site www.zonamilitar.com.ar also the www.zonamilitar.com.ar/foros page. In both cases I get an introductory page which resolves to a 'database error' page.

It may be a fault with the site or with access to it from my end.

Hi Rising Sun

the forum was on maintenance, now it works fine

Click here to register: http://zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/register.php

The topic is this: http://zonamilitar.com.ar/foros/showthread.php?t=18569

greetings

pdf27
03-02-2009, 12:06 PM
In the meanwhile publiciting a forum in other does not seems very ethic.
And doing so in normal circumstances would get the links deleted and the person posting them given the boot. Given the content and purpose of the forum in question, I see no objection to retaining it here and am even tempted to make it a sticky!

Panzerknacker
03-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Your motivation and or purpose in such posts seems to be to offend not only the British for whom you repeatedly express contempt but also to denigrate and offend all of your countrymen who actually fought the war and who dare to express any opinions contrary to your peculiar chauvinistic opinions.



I dont mean anything disrispectuful towars enrique.

With "Moderators" I meaned the moderators of zonamilitar, and I can assure you that not a single of those kids is a war veteran.

Iconoclasta
03-02-2009, 05:28 PM
I dont mean anything disrispectuful towars enrique.

With "Moderators" I meaned the moderators of zonamilitar, and I can assure you that not a single of those kids is a war veteran.

I feel obliged to respond this, as moderator of Zona Militar

This goes beyond promoting a forum (in any case also advertise this one), has nothing to do with this

We are not kids, and if we were, this is not a crime, is an achievement that we want to learn and understand both sides of the same story, I hope all young people were like that

I do not intend to create a controversy, nothing more, sorry for my English and the Offtopic

Regards

Panzerknacker
03-02-2009, 05:41 PM
Okay you are not a kid, sorry, but nothing good could come from a guy who had as avatar a mass murderer, nun raper and church burner like Buenaventura Durruti and evidently that is a clear an loud statement of your political inclinations.

God save the poor character naive enough to signing up there.

By the way : Do you like murderers ?

If so...why ?

reydelcastillo
03-02-2009, 06:15 PM
It is not my call but let me ask you :

You talk the talk , but have you walk the walk ?