Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

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

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by 1000ydstare; 04-10-2007 at 03:58 PM.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

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



  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    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.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

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



  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

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



  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,363

    Default

    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.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    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?
    Last edited by 32Bravo; 04-11-2007 at 03:27 AM.


    "Fellas, Let's Go!"


    Henry V - Azincourt


  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,363

    Default

    Hehe, I know what you tring to make, wise boy, you should be a lawyer


    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.


  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    Hehe, I know what you tring to make, wise boy, you should be a lawyer


    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.


    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?
    Last edited by 32Bravo; 04-12-2007 at 02:47 AM.


    "Fellas, Let's Go!"


    Henry V - Azincourt


  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,363

    Default

    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

    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



  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    You are beginning to get to the point of the matter. British generals, with a few exceptions, were gentlemen, not soldiers.


    "Fellas, Let's Go!"


    Henry V - Azincourt


  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,363

    Default

    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    At list they were in those times, this general surrender his sword to the Bs As garrison commander, pretty elegant.

    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


    "Fellas, Let's Go!"


    Henry V - Azincourt


  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,363

    Default

    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    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 Argentinaís 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/milita...t/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, itís 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 peoplesí claims are ignored is because, rightly or wrongly, they were conquered or dominated by the invaders. They couldnít hold their land. Which brings us to the concept of colonial Ďpossessionsí. 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 Argentinaís 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 Argentinaís claim is that it derives from Spainís 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 Spainís 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 donít see that Argentinaís claim has any real foundation beyond national emotion, while Argentina is prohibited by international law from giving effect to its ambitions.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    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.
    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

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



  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,380

    Default

    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.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •