Was the Falkland War British aggression or was it justifiable?

[GameSparta500]

Britian vs. Argetina

was the war justifiable or not

 

[pkHuss]

As I understand the history of the Falkland Islands, the British were justified in going to war with Argentine junta, as the majority of the islands' population is of English/Welsh descent. Whether the original British claim on the island is justified is a separate matter. We should probably distinguish between the Argentine claim on the islands, which is historically reasonable, from the invasion in 1982, which was quite aggressive. It is very tricky business, for example, how would the English Falklanders have been treated under the Argentine military government?

 

[Vassnti]

You should probably change the title to Argentinian agression or justifiable seeing it was Argentina that invaded.

Simple thing is the majority of the population want to be part of Britian.

To put it in perspective if the majority of Kashmir voted to be part of Pakistan and India invaded would it be agression on the part of Pakistan to try and kick india out?

 

[pkHuss]

That's not a good analogy. The population of the Falklands is not the indigenous population. The Argentinians who lived in the Falklands during the 1800's (after Argentina got independence from the Spanish) were forcibly removed and expelled to the mainland by the British navy, and English/Welsh settlers were brought in.

If you get rid of all the dissidents, and then ask for the opinion of those who remain, it's not a meaningful referendum.

 

[Luftwaffe]

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 favored 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."

 

[Sasquatch]

I've read somewhere that Argentina could have won but they Fvcked it up, today South America backs Argentina on the Islands even Chavez said he would fight on behalf of Argentina to reclaim the islands.

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Britain cannot defend Falklands: Admiral

Military cuts mean Britain would struggle to defend the Falkland Islands from another Argentine attack, the commander of the naval task force that recaptured them exactly 29 years ago said Tuesday.

"As things currently stand, we'd have serious trouble defending anything much further than the other side of the English Channel," Admiral Sandy Woodward added, in an article in the Daily Mail newspaper.

Woodward cited the lack of an aircraft carrier and weakening US support for British sovereignty.

"Twenty-nine years ago today, we re-claimed the Falklands for Britain in one of the most remarkable campaigns since the Second World War," Woodward wrote.

"The simple truth is without aircraft carriers and without the Americans, we would not have any hope of doing the same again today."

The Falklands "are now perilously close to being indefensible".

Britain, which has held the windswept Falklands islands since 1833, won a short but bloody war in 1982 after Argentina's military junta invaded the islands.

Woodward also commented on remarks Monday by the head of the Royal Navy, about the effect of the defence cuts on the current NATO-led operation in Libya.

Admiral Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, suggested that elements of the Libya operation would have been cheaper and "much more reactive" if Britain had still had an aircraft carrier.

Stanhope's comments "that Britain does not even have enough ships to continue even the small operation in Libya highlights the weakened state in which defence cuts have left our navy; a position from which we are incapable of defending our territory in the south Atlantic," wrote Woodward.

Britain is without an aircraft carrier since the Royal Navy's flagship HMS Ark Royal and its Harrier jump jets, returned to base for the last time in December.

That leaves Britain without an aircraft carrier capable of launching jets for the next decade.

The move came as Prime Minister David Cameron's government cut the defence budget by eight percent in a bid to curb Britain's huge deficit.

Responding to Woodward, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance.

"The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained."

The Argentine forces, which invaded on April 2, 1982 surrendered on June 14. The conflict cost the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British troops.

 

[Chogy]

This is a tricky thing, and I am mixed. Here's the deal... at some point, every single nation, every chunk of desirable land, has had indigenous (or "first") peoples displaced by an aggressor. In some cases, you have to go back into the dim history of thousands of years ago. In others, it's more recent.

For the falklands, it happened about 175 years ago. Yes it was sad for the settlers of South American descent, but the fact remains that right now, the people living there are Britishers and want to stay part of GB. So do we focus on the wishes of the citizens, or not? Do two wrongs (removal of the British subjects) make a right? Does the USA give California, New Mexico, Arizona, back to Mexico, since they were a part of Mexico in 1848? Even though the people themselves want to remain USA citizens and part of the USA?

How far back do we go in history? Do we evict everyone from Australia who is not aboriginal? How about Hawaii?

 

[Ambitious449]

Falkland war was another case of British imperialism

 

[Chogy]

Falkland war was another case of British imperialism

Did you even read my post?

Throughout the history of Man, peoples have been displaced. The question becomes, how far back in time do we go to "fix" it? Any date we pick would be completely arbitrary and very impractical. We should look to the will of the people currently there (in any country) when examining this.

Some good examples - British "Imperialism" in the Caribbean and Central America. Britain claimed several islands and chunks of land, in places like Barbados and British Honduras. A few decades ago, the people in those countries decided they did not want to be a part of GB anymore. British Honduras became independent Belize. Likewise, Barbados gained its independence in the 1960's. Interestingly, the British possessions in the Caribbean are some of the best run, cleanest, and happiest of nations in the generally poor Caribbean and Central America. The British yoke (despite naysayers) was actually very light, and also progressive.

But unlike Barbados, the people on the Falklands want to be a part of GB. I think their wish should be respected.

 

[Ambitious449]

Did you even read my post?

Throughout the history of Man, peoples have been displaced. The question becomes, how far back in time do we go to "fix" it? Any date we pick would be completely arbitrary and very impractical. We should look to the will of the people currently there (in any country) when examining this.

Some good examples - British "Imperialism" in the Caribbean and Central America. Britain claimed several islands and chunks of land, in places like Barbados and British Honduras. A few decades ago, the people in those countries decided they did not want to be a part of GB anymore. British Honduras became independent Belize. Likewise, Barbados gained its independence in the 1960's. Interestingly, the British possessions in the Caribbean are some of the best run, cleanest, and happiest of nations in the generally poor Caribbean and Central America. The British yoke (despite naysayers) was actually very light, and also progressive.

But unlike Barbados, the people on the Falklands want to be a part of GB. I think their wish should be respected.

Embargo was placed again Argentina before the actual war. Howcome? Coz Britain was supported by USA & and other european countries. And Argentina was left alone. You won this war by your pathetic strategies and not by like real men do. Unforgettably you yourself single handedly decided what people want of the land you invaded. british did the same in India.

 

[untitled]

Whether justifiable or not,Thatcher got reelected

 

[S-A-B-E-R->]

Ricky Gervais - War - YouTube

 

[Chogy]

Embargo was placed again Argentina before the actual war. Howcome? Coz Britain was supported by USA & and other european countries. And Argentina was left alone. You won this war by your pathetic strategies and not by like real men do. Unforgettably you yourself single handedly decided what people want of the land you invaded. british did the same in India.

Amazing. What does this reply have to do with what I wrote?

If you want to discuss the nuts and bolts of the Falklands war, start another thread. We are discussing the justification, and the problems of the will of the people.

 

[untitled]

Interview with Thatcher

and the video

 

[Avisheik]

Argentine claims are justifiable more than england imo. Argentines own that island, but got removed by the british.

Falkland should be given back to argentina, but since the island is populated by the english for like more than 100 years, i dont think they should be removed from the island, as they have a sense of belonging there.