MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
Last Argentine military Junta had plans to remain in power until 2000
Neatly kept and organized documents dating to the start of Argentina’s last dictatorship, 1976/1983, shows the names of activists who went missing and citizens blacklisted under the regime, officials announced in Buenos Aires. The documents also show that the military junta had planned to hold onto power until 2000. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI hope this shines a light into the darkest,filthy crevasses of this terrible regime and reveals all the cowardly collaborators,however always remember the extreme left begets extreme right,also Peron began as a military dictator.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina needs to lose it,s obsession with him, he presided over a long decline ,
why o why must every political party from the loony left to the rabid right call it,s self Peronist!?
And there you have it. If Argentina had won the Falklands war, the odious Junta would have stuck around for at least another 18 years. All this crap about the war merely prolonging the Junta reign can be consigned to the rubbish bin. Britain effectively restored Argentina democracy... pity about the latest incumbents :-(
Nov 07th, 2013 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 So we can safely say that any argie that criticises Britain would have been your bog-standard fanatical supporter of the junta, right? Doesn't this tell us a lot? “It wasn't us. It was the junta”. No, it wasn't. It was you. “All the people dancing and singing in the streets in April 1982 were forced there”. No, they weren't. They were out there because they were immoral, cowardly criminals only too happy to see British nationals being attacked, invaded and occupied. Now watch for the argie cover-up.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3 Conq
Nov 07th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You bet. These home truths are undeniable, who can rightly justify a win for argentina in 1982?... nobody, yet they persist to criticise the UK commemorations whilst hypocritically minting coins celebrating their darkest hour. Logic has deserted them.
yup, pretty clear that a win in the Falklands would've kept the Junta in power ... and the Argentines would still be dancing in the street with glee.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0of course the usual suspects will now appear and tell us how none of it really happened and if it did it was because of a big anglo plot to discredited the common argentine... or some such rubbish.
“its never Argentinas fault” after all.
There are no documents . Everyone in Buenos Aires knows this is just a smokescreen and a complete fabrication , invented purely to distract peoples attention from the real problems .
Nov 07th, 2013 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The proof is the lack of interest in the story from the trolls.
I used to say that Britain kicking the argie girls off the Falklands was a precursor to them getting democracy, but no longer.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine people do not have democracy, and have never had what we call democracy, they have an “elected” Dictator, and it is their own fault.
Nothing to do with the Brits.
Ambar,
Nov 07th, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that the UK, and all the former UK colonies, are now quite representative democracies is undeniable. That's one, among others, of the reasons why I like British Culture and I respect UK a lot. This is out of the question.
It must be why most of the Argentine people likes british culture too. I don't know.
That's another reason why I regret having had this war. Argentina had tight bonds with the UK since the declaration of the Independence onears. We were partners and allies.
But, I have already told you before, that from my point of view the British Government of Margaret Thatcher supported, and helped, tyrannies such as the Junta or Augusto Pinochet.
The UK sold weapons, had excelent diplomatic relationships and promoted the ecomomic relationships and businesses.
The US Government of Ronald Reagan did the same.
The consequencies were the very same as the ones of having promoted Gral Noriega and Saddam Hussein. A war where innocent people died.
Should the UK government had been more carefull and ethical towards these Governments the history would have been quite different.
I believe it's quite cinic to say that Argentina has democracy thank's to the war. Would this be appllied to Chile?
@8 pgerman : If Britain and the US had not supplied the weapons , France/Israel/Russia/North Korea/Libya/Iran and a host of others would have done so .
Nov 07th, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Might I remind you that a lot of the weapons were developed in Argentina and produced by Fabricaciones Militares , and that in the 80's/90's DEMOCRATIC Argentina broke arms embargoes supplying the Contras in Nicaragua and Croatia , amongst others .
So cut out the “ It's all Reagan and Thatcher's fault” .
Argentina did not have an “ excellent” diplomatic relationship with Argentina from about 1936 onwards , merely an “ increasingly troubled ” relationship .
1936 : Roca /Runciman pact : Argentina screwed , not happy about it
1941 : First Argentine claim over Falklands . UK not happy about it
1943 : Farrell Govt . Bias towards Axis. UK/US not happy about it
1948 : Peron nationalises railways and other British interests .
1966 : Operacion Condor : First Falklands invasion : UK not happy about it
1976 : Clash at sea between the Almirante Storni and Endurance : UK not happy about it .
And so on till 1982 and a little conflict in which Argentina finally went over the top .
The US /UK /France saw the military dictators as bulwarks against communism .They never thought the weapons would be turned against the UK.
Viewed as a betrayal by all 3 , France and the US were happy to help the UK as a NATO partner .
@9
Nov 07th, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not only the UK and USA supplied the weapons. Others, such as France, Israel did. Quite sure.
But it was more than a business, it was a political alliance. You mentioned that “The US /UK /France saw the military dictators as bulwarks against communism” and you are right.
The Junta even sent troops to Central America following US “intructions and suggestions”.
That's part of the “alliance” that confused, and gave courage, the Junta. There are plenty of elements that indicates that the Junta received “confused” messages from the Pentagon when they had asked about a militar action on FI.
It's quite clrea that the Pentagon din't want to jeopardize the action of the Argentine troops in Central America (at that time the US Government didn't get the green-light to do so from the US Congress).
Menem, also sold weapons to Ecuador and other countries. It's also true. For this action he has already been found guiltly and condemed 7 years by the Argentine Justice.
But this doesnt' change anything. The fact is that both, the US and the UK govenrment helped and assisted the Junta. That's way I consider they are, partially responsible of the war.
In addtion, I do not agree on your comments that Argentina and the Uk had not exellent relationships. They had.
It's true that since the '40s when Argentina started being ruled by nacionalist and catholic governments the relationship was not as good as it was before but they had good relationships.
We can, eventually, include the two British attempts to take control over Buenos Aires but this would be when the Spaniards were in control of the area.
@10
Nov 07th, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The upshot of the 2 invasions ? The locals, having ejected the British on their own ( the viceroy having run away to Cordoba ) gained the confidence to overthrow Spanish rule and go it alone , with British help of course, in the shape of the “The Great American Reunion” Masonic Lodge : http://calodges.org/ncrl/miranda.html
As a result , Britain was the de facto or proxy coloniser for over 100 years .
I still maintain , diplomatic relations between the UK and Argentina deteriorated sharply from Roca /Runciman on.
Anyway , Argentina have the Chinese to contend with now .
They deserve each other .
@10
Nov 07th, 2013 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are nothing if not pragmatists, if it works for us we will use it. You sometimes don't have the luxuries of of making moral stand points when you are at war.
@11
Nov 07th, 2013 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are plenty of theories why the Viceroy run away to the interior of the Country. Some historians said that he wanted to be safe to organize the attack to the UK troops. WHo knows.
For sure that UK assisted the patriots in their search for freedom. But it was because all of them were freemasons.
Basically, until the '40 the country was ruled mainly by freemasons and was the best moments of the country. It was, also, the time when Argentina seemed to have a good future. Then, after the '30 the catholics and nacionalists took power and ruinned the country.
We are still trying to get rid of them....
The kind of relationship between China and Argentina are quite similar to the one between the Uk and Argentina but the difference is that both, the Uk and Argentina had european culture and shera plnety of things.
I wouldn't compare both Eras.
@10 Hey, piss kraut, I'm tired of your attempted “justifications”. If the UK was giving some much assistance to your military dictatorship, why did shitty little argieland attack British territory in 1982? How about German nazis, Italian fascists and Spanish cowards? Which category do you fall into as you try to excuse your shitty little “country”? About 10% of argieland is worth “saving”. The rest of the shitheap, including YOU, destruction, oblivion, death. After mutilation. Quit trying to excuse your myriad crimes.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0piss kraut? piss kraut?........ha ha ha
Nov 07th, 2013 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For God's sake Conqueror. How many times I have told you not to keep on using drugs? It's damaging your brain !!!
The Junta was first and foremost Argentinean.
Nov 07th, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blaming others for your own homegrown military dictatorship totally absolves Argentines from creating it. It was not a foreign power nor made up of foreigners.
Argentina needs to accept that its own society created the conditions for this and it wasn't the first time.
True and by emasculating their armed forces, they are trying to ensure it was the last!!!!
Nov 07th, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16
Nov 07th, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite clear that Argentina has the tendency to authoritarism and to messianism, it might have been due to the influence of the Catholic Church, the Spanish background, the influence of Italy and Germany, etc. The Peronist Party it's a clear and vivid example of this.
In addition, I have never denied that the Junta was created by the Argentine society and it was our entire responsibility but, not any single militar coup would have been succesfull in Latin America without the active participation of the US Government. It's impossible to deny it.
Blaming others would be a mistake but denying responsabilities of the UK and the US (among others) is also a mistake.
Each part must take responsibility of what they have done. Basically, to avoid the repetition of the same mistakes.
pgerman
Nov 07th, 2013 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0While I don't deny involvement by the US or UK in many military dictatorships, I would have to take issue with two points.
One that ALL military coups in Latin America occured with active US participation. Were they successful because the US was actively involved or because the US did not prevent them?
Also using the word “responsibilities” for the UK and US is unfair. The UK and US are not responsible for the societies that give rise to dictatorship. Involvement is again a different matter. However the responsiblity can only lie with the citizens of the country. If the US or UK gave support to those wishing to take power militarily, this is still caused by the country that gives rise to those people.
Why are some countries more prone to dictatorship than others? That is a good question and there are hundreds of theories debated by academics I am sure. Is there a single Latin American country that has not had a military takeover at least once? I am unsure. But there must be a mixture of certain civil society traits mixed with the constitutional set up.
I am not a fan of the presidential system that has been widely adopted and usually modelled on the US model. I much prefer a parliamentarian system such as that used in all the Commonwealth Realms. And while it was a worthy for many new countries in Latin America to aspire to the ideals behind the US system, they seem to have needed a different civil society base to truly flourish.
That is not to say that a parliamentary system is perfect or that it has never suffered a military takeover. Hhowever the longevity of many parliamentary systems, especially those based on the Westminster System with a strong civil society unencumbered by a powerful religion, is stark when compared to many presidential systems.
However I have hope that Latin America may have turned a corner, though I look at Venezuela and worry that may be premature. It won't be the US or UK that is responsible for any future coup there!
Thank God for a erudite and civilized discussion conducted without rancor or insults(except Conker of course,I dont think his trouble is drugs probably drink!)
Nov 08th, 2013 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Fully agree taxitrader
Nov 08th, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Going back to 1807, actually the British were quite popular in Montevideo during thier occupation except among the old ruling classes whose monopoly on external trade was broken and the concept of free trade and competition introduced
One of the instuments of this policy was the publication of the first newspaper certainly in the River Plate area
The paper , The Southern Star/Estrella del Sur was printed in both English and Spanish in parallel columns and included advertisments
While it does reflect some sentiments of that time over two centuries ago, it did express some basic concepts about freedom and parliamentary democracy which may or may not have influenced the thinking of the leaders of the subsequent independence struggle
Well worth a read I think
Anglotino,
Nov 08th, 2013 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All the militar coups that took the power, in Argentina, had always the assistance, and active participation, of civil groups. As Gral Martin Balza (who fought the FI war) said once “militar coups were actually civic-militar coups”.
I'm far from being the typical “anti-yanky” person since I worked several years in an American company, I visited the US several times and I meet good people there. But the US Embassies had active participation in most of these militar coups in LatAm. Is not just that they accepted, or recognized, these regimes.they had active participation.
As regards the Junta my view is that they receved plenty of diplomatic recognition, militar and economic assistance and help from US and Europe. It's not just that they were supplied with weapons, they also awarded with credits and diplomatic recognition.
I'm not a deep connoisseur of the parlamentary system that seems to work well in some countries but countries, let's call them “new ones”, adopted the presidential system.
As far as I know, the presidential system is inspired by the freemasons internal institutions.
Argentina had the second National Constitution in America (the US was the first) and it was the seventh National Constitution of the World thank's to a brilliant generation of leaders who were all freemasons (Sarmiento, Alberdi, Urquiza, Mitre, etc) so the original Constituion (1853) had all the typical characteristics of the freemasons principles.
Take for instance, that the President couldn't be re-elected and last six years. Who changed that? J.D. Peron illegally changed the Constitution once to be reelected. Carlos Menem changed legally the Constitution to be re-elected. CFK wanted to change it again to be re-re-elected. It's quite clear who are the people that don't like the Argentine National Constitution principles.
@21 As far as I know, the UK troops were defeated and expellled from Bs As but they were forced to leave Montevideo by a peace treaty.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!