MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 13th 2021 - 00:28 UTC

 

 

Falklands: the Argentine military planned invasion during World War II

Thursday, November 14th 2013 - 04:07 UTC
Full article 185 comments

It was 26 September 1941, Nazi Germany consolidated the siege on Stalingrad, America had yet to suffer Pearl Harbor and declare war on the Axis and Britain was suffocated under the pounding of German bombs and at sea losing tens of thousands of vital shipping. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Britworker

    Cowards then and cowards now.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    This strikes me as another example of how immature Argentina is compared to other nations. They planned to take advantage of WW2 to steal land by conquest. Just as Hitler tried to take all of Europe.

    The parallels don't end there as Argentina also engaged in genocide to steal land from the Amerindians, something that they've not yet be held to account for, but will eventually. There will be a reckoning, because you cannot commit crimes against humanity like this and not pay for it. The Nazis were overwhelmed and their leaders hanged. Sadly the people that killed the indians are now dead, but the state of Argentina can be made to compensate the true owners of Patagonia, the people they still treat as second class citizens because of the colour of their skin.

    I saw an Argentine film last night and it brought home to me how much Argentina is a third world country. Unlike their neighbours, they don't respect human rights, they don't respect basic laws let alone international law. Why should we continue to trade with a country that does not even believe in settling their debts and would rather default to get something for nothing.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RedBaron

    ......... its strategic situation is of vital significance for the maritime defense of the nation“.
    How can the Falklands be 'vital' to the maritime defence of Argentina? They are right down at the southernmost tip of the country! What sort of attack could have been launched on the country from the Falklands in 1941?
    The military top brass of Argentina must have been deluded to think (or to try to make anyone else think) that the taking of the Falklands would somehow make the continental land mass of Argentina a safer place. Maybe someone reminded them how stupid this justification would have looked.
    The shame is that the 1982 junta didn't read the conclusion of that 1941 report before they tried to take the Islands ......they would have saved themselves a lot of bother and thousands of lives.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    they may have held the islands to 1945 or so while more important foes were dealt with.
    After that a truly massive Fleet would turn up to ask some awkward questions what would follow would be humiliation either withdrawing without firing a shot or being massacred as a military that spent years doing very little against the Royal Navy that's fought the Nazis and imperial Japan having to sail half way round the world to deal with some idiots is not going to be a fair fight.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    I do wish they'd tried. anybody remember the Doolittle Raid? The Japanese people were told that they were invulnerable. Couldn't be attacked. And then.....!
    It is possible that the British government might have considered the Falkland Islands like the Channel Islands. On the other hand, after the Battle of the River Plate, HMS Exeter went to the Falklands for essential repairs. HMS Cumberland joined HM Ships Achilles and Ajax from the Falklands. It's therefore quite likely that Britain would have mounted attacks to recover the Falklands. Argieland would have been viewed as an enemy belligerent. Once the Islands had been recovered, I can see heavy bombers being based there. I doubt Britain would have been in any mood to be “merciful”. HMS Renown, Ark Royal, Shropshire, Dorsetshire and Neptune were on their way. I can see coastal shelling and heavy bomber raids. Wonder if argieland would have got back to the Middle Ages by now? Might be worth argieland considering that now. On the basis of this information, it is confirmed that argieland is a cowardly, backstabbing cesspit. Let's just remember. NO MERCY!!!

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    It's worth remembering that in the words of Admiral Woodward, it was touch and go in 1982.
    It would have been a walkover for the Argentines in 1941, who would have been very difficult to remove.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    Although we had our backs against the wall after the fall of Dunkirk, Britain was not beaten and Hitler's failure to win the Battle of Britain, followed by his change of direction in attacking the Soviet Union, must have convinced the Argentines that Britain was not finished and still very powerful.

    It must be remembered that the Battle of the River Plate must have weighed heavily on their mind, together with the fact that Britain still had one of the most powerful navies in existence. Yes the Americans and the Japanese had equally big navies, but they were not as active as ours. The sinking of the Bismark in May 1941 must have convinced the Argentines that even the most powerful battleship afloat could be hunted down and sunk.

    In all likelihood, Buenos Aires probably considered that it would not help them if they invited the British to bombard their coastal capital into submission. There is even the possibility that both Chile, Uruguay and Brazil would have taken advantage of the situation to invade and seize some Argentine land in the process.

    The British Army still had significant numbers of troops located outside the UK that they could have called upon to retake the Islands. It would not have been easy for the Argentines to repel a task force in 1941 consisting of gun cruisers and battleships.

    By taking action against Great Britain, Argentina would be aligning themselves with the Axis countries. Even in 1941, the outcome of the war was uncertain. It was more certain that Britain would win as soon as America came in on our side. The Lend/Lease deal must have convinced Argentina that America would be on Britain's side if they did go to war. Did Argentina want to oppose the only super-power on their own continent?

    Lastly, there is the financial factor. Argentina stood to gain from the war by selling food to Britain. Vast quantities of bullied beef and grain. It was a financial no-brainer. It would have been catastrophically bad to attack the Falklands.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Martin Woodhead

    well until 1945 anyways.
    being on the default side of the Nazis would be a rather uncomfortable place to be post 1945.
    10 battleships 30 carriers 50 cruisers and 100 destroyers can turn up to ask what exactly are you playing at

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @8/7 True, dat. Joining the Axis by invading the Falklands would have meant that Argentina would have more than just a polite regime change. Yalta southern cone style would ensue.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Why didn't they try it on during the first world war when we were busy? maybe because they didn't think the Falklands belonged to them then

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RICO

    Sounds like a lot of allies of Hitler and Mussolini were looking for an opportunity to earn Brownie Points,

    As for being strategically important for the maritime defence of the nation, at what point would possession of the Islands ever helped Argentina to defend itself. Its most significant maritime defeats came about from the strategic mistake of occupying the Islands.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @6 It's worth remembering that, in 1941, Britain had the largest and most capable navy in the world. Perhaps you might like to recall how argieland came to the assistance of the friendly nazi battlecruiser, Admiral Graf Spee. The one that its commanding officer scuttled in the River Plate. Why didn't argieland put “pressure” on Uruguay? anything to do with British warships off the coast and ready to open fire. How fortunate you are that the UK, even at war, is a reasonable nation. What might have happened to Buenos Aires? Make no mistake, Britain can still turn argieland into a charnel house. And, with this information, why shouldn't we?

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    This has changed my perception of Argentina quite dramatically.

    Prior to this I had mistakenly thought that previous military regimes had acted in a “reasonable” manner, now we are told they acted just like the morons in 1982 did except they never carried it out.

    Cowards of the continent even then it seems.

    Nothing ever gets better in that damnable country does it?

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Furry-Fat-Feck

    7 nigelpwsmith (#)
    Nov 14th, 2013 - 12:20 pm

    Yes they would have gone in on the axis side initially but don't underestimate how, erm, how should I say this? How Italian the Argentines are.........

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    An attack on the islands in 1941 would have been seen as an act of war, no doubt about it, the UK would have declared war on Argentina.

    By 1945 the Royal Navy comprised nearly “900” major ships of which at least 65 were carriers and 20 were capital ships. Their personel numbered nearly 1 million, 865.000 men and women.

    Argentina made a very wise decision.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    @6
    Woodward did not consider 1982 “touch and go”.

    If you read his book, you'll know that before the conflict, twice he spoke to the press to say that it would be relatively easy. Whitehall was not as confident and asked him to revise his press releases. They were expecting far more casualties than actually occurred.

    Woodward was confident that he would succeed, because the Argentines lacked the training instilled into British servicemen. This became self evident on the first day of fighting when the Argentines lost several aircraft in separate air attacks for no British losses.

    When the Belgrano went down & the Argentine Navy returned to port, he was even more confident of victory.

    Argentina was simply not prepared to do battle. Under-equipped and ill-trained. There was only one weapon that could cause problems but Argentina only had a limited number of AM39. The pilots were taking avoid action dropping the bombs too low, not allowing them to fuse & avoiding any air to air combat. On top of that, most Argentine troops were ill-prepared & led conscripts. No hope.

    @14
    Highly likely. As the war turned against the Axis, the politicians in Buenos Aires would have been counting their blessings that they didn't invade, in that they would not have survived British retribution.
    @15
    Exactly my point, the Royal Navy was perfectly capable of reducing Buenos Aires to ashes in WW2 or 1982. The Argentines were aware of what happened in the attack on Mers-el-Kébir, so they knew that any attempt to seize the Falklands would have a line of British battleships reducing Buenos Aires and Argentina's naval ports to rubble. None of Argentina's neighbours would have to come to her aid.

    In fact, Argentina would have been forced to capitulate unconditonally, then occupied to exact reparations for any injuries or deaths to Falkland Islanders. Indeed, the British Government would have used the opportunity to control Argentina's agriculture and ship as much food as possible to the UK.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    I am sure that if there was an award for the most cowardly despicable nation on earth, Argentina would win.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #6
    “It would have been a walkover for the Argentines in 1941, who would have been very difficult to remove.”
    YES, they could have held on to the Falklands until 1945 as the UK were heavily committed elsewhere with different priorities.

    When the war against Japan finished in 1945, the British Pacific Fleet
    consisted of the following vessels
    4 Battle ships Duke of York, King George V, Anson and Howe.
    10 Fleet Carriers: Formidable, Indefatigable, Indomitable, Colossus, Glory, Venerable, Vengeance, Illustrious, Implacable and Victorious.
    6 Escort Carriers: Striker, Slinger, Speaker, Arbiter, Chaser and Ruler.
    3 Ferry Carriers: Vindex, Fencer and Reaper.
    11 cruisers.
    3 Fast minelayers.
    1 AAA ship.
    2 Destroyer-Motherships.
    39 Destroyers.
    26 Submarines.
    A large number of Corvettes, Mine sweepers and Frigates
    and the company of mixed ships: Supply, Salvage, Ship Repair, Aircraft Repair, Cargo, Water distillers, Ammunition, Aircraft-parts, tankers, Hospitals, One Brewery-Ship and Towboats.

    They would have been routed to the S. Atlantic and Argentina would not know what had hit them !
    A cordon sanitaire would have been established round the Falklands ensuring that no supplies could get through. Then massive air attacks on the garrison...naval bombardments following and then a landing of battle hardened troops.
    Then, just as a warning for future actions, strikes against fuel depots and infrastructure on mainland Argentina. Your navy and air forces would have been totally destroyed. Remember, the British had been fighting REAL hard men for 6 years. Argentina would have been no great problem.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    I am always regreted that The Blessed Margaret listened to “Ray-gun Ronnie Reagan” and his plea to “let them off with some dignity” once the surrender was accepted.

    Of course I think even America would see this differently in the light of 9/11: another attack by “cowardly criminals” as some Americans have claimed.

    What we should have done after 1982 was to have taught the POPULATION that cheering for these idiots in the Plaza de Mayo when the “success” of the invasion was announced instead of decrying it as should have happened meant THEY were now the front line.

    Certainly ALL the argie military planes and runways (inc shared) should have been utterly destroyed and the same actions taken against their cowardly manned fleet and harbours. Most of BsAs industry needed to go and anything that made armaments of any nature including ammunition factories.

    There would have been some deaths among the population but that would have taught them what it was like on the Falklands. The deaths of the few Falklanders, although “friendly” would not have happened if the invasion had not been enacted.

    We should then have exacted due financial compensation for all the expense our country had to bear in recovering our islands, they were never Argentine. This could have been paid in foodstuffs and other commodities or by sequestration of areas of the country such as Patagonia.

    Perhaps (but I doubt it) these cretins would then have thought twice about any further military “jaunts” as TMBOA likes to consider them.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Russia was responsible for ~85% of German military casualties in WW2.

    Just a little fun fact.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Germany was responsible for ~100% of Russian casualties, all 25 million of them.

    Just another little fun fact.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Doggy Rap

    Russia would probably have been responsible for ~85% of Argentine casualties, when they assisted their British and American allies against the Argentine Axis member in the 1945-war against the last nazi country.

    Just a little fun fact.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Don't know why some are relating this to Arg...
    but...
    Anyhoo, Russia suffered ~ 75% of allied military deaths during ww2, and caused ~ 85% of the German military deaths.
    Yugoslavia ~ 3%
    US ~ 2% (~400,000 military)
    Britain ~2% (~325,000)
    France ~ 1% (~ 210,000)

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #23 You were the one in #20 who first mentioned Russia on a thread about Argentine plans to side with the Nazis.

    Let's also not forget that the USSR sided with the Nazi's to carve up Poland in 1939.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    If you “Don't know why some are relating this to Arg... ” - the explanation is that some clown calling himself “Vestige” introduce Russia in # 20

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    To be faire chaps one was not even a twinkle in me mum eye, [ lol]

    But I would have imagined that if they did invade the Falklands,
    I would imagine be fore the end of the conflict,

    With over 900 ships,
    Approximately 2,000 planes, and [if im correct]
    Over 7 million personnel,
    Something tells me it would not of only have been a very short invasion by Argentina,
    But the first of two humiliations,

    Still,
    Once bitten twice shy ..lol.
    .

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    So I saw people writing about ww2 and put forth an interesting stat.
    No need to get uptight.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nigelpwsmith

    @21
    I seriously doubt that fact.

    It's well known that Stalin purged most of the Soviet Army officer corps before WW2. They were the only serious threat to his dictatorship. As a result, most of the capable officers were shot or sent to the Gulags. When the Germans invaded, instead of putting up a coherent resistance, the Soviet Army fell back in a disordered mess. Which explains why the Germans managed to get almost to the centre of Moscow.

    The only thing that slowed the Germans down, was the winter. German troops were not prepared for the intense cold, just as Napoleon wasn't in 1812. Stalin had a train ready and waiting to leave the Kremlin for the Urals, but it wasn't necessary, because the German attack petered out when their supplies could not reach the front, due to the diesel in their trucks freezing in their fuel tanks.

    That said, the Soviet NKVD, continued to kill anyone with defeatist views. The idiots that replaced the capable officers simply followed the manual and sent their men into the attack in 'human waves' which were promptly wiped out by German machine guns. So in my book, those Soviets were killed by their own side's stupidity.

    The tide changed when the Soviets finally appointed a General who knew what he was doing, Georgy Zhukov. He could use the German's weaknesses, their extended supply lines, against them.

    Then we have to consider the fact that a number of Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner by the Germans. As a result they were treated as traitors by their own side and faced execution if they were captured by their own forces. As a result, a number chose to fight with the Germans, rather than suffer at the hands of their own countrymen. At the end of the war, a large number of returned prisoners were sent to the Gulags, along with the German POWs.

    I can understand why the Germans chose to live in Argentina after the war. They are just as deceitful and genocidal as the Germans were. Scum of the Earth.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    Do any of the commentators here who are being so nasty and have been so nasty to the Argentine people, actually know Argentina?
    It would be interesting to hear if any of the above mentioned have visited the country, or indeed live in Argentina.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faulconbridge

    It's been suggested that in 1914 Admiral von Spee intended to settle Germans from Argentina in the Falklands and turn them into a German-Argentine colony. Until he ran into the battlecruisers.

    “Germany was responsible for ~100% of Russian casualties, all 25 million of them.”
    Well, no, realitycheck, they weren't.
    For one thing, the 25 million weren't Russian casualties but Soviet casualties- mainly Ukrainian and Bielorussian- and a lot of them were inflicted by other Soviet citizens. Apart from the Soviet habit of murdering their own citizens, which didn't stop during the war, a lot of Soviet citizens were so willing to fight Stalin they were willing to ally even with Hitler. If the Nazis had been stupid as well as mad and evil they would have defeated the Soviet Union with the aid of the people of the Soviet Union.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    28 -

    but Nigel 90,000+ Germans live in G.Britain.

    Terribly racist comment.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faulconbridge

    In post 30 “If the Nazis had been stupid as well as mad and evil they would have defeated the Soviet Union with the aid of the people of the Soviet Union.” should read “If the Nazis hadn't been stupid as well as mad and evil they would have defeated the Soviet Union with the aid of the people of the Soviet Union.”

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Im sure if it had a chance of working they would have tried it.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @29
    Your 1982 dictatorship was not nasty?

    Ask the 30,000 Argentines who were rubbed out, by Argentinians.

    People are just spelling it out for you. Had Argentina invaded in 1941, posters are pointing out that the UK would have attacked mainland Argentina. We didn't cave into your 1940s buddy Hitler, and the Argentines would have regretted invading the Falklands in 1941.

    Planning an invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1941 was not a benevolent act.

    if Argentina (that is to say the politicians, not the many Argentinians who don't wish to be belligerent) continue to bully a developing country of 3000, then of course their supporters are going to wish bad events upon the BULLY (ie Argentina).

    Get your lunatic government to leave the Falkland Islanders alone, respect their rights, and I guarantee you that will instantly disarm all of the negative comments you object to on these posts.

    Nov 14th, 2013 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    28
    “They are just as deceitful and genocidal as the Germans were. Scum of the Earth.”

    Do not confuse Nazis with Germans....
    English are mainly a Germanic people, is this where “deceitful and genocidal ” traits originate?
    ...a desire to rule the World
    ...an Empire where the sun never sets
    ....ring any bells?

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • RICO

    The key here is Argentina is deceitful and genocidal as the Germans WERE.

    It doesn't matter if it is the original Conquistadors, Roca, Peron, the Generals or the Kircheners. Argentina seems to be constantly be flirting with facism and extremist nationalism.

    While there are posters on here calling Argentinians scum, let's remember that in Argentina there are marchers calling for the the Falkland Islanders to be burned alive, there are politicians trying to cosy up to Iran and blocking the investigation of mass murder of Jews in Buenos Aires, thugs armed with sticks patrol the streets and attack businesses that they associate with Britain, elderly cruise ship passengers are threatened and intimidated and there are teachers teaching kindergarteners patriotic songs claiming that Argentina owns the Falkland Islands. With all that going on and criticism being limited now that the government has started to restrict media that might be critical of its policies, what hope is there that Argentina will change soon.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    @30
    And would all of that happened?

    If not for Barbarossa.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    And so the fantasies continue .
    The Argentine military of the 1940's did not plan an invasion .
    The newspaper quoted is the equivalent of the Stornoway Observer , so hardly the Washington Post.
    Every officer in the Argentine armed forces has sexual fantasies about invading the Falklands . Most argentine teenage boys do too , at around the time of puberty ( lots on here all the time )
    But hey , everyone gets to post the same drivel over and over again .
    Kirchner spelt backward reads Renhcrik , which in Serbo croat means thief and fraud.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • FI_Frost

    @29 Marc1

    Relax, this is just an internet discussion board. When I read similar boards in the Argentine press the prejudiced language of 'pirates', 'usurpers', 'squatters' etc is common place.

    I have been to Argentina several times. I enjoy the culture and the craic when I have the time, also have several Argentine friends; although we tend not to talk too much in depth about certain subjects ;)

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    @17
    That's another unbelievably cruel and puerile comment aimed at the Argentine people.
    I've been following MercoPress for a number of years and it's clear that most of the pro British comments here are warmongering and ill informed.
    It may have escaped your notice that Argentina is under the grip of a megalomaniac president who rules by decree and is rejected by the vast majority, especially since the recent mid term elections in October.
    The Argentine people that I know personally are some of the kindest, peace loving and most well mannered that I have ever met.
    @16
    I have indeed read Admiral Woodward's book and wrote to him on this subject several times. Even he admitted that it was 'a close run thing'.
    Furthermore, as a gentleman, he would not find it in his heart to write the cruel drivel about the Argentine people that is written here.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • FI_Frost

    @40 Marc1

    Again, the views expressed on here are no different than those expressed in your own forums? That's the nature of such places - venting things not normal said in polite real life conversation.

    We are warmongering you say? Now really!

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 40 Marc1
    “another unbelievably [cruel and] puerile comment” from you!

    What does it matter if Britain “had a close run result”? We still recovered the islands for our people, not for any other reason. I still cannot see HOW it was a close run thing but if it makes you feel better!

    There were three people killed on the islands as a direct result of the invasion: this pro-rata relates to 40,000 Argentines. We are still owed 39,000, think on that.

    Got it now? War (which your mates started for political reasons only) is a deadly undertaking and you pay the price for taking part. Argentina never really paid the price (because of Reagan) and they are now puffing themselves up to have another go, given half a chance using other countries in SA, because they know they would fail big time if THEY risked it.

    Yes, I have said repeatedly that there are “nice” people in Argentina BUT there are at least 15 million Peronists who, unless they are converted or exterminated for the vermin that they are, will continue the malevolent effect on the political system: but you do know that, don’t you?

    The reality is somewhat stark: no-one can see an acceptable solution moving forward. In other words Argentina is stuck between a rock and a hard place as we say and the result is likely to be horrendous for everybody still in the country when it does come.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent999

    35 A_Voice

    Do not confuse Nazis with Germans....
    Argentinians are mainly a Spanish people, is this where “deceitful and genocidal ” traits originate?
    ...a desire to rule the World
    ...an Empire where the sun never sets
    ....ring any bells?

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Casper

    @41 FI_Frost

    “That's the nature of such places...”

    That is true. It does make us any less responsible for what we communicate.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    @41
    I know what is said by both sides in forums on this subject and make no mistake, it is a question of sides.
    There isn't a great passion to retake the Falkands in the vast majority of people in Argentina. As we all know by now, it's a nationalist frenzy stirred up by CFK and her ilk.
    @42
    The fact remains that the war was and remains 'a close run thing' at certain points during the conflict. That fact neither makes me feel better or worse.
    By the way, none of 'them' were or are any of 'my mates.'
    My comments here are simply aimed at bringing some reasonable balance into the continued discussion about the never ending saga of the Falklands which I cannot see being resolved in my lifetime at least.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 45 Marc1

    It could be decided very quickly indeed if the UN “manned-up” and got rid of the disgraceful sub-committee that is chaired by a weasel who seems hell bent on ignoring his remit.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Casper

    Mea culpa. My final sentence should have read: “It doesn't make us any less responsible...”

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    @39
    I'm pretty relaxed thanks and I too read the drivel comments on La Nacion, Clarin etc.
    I'm British and my wife is Argentine. It's a subject we discuss with less frequency nowadays. Frankly, she's sick and tired of the whole subject, but I know that in a corner of her heart....
    @46
    And the 'support' or lack of, that the UK gets from the USA on this subject is laughable.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @48
    Why exactly would the UK be needing US support at this juncture anyway?

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Still .... just as well those Russians were there, and the US, isn't it.
    If those hundreds of thousands of axis troops hadn't gone east they could have gone west.
    Britain would 100% be speaking German now.
    They got as far as Jersey.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #50 Well, no, it isn't at all clear what would have happened. The RAF effectively stopped any invasion at an early stage.

    The MOD looked into the issue and decided that any initial landings would have ultimately been repulsed when the Royal Navy took back control of the channel.

    Jersey is 22km from France and 160km from GB, that is very different.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    @49
    The UK doesn't need US support on the Falklands issue, I wasn't saying that.
    If we hark back to the referendum on the islands and other issues regarding sovereignty, the US is always decidedly tight lipped.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 52 Marc1

    The US has, like the UK some awful Presidents and Prime Ministers but both countries seem equally adrift with the present incumbents.

    Obuma detests the Brits for how they treated his (absent) father. He has failed the US completely in being unable to put aside his own personal weaknesses and he is paying for it at the moment.

    Regrettably, he still has some time before we are shot of him for good.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    51 - And was down to a few planes at the end.
    With no Russian involvement there'd be more axis planes to go round.

    With no US involvement later there could be no invasion there'd be unlimited time to build planes.... and with all of Europes resources that would be at much faster rate than could be countered.

    who'd invade. 100% - only a question of time.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faulconbridge

    realitycheck @37
    And would all of what happened?

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    And was down to a few planes at the end.

    What a crock of shit!

    On 15th September, 1940 generaly held to be the hardest days fighting and now celebrated by the RAF as Battle of Britian Day, RAF Fighter Commands order of battle fielded 58 fighter squadrons!

    Hitler postponed Operation Sea Lion on 12 th October, 1940.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conor J

    @54
    You don't seem to know much do you?

    @56
    Vestige isn't very bright, I'd rather get a history lesson form Mel Gibson

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @52

    As a matter of policy the US tends to stay out of territorial disputes. They have nothing to gain by coming down off the fence for this one, and the UK has nothing to lose if they don't. Neutrality is a vote for the status quo, and Argentina's current campaign against universal human rights has no chance of bearing fruit.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marc1

    @58
    I agree. But for nationalistic purposes, it suits her agenda.
    @53
    I had no idea about that.
    However he seemed quite content to be received in parliament a few years ago and praise we Brits to the hilt, but then that's politics.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Still, no US = no Dday. No Russians = 2 million more German military.
    (and ~10,000 more aircraft)
    Leaving the axis with all the time and resources in the world.
    And Britain cut off from the world.
    Just face it Britain was rescued. Russia did almost all the work and Britain couldnt mount an invasion without the US.

    (I know 1 thing Conor)

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    @60 Vestige

    Hitler was opposed to the ideology of Russia, his intent was always to invade.

    The Luftwaffe was poorly led by Goering, hence his inability to ''smash the RAF''.

    War games that were played out in the 1970s by the very generals from both sides that were in command in WWII proved Operation Sealion would have failed inside a couple of weeks.

    Hitler basically invited US participation into the war by having Admiral Doenitz use his U-boat fleet to target US supply ships, the Japanese just made it easier politically for the US to enter.

    The puddle was far muddier than you purport.

    Raven.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • El capitano

    “Question”..What does every 16 year old Argie punk have,and wants that his momma has?...“Answer”..A moustache of course..!!

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conor J

    @60
    “Just face it Britain was rescued. Russia did almost all the work and Britain couldnt mount an invasion without the US.”

    Britain had more than enough resources to pull of D-Day on her own btw, troops weren't the problem.

    Eisenhower insisted that significant numbers of Americans take part in D-Day, even though the empire had enough men for the task. Also who provided most of the troops, aircraft, ships and resources for D-Day? oh thats right the British Empire. Oh and who planned D-Day? Oh thats right.

    It was in 1940 that Germany attempted invasion and how did that turn out? Oh yeah a fucking disaster, even if the RAF was defeated he still had to deal with the largest Navy on earth protecting the English channel.

    The Soviets were crucial to the war effort yes, but so was Britain, without the UK the USSR would have fallen against Germany during operation Barbarossa. Why do you think they didn't? answer= Lack of German aircraft why= Battle of Britain.

    It was Britain who fought alone and by 1941/1942 the tide had already turned, before the Americans showed up fighting in any real numbers btw. The Royal Navy was dominating in the Med and the U-Boat campaign was beginning to fail miserably.

    Monty and his boys had already turned the tide in North Africa and had secured the vast bulk of the key oil fields. The Blitz had proven a failure for Germany and despite all their attempts at secrecy British intelligence operators had infiltrated Germany's military intelligence and broken the enigma codes from top to bottom.

    Without Britain the war would have been over by about 1942, the Germans came so close to victory and the Soviets would have capitulated. You need to stop buying into American propaganda as they like to claim they came to the rescue but in reality they only became involved because the Japs gave them a right good kick in the arse.

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    60
    .....“no US = no Dday”

    On a point of History and logistics..
    No UK no D Day.....
    How and where would the US have launched the D Day landings from?
    Where would they have bombed from?
    Where would the supply lines have been?
    How would PLUTO have existed?
    It's a silly argument...

    Nov 15th, 2013 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    @54 Vestige

    Quote ''And was down to a few planes at the end.''

    This is incorrect.

    Production of aircraft remained about 200+ per month, similar to Germanys figures of the same time. Losses were less than that for the RAF through the Battle of Britain per month. At the end of the battle, the RAF was at a similar level of strength as it had been at the start.
    Goerings switch of tactics from bombing the RAF, to bombing civilian targets was just one of his blunders, another was not focusing early on in smashing all the radar stations to bits on a consistent basis. Had he done that, the RAF would have been forced to rely on mainland observation posts and having aircraft flying continuously with combat air patrols, which would have stretched resources too thinly and allowed more penetrative attacks.
    The Luftwaffe were also not always hitting what they 'thought' were airfields. There were plenty of mock airfields which were no more than pasture land and there were also separate airfields that were hidden away, detached a few miles away from the main airfields where an RAF station could keep in action . One such example was RAF North Weald which had its reserve airfield stationed hidden near the then small village of Harlow.

    I'm not sure what you have read about WWII but it appears your sources are flawed.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    all ..emm...very interesting 65, Harlow, well done.

    Of course this is around the time when missile technology was becoming operational for the Germans, and when v-1 flying bombs were being used.
    No Russia and no US intervention = no invasion, no cease to increasing v-1's, missile tech gets developed. London gets a new blitz, and another and another. Its clear as day.

    64 - keep up.

    63 - No Conor, no Britain couldn't have invaded Europe alone. Sorry. Russia taking the brunt of the war and costing the Germans millions of military, combined with the US putting huge numbers into England is what rescued Britain.

    This is the truth. Why deny it.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    @66 Vestige

    Russia and the US didn't intervene, Hitler declared war on them both.

    V1 and V2 weapons were too inaccurate to change the course of the war. Only if they were nuclear armed would they have been, and the German scientists were never really given the resources to pursue such a device.

    Your strawman arguments are flawed.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conor J

    @66
    “No Conor, no Britain couldn't have invaded Europe alone.”

    Absolute Bullocks

    Britain had millions of men avaliable by 1944 and could have invaded the mainland alone, the total number involved in 44 only came to about 500,000, that number is low in comparison to the enormous manpower of about 7 million the British Army could field. The Americans were largely there out of a sense of balance. And you didn't try to refute my facts regarding the effort put in by the British in 44. As I said that vast bulk of all troops, ships, planes and supplies were British.

    “Sorry. Russia taking the brunt of the war and costing the Germans millions of military,”

    Just because they caused they caused the most casualties does not mean they contributed more, if you take Britain out of the equation the war would have been lost by 1942, you have yet to provide evidence or examples to prove your false arguments and so they become invalid. Britain in the West is the reason why operation Barbarossa was lacking in items that it needed to succeed.

    “combined with the US putting huge numbers into England is what rescued Britain.”

    Hitler had GIVEN UP ALL his invasion plans in 1940! A year before the Americans entered the war you daft idiot! Are you incapable of reading dates!? I listed multiple examples of Britain beating the Axis long before the Yanks showed up! Many in German high command recognised that in 41 the war was turning against them. This hole “we saved your asses” is fucking bull! I have studied this period and have listed multiple examples proving you wring while you clearly haven't.
    Oh and btw the Americans weren't being deployed in serious numbers until late 1943! 3 YEARS after Hitler had given in regarding invading Britain! You know nothing and in your desperate anti-British rhetoric you have ignored simp;e facts. Next you will be telling me the Earths flat.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    67 - but corvus, they were hitting London, killing 5000+, wounding many times more and destroying the city.
    + Wheres my strawman argument please.

    Conor you're getting desperate. lol @ “proving you wring”. (Sorry, its the irony. I know.)

    If Britain had no need for the US then why were they all over England, and why were US supplies needed from Sep '40. Why did Churchill travel to the US and pay Roosevelt for help, financially broke to the point of trading bases for ships*. The US even took more casualties than Britain in the war.
    You seem hooked on what did happen in choice periods, rather than what would have happened if Russia and US weren't there to take the brunt. Their absence would have been certain doom for Britain, it would just be a matter of time. The resources (all of W.Europe - people and materials) were there, that, together with all the time in the world**, would be enough to destroy all British trade and to continue to v1 and blitz England to obscurity.

    *50 destroyers ... if not for those ships what might the battle of the Atlantic have looked like.
    ** Britain alone could not re-take Europe, it would only have been a re-run of the expeditionary force. Maps would feature axis Europe in all directions...and G.B. on its own, trading with... no-one.

    “We shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.”

    Don't fool yourself.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    Even if the US had never come into the war , the Germans would have bled themselves to death in Russia .
    The war would have ended in about 1955 , but Germany would have been defeated .
    Trouble is , the Russians would not have stopped at the Rhine .

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conor J

    @69
    Oh god 5am do you ever sleep?

    I'll break it down into parts.

    “If Britain had no need for the US then why were they all over England, and why were US supplies needed from Sep '40”

    1) The US weren't involved in the war in 1940 I never disavowed US supplies at all I pointed out that the US never saved Britain like you claim.

    2)The whole reason that was done was because the Americans refused pay offers for those vessels, and so we offered them base access. The UK never was broke and those 50 destroyers actually did very little during the war the RN already had 1000 ships in service. As a percentage of overall population and including civilian deaths we had higher casualties, also a higher death rate is not as sign of doing more especially as Britain was the only major power to be involved from start to finish surely its best to use your men to the best advantage rather them waste them blindly?

    3) As are you, you blind hypocrite! What would have happened if Britain had not have been there as well? Oh thats right the war would have been over by 1942!
    I never claimed more credit for one of the big three, you did! If you take one of these players out of the equation the war would have had dramatically different consequences.

    ”The resources (all of W.Europe - people and materials) were there, that, together with all the time in the world**, would be enough to destroy all British trade and to continue to v1 and blitz England to obscurity.”

    They had that advantage in 1939-1942 and failed so whats your point? The V-1s proved useless in the end against British fighter command. Britain led the west in weapons development, especially regarding jets like the meteor which were flying by 1944 while American attempts led them to burn at the end of the runway. Even with W.Europe they never had the supplies for their dreams. The ME262 and Vengeance weapon programs were countered by British defences and need years of work, Britain had the troops to invade in 43'

    Out of space

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    Vestige.

    Your strawman depends on denying the fact Hitler had full intent on invading Russia. He hated their ideology and he also fancied having their vast resources for himself to fuel the German war machine. Stalin very smartly got that piece of paper claiming Germany was not an enemy of Russia, thereby altering Hitlers invasion of Europe plans. Had Russia been attacked first, THEN the outcomes of WWII would have been much different.

    The USA was a vital partner in the war, but the USA profited immensely from it too. Just over two years worth of supplies before they entered the war saw US business make a lot of money and helped in their employment figures after the Depression. Do you think they were not going to take advantage of that? You also seem to deny the fact Hitler declared war on the USA and was torpedoing US ships bound for Europe.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • brasherboot

    Lets pretend Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1941. The Argies would be dancing in the street. Posters everywhere of their Argie foot on the imperial Lion.

    WW2 ends. Argentina facing the 1945 British battle fleet would surrender the Falklands immediately.

    Their military has always been a bully. There is only ine way to treat a bully. Smash it.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    72 Corvus corax

    But you are unaware of one thing: he has no Vestige of an intellect! :o)

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @73... “Lets pretend Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1941. The Argies would be dancing in the street. Posters everywhere of their Argie foot on the imperial Lion.”

    And collating every scrap of information on any Jew around them to ingratiate themselves with their new best friends' new best friends. Irredeemable fascists always.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    @ 71 - maybe its 5 am where you are.
    @72 - if you're going to keep saying everything is a strawman at least go and look up what it means.

    Anyway, as usual the main point gets danced around, nothing accepted - everything given an excuse or a 'yeah but' . The small and argumentative put forward to counter the larger over arching facts. Russia not being involved would mean at least an additional 2 million Germans in Europe.
    The US not being involved would leave Britain alone and incapable of invading.
    (the expeditionary force showing what happens when Britain tried it alone)
    Conor - Britain was broke and went to the US with a hand out, G.Britain had US forces all over it for a reason (I never said from the beginning) and relied on Atlantic shipments which relied on a RN bolstered by previously American ships. These are not the signs of an attacking power in a war - this while Germany was using the vast vast vast majority of its power in the east.
    Face it, had that power been used to the west instead the most optimistic outcome is Britain as a junior power in an agreement with Germany. A leveled London would have been incentive enough.

    Consider 4500 additional German aircraft freed up to be used to the west instead of op Barbarossa (alone).

    Repeat as necessary.
    www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2243951/The-astonishing-interactive-map-EVERY-bomb-dropped-London-Blitz.html

    You may want to zoom out ....6 or 7 times.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Interesting point, there is little doubt that once the might of the Soviet Union got rolling, once they learned how to defeat the Wermacht and it was a steep, costly learning curve, but they did learn how to defeat them. Without the Western Front, Stalin would have stopped at the Channel, if he indeed he decided to stop there.

    What would Soviet Europe have looked like for the past 70 years? what would the US have done faced with that? and given Stalins megalomania, would he have stopped at Europe?

    Just as the Romans and the Nazis did, he would have recruited, impressed manpower from occupied countries. Love what ifs!!!!!

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Maybe it would have looked like Dresden....after 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices....
    ttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1994-041-07,_Dresden,_zerstörtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    77 - well thats what the whole argument is centered on - 'ifs'

    'If' some ~ 80% of Germanys forces weren't used up on the East.
    and 'If' the US wasn't supplying and later fighting alongside Britain.

    But you're right - all just 'ifs'.
    Reality is much more important.
    And the reality is that Britain took ~2% of allied military casualties of ww2, yet still managed to be blitzed for months on end and had to even trade land for American ships.

    How you interpret that is up to you.

    78- Occupied Europe was a big place, loads of cities. Britain - not so much.
    Then there's those thousands of German places taken care of by .. yes Russia. Lucky for Britain.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Yeh, but what if..........

    fact is, we won.lol

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    Vestige.

    You base your whole argument on 'if Russia and the USA were not involved' but do not aknowledge that Hitler wanted to attack Russia and the USA was ready to make money out of it.

    I may be wrong, but you just seem to want to say 'Little old Britain was a weak inferior force', without taking into account the factors that were created by Hitlers delusional scheme.

    Is this how they teach History in Argentina? If so, I can now see why Malvinistas cling to their version of History.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    A-Voice.

    That's a philosophical debate, who bombed who first, because my bombing killed more people than yours, because I have become more efficient at it than you, am I more accountable for my behaviour than you?

    Dresden was an absolute tragedy, so was Coventry, so was Warsaw, so was Rotterdam, but it is a tragedy that must be considered in context of time of nothing else but tragedies.

    Like I said, it a philosophical question? How do you quantify the wrong in the bombing of any city?

    Yes we bombed you, but it was not as cruel as when you bombed us, our bombs did not kill as many of your people as yours killed of ours.

    When the first bomb fell on Guernica, Dresdens fate was written.

    Strange those same bombers were also used to drop bread.

    Like I said, a philosophical question.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Yeh, ....fact is, thanks only to Russia and US. lol.

    Corvus - did you go and look up 'strawman' since ?
    I base my whole argument on Russia and US not being involved. One way or the other. Choose whatever reason you like. Vary every reason and factor you wish. Just leave Russia and US out of the war and see what you end up with. (remembering Britain even had to trade land for ships and Russia took out the lions share of German casualties).

    Do you know where I am or my nationality ?

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    83 Vestige
    “Do you know where I am or my nationality ?”

    No, and we don't give a fuck either, so piss off.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Vestige

    Would you by any chance be trying to make a tenuous link with the aid given by the US in the defeat of the Nazis, to the US assistance, minimal that it was, to your defeat in the Falkland Islands?

    I get the impression that by creating such a link, you think it lessens the reality of your defeat. Quite incredulous really, considering the the two events were more than a quarter of a century apart. Then again, I suppose 25 years is a long time in your short history.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    84 - Nope.

    85 - Nope.

    Nope.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    Vestige

    Yes I know what a strawman argument is.

    Your 'No Russia or USA' argument is exactly that. A distortion and misrepresentation of the truth to fuel your argument.

    If we are playing that game, what would have happened if Britain had ramped up industry at the same time to match Germanys 1930s war equipment production?

    If, if, if....

    It brings more clarity to an argument when you discuss facts and not speculation.

    As I do not know you personally, I may have falsely presumed you are of Argentine descent. If that offends you, I apologise unreservedly.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    lol - no no no. A strawman requires an inference towards an opponent's position. But nice try.

    If, If, If,

    If Russia and US weren't involved in the war Britain would have been eventually defeated by the axis.

    But ok, just speculation.

    Fact, Fact, Fact.

    -At no time was Britain capable of successfully invading occupied Europe.
    -Britain required American supplies from the beginning, was so broke it traded bases for American ships, and had less military casualties across 5 years than the US had over 2, US having a greater total over lesser time.
    -Russia was responsible for ~85% of German military casualties.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Vestige
    Stop grasping straws, we were on the winning side, both occasions!

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Corvus corax

    Vestige.

    You have ignored all the political facts, twisted the argument to suit your position, therefore you are speculating.

    Fact,Fact,Fact.

    Without subjucated people slaving away producing Hitlers war machinery, Germany wouldn't have the arms to defend what he stole. Slaves from conquered countries built much of what he procured in armaments, Jews had to bury Jews that were gassed in the chambers, etc,etc,etc.

    Your argument is deeply flawed.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Vestige

    12th December, 1917 an Armistice is concluded between Germany and Russia.

    A 100+ German divisions are transferred to the Western Front.

    Your explanation for the allied victory then is?

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    There were plenty of slaves from elsewhere to go around.
    Also the millions that went east could have been industry workers.

    Theres no twisting involved.
    At no point was Britain capable of successfully invading occupied Europe alone.
    Russia almost single-handedly defeated Germany's military.
    The US stationed forces in Britain and was 2nd in line in number of German military killed with ~2%. In a much shorter time-frame than Britain.
    Britain had to trade land for US destroyers.

    Theres is no argument there to be flawed. Just how it is.

    (correction to my post at 79; should read “thousands of German planes taken care of by .. yes Russia”)

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Man you are such an idiot.

    Between 41 and 45 the UK and the US between them sent via the arctic convoys, 5 1/2 thousand tanks to the Russians, the US sent 2,000 whirlwinds Aircraft alone.
    No idea how many Hurricanes, Spitfires, Wellingtons we sent but know you did and thousands of RN and Merchant seamen died getting them there.

    Now why don't you ask today's Russian historians whether or not they wanted or used them, better still look it up for yourself. At Kursk the 5th Guards Division used Shermans, nothing compared to the numbers of KV1's, KV2's or T34's, but the Russians (sorry the fucking soviets) did not send them back.

    Man, when you talk out of your arse, you really do a good job of it!!!!!!!!

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    UK ...AND...the US you say. Russia ~85% of German casualties.

    Ah, reduced to name calling too. Too bad.

    Your post at 91 is mere obfuscation imho.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    The first use of British Hurricanes were used in the defence of Murmansk December, 1941.

    A recent discovery was was made of the mummified body (peace be upon his soul) of a Russian pilot in the cockpit of an Hurricane, found in a bog outside that city.

    Now how do do you suppose the Hurricane got to Russia?

    You Argentines sent it?

    No fucking chance, to busy making money from both sides and what did you do with it?

    Don't ask me, ask the IMF.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Re; #95 and #89 .....straws you say.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • reality check

    Straw you say.

    Still waiting for your answer to 91.

    Nov 16th, 2013 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Obfuscation.

    Correct.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    Well definitely the USSR had to take on the most of the German onslaught; there is no question about it. If either the UK or the USSR had fallen in the early stages of the war then the other one would have eventually done so as well. What I do agree with the Brits is that the Americans didn’t really save them, that is pretty much over inflated American history, but even if the Germans had being held in France the UK would have lost most its empire in Africa and Oceania, save for India and Canada to the Axis. And lets not forget the brave Greeks that fought off up to 400.000 Italian cowards back to Albania and relieved the North African front to April 1941 just like their forfathers held at bay the Persians ages ago

    The idea that Britain and the commonwealth mounting a single handed invasion of the Western Europe is unheard by me and I find it at least dubious… They were already late by June 1944 with the Americans, Polish, Free French, Czechoslovakians, etc

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (99) CabezaDura

    You say...:
    “.....And lets not forget the brave Greeks that fought off up to 400.000 Italian cowards back to Albania....”

    I say...:
    Did your great-grandaddy ever lived in Tacaagle, by any chance ?

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    @100

    Nope...a little small drop of Hellas in my blood

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eglKhZ4ycGU

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (101) CabezaDura

    One could be lead to believe that all that good DNA from your ancestors that came to Argentina in search of peace, would have taught you to be a bit less confrontational with your compatriots....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    102)
    Ehhhhh..............Right.... Are you Ileana Calabró by any chance??

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    OK . Another “ What if ” .......
    Had Evita lived , the Dirty War would have happened 20 years earlier because she was arming the workers with weapons bought from Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands out of Fundacion money. Peron very sensibly gathered these weapons in when she died , but would he have stood up to her had she been in perfect health ?
    Would the Left /Right Peronist split have happened in 1955 with Peron leading the right and Eva leading the left ?
    On winning the civil war , would Rojas and Aramburu have had the balls to shoot Evita ?

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    @102
    Argentines who think themselves Italians
    http://vos.lavoz.com.ar/tv/iliana-calabro-candidata-diputada-italia
    http://vos.lavoz.com.ar/tv/iliana-calabro-candidata-diputada-italia

    @104 If Peron would have being allowed to finish his mandate Peronism would be much weaker today. No I doubt it; Peron was not the kind of guy his wife would boss him around and tell him what to do. No formula Peron-Peron either, so he clearly said NO to her.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    Some less well known facts about WWII

    Secret.Allied.Aircraft.of.WWII
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weoK_ef_194

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Couldn't watch the whole thing. So stopped after about 3 minutes - something about Churchill, convoys and the starving people of Britain.
    May watch later.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    Well, actually it explains how Britain BROKE the Nazi blockade ... and why the people of Britain DIDN'T starve - but I'll let you watch it on your own first.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (105) CabezaDura

    I must admit that you lost me with your comments (103) & (105)...

    Anyhow..., what I wanted to express in my comment (102) was that you come across as fanatically intolerant against the vast majority of your connationals...

    If Mme. Michetti was a Kirchnerist......, you probably would be posting in here that she's faking her condition...

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    108 - what, with supplies from the US ??

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    Ohh you daft over sensitive nutter, the can all go back to Italy!! I’ve got far more Piedmontesse than Greek, but I’m not Greek nor Italian I’m Argentine and I’m paying homage to the bravery of the Greeks in WWII just like the “Coat of Arms” by Sabaton is...
    I dont really intend to offend anyone but what else would you define the actions and behavior of Italy in WWII being first the lapdogs of Germans trying to get some crumbs of their onslaught, being humbled in Greece and Africa, Germans saved them everywhere? Allies invaded Italy; they surrendered right away, changed government. Declared war on Germany??

    EN MI BARRIO SE LE DICE TANO CAGON....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (111) CabezaDura

    You say...:
    “I dont really intend to offend anyone but what else would you define the actions and behavior of Italy in WWII”
    I say...:
    Human?

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    Maybe...if that is human but what we can call the greeks then??

    “Hence forth we shall not say that the Greeks fought like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.” - Winston Churchil

    Italians in WWII= Humans
    Greeks in WWII= Heroes

    Is Think happy now??

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (113) CabezaDura

    We certainly had quite a few tanos cagones down here…..
    A quick list, from the top of my head…:
    ....LONARDI…, ONGANIA…, PISTARINI…, MASSERA..., AGOSTI..., VIOLA…, LAMBRUSCHINI..., CATUZZI..., GRAFFIGNA..., GALTIERI…, BIGNONE……….

    But, thinking about it…….., I could without much effort add many French and Greek names to the above list….

    So, I would prefer to call the French & Greeks for human too....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    I dont know about that....This is not about Argentina, nor any of those generals you speak of were Italians, they were Argentine.

    This is about the Greco-Italian war

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (115) CabezaDura

    Ahhhhhhh......
    That's why we don't understand each other......
    we are speaking about different things....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    I donk know Think...... Are you Italian or Argentine ???

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (117) CabezaDura

    As millions of my fellow Argentineans, I have multiple citizenships...
    But only one Nationality...
    Neither is Italian...

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    Sure……….. but the Greek fought like lions and run the human Italians back to Albania??? Right???

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Right

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    @ 110 Vestige - While Hitler was busy looting Poland, France and then the USSR, Britain paid for its supplies - with one exception (trousers down, Vestige: here it comes). In 1941, a diplomatic mission by the British Lord Willingdon arranged commercial treaties whereby Argentina sent thousands of cattle to Britain AT NO CHARGE, decorated with the Argentine colours and with the phrase “good luck” written on them.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #118
    Why do “millions” of Argentinians feel the need to have two nationalities
    Surely one is enough for anyone. If you are proud to live in Argentina and have citizenship, then why not renounce the other one?
    Or is this a safety net in case you need to do a runner ?

    #119
    The Greeks certainly had no need to feel ashamed of their war record against the Italians.
    Strangely enough, the Italians could be very brave in individual circumstances. An example would be their underwater attacks by frogmen and chariots against UK vessels.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    @122

    I agree with both of your paragraphs

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (122) Clyde15

    You say...:
    “Why do “millions” of Argentinians feel the need to have two nationalities”

    I say...:
    Is not something you “need”...
    It is something you get...

    For example...:
    Some 100.000 Argentinean born UK citizens are Argentinean because of the “Jus Soli” (Latin: right of the soil, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.)

    Same ~100.000 Argentinean born UK citizens are British because of the “Jus Sanguinis” (Latin: right of blood, is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having instead one or both parents who are citizens of the state or more generally by having state citizenship or membership to a nation determined or conferred by -ethnic, cultural or other- descent or origin.)

    Incidentally....; Argentina is one of the few Countries in the world offering its citizens the Jus Soli AND the Jus Sanguinis rights simultaneously.

    No need to renounce anything.....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    @ 121

    Sooo.... you're saying Argentina helped feed a starving Britain during ww2 ?? And this is a bad thing how?
    (its not my trousers down if Britain had its port open wide and was desperately waiting to receive prime Arg meat to fill its hungry mouth)

    - Perhaps that info could be relayed to comment #1, or to anyone saying Arg sided with the nazis. Well done you.

    Anyhoo ....of the goods leased (and practically none returned) at discount and on very favorable credit by means of an act of intervention in the war which required introducing laws through congress, ending neutrality.

    (wiki) Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States*, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.

    *sounds pretty clear to me.

    Had US turned its back - Britain would have been starving, under-equipped and screwed.
    Face reality.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    124

    But you would have to apply in any case, thats what Clyde is saying... You will not inherit any European citizinship per se.

    Only the Ks in Argentina would be as generous with Bolivians, Paraguayans and Peuvians giving away citizinship for a vote.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfDTpxRdzp0

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    More “ If only ” : Had Rattin not been sent off in the quarter final against England by a German referee , Argentina would have won the 1966 World Cup , furthermore , was the sending off fair ? Discuss

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Its not speculation to give facts.
    How you interpret them is up to you.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    WHAT IF ….

    The Americans was not involved, or the Russians did not help,
    Would we have survived?

    Rather unfair on the brits,
    If if if .

    What if we did not have the empire, all our military was in the UK instead of all around the world,
    Our assets were at home,

    What if, Japan had not got involved, or Italy ,
    What if, Britain had the bomb in the 1930s?

    Ifs only work in fairness if you eliminate all the ifs and but in the equations.

    Just a though?
    But what if ????? ..
    .lol

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    Im comfortable with the facts.
    Are you ?

    (50 destroyers in exchange for land, years of supplies, ~2% casualties, American casualties higher in 2 years than Britain in 5, Russia responsible for ~85% of German casualties....Im sure theres more)

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (126) CabezaDura

    Please, honour your good genes and try to “Think” instead of just being manipulated....

    At 6:36 on the Youtube link you just posted, it says....:
    “ALL the Scandinavian Countries (the world’s most developed Countries) have a LOWER POPULATION DENSITY than Argentina....”

    Well; that's not true....
    Denmark...: 130 persons per km2
    Sweden: 20.6 persons per km2
    Finland: 16,0 persons per km2
    Norway: 15,5 persons per km2
    Argentina:14,4 persons per km2

    If we take the 20.6 population density of Sweden and multiply it by the 2.8 million Argentinean km2 it gives us the neat figure of,…..:
    57. 680.000 persons....

    Meaning that, after Scandinavian standards Argentina easily could absorb some 16.000.000 more Bolitas, Paraguas, Perucas, Chilotes Yoruguas, Macacos, Turcos, Franchutes, Gallegos, Chucrutes, Moishes etc etc etc.....

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Still,

    lets talk about the present / future,

    the falklands are british,
    and will remain so,

    Argentina will grow up,
    And CFK will pass on.
    ..lol

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    My work here is done.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    That is a mute point, we are no longer the same rich liberal agro exporting powerhouse but vastly unpopulated able to receive immigrants like 100-70 years ago…

    But if you raise the point all those Paraguayans, Bolivians and Peruvians don’t go to populate and work in the deserts of Chubut and the rest of Patagonia they flood the major cities with their shanty towns and they live off from picking garbage and state handouts and they have established their drug trafficking centers in the villas… You say this comfortably in Chubut, but you would not like at all 50.000 unskilled, and uneducated immigrants from those countries showing up one day in your little village or city and making a shanty town in the park, railway line or whatever public land (or private in some cases) from evening to the twilight. Once they have their precarious little tents and shacks you can’t get rid of them. I bet you would change your mind very quickly.

    Consider that the biggest cities in the world are packed with people, Buenos Aires being one of them, most of them are SHITHOLES

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    SOME OTHER IMPORTANT DETAILLS.
    Although i have never agreeded on bautista jofre's ideological posture, i read his book (1982). In his work he tells that the army had a plan to invade the islands since 1955, which was renewed with the passage of time.
    In all my life, i had always believed that the invasion of 1982, was just a desperate act by the criminal junta, in order to save the dictatorship and remain in power for much more time. In the last three years i have investigated deeply about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, because i have never believed neather in our mendacious offcial history, nor in the one told be an empire in decadence like the u. k.
    I made two great investigations, but since last year i have checked the first one, because i realised that some of the sources of my work were dated uncorrectly, it takes a lot of time to do it, due to i have little time because of my work and studies.
    Anyway, my point is that since last year, i have changed my point of view respecting the reasons of the invasion of 1982. After having seen excellent documentals, mostly in Encuentro chanel, i could realise that with or without invasion to the islands, the militar dictatorship would have collapsed in a few more years, due to the economic and social context was deplorable, in fact, there were huge levels of inflation, recession, and destruction of the industrial framework. However, the fascists who ruled arg. in that moment, needed a militar victory, because they were going to use it in order to push future civil governments, with the purpose of getting impunity in relation to the crimes of the dictatorship. But they failed in interpreting correctly the political context from the u. k., due to nothing was more convenient for such a reactionary and unpopular government like thatcher's, than a militar victory. Those criminals finally gave her a great hand.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    135 axel arg

    And you claim to be a teacher, FFS.

    You have NO understanding of The Blessed Margaret and how she saved Britain from the arseholes running the unions and killing the country with lightning, unvoted for, strikes.

    And YOU talk about fascism!

    What a wanker.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    @ 125 You are arguing with the wrong person. I never said that all of Argentina was pro-German. The Argentine army was highly Germanophile; this influence predated both world wars and, during WWII, German influence in Argentina was strong, mainly due to the presence of a large number of German immigrants. Moreover, Argentina's rivalry with Britain furthered the belief that the Argentine government was sympathetic to the German cause. However, only a handful of military leaders actually supported Hitler - although they were influential enough.

    For example, when a military coup deposed Castillo on June 4, 1943, German embassy officials thought it was a pro-Allied coup and burned their documentas, but the United States embassy thought it was a pro-Nazi coup. Rawson met a delegate from the British embassy on June 5 and promised that in three days he would break off relations with the Axis powers and declare war. This precipitated a new coup, replacing Rawson with Pedro Pablo Ramírez just two days later.

    Nov 17th, 2013 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Vestige

    lol 137 still sore from receiving the Arg meat.
    or maybe the bullet in his foot.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    @ 138 - No problem with the Argie meat. Just wondering why you are so anti-British when Argentina was a 'first world' country--like Canada, Australia, or New Zealand--up until the 1950s, all thanks to British investments. Already in 1913, Great Britain owned 95.8 percent of all private railways in Argentina - now look at them!!!

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    Axel Arg , thank you very much for your brilliant insight there .
    “But they failed in interpreting correctly the political context from the u. k., due to nothing was more convenient for such a reactionary and unpopular government like thatcher's, than a military victory. Those criminals finally gave her a great hand”.
    Reactionary and unpopular ? The Conservatives won 4 elections in a row , hardly unpopular .
    The Falklands Factor in the 83 general election is a myth . The left was split because 3 moderate labour leaders created the Social Democratic party .The conservative vote did not significantly increase .
    The UK does not hate neo liberal economics , we embrace it .
    If Menem had stood a second round against the one eyed penguin you eulogise so much , you wouldn't be in the trouble you are in now .
    The only thing that kept the Proyecto K alive was the price of soja , and that's going down .
    Instead of investing that windfall , they gave that wealth away in planes sociales or stole it for themselves
    Teach that to kids in Argentina and you'll be unemployed in 6 hours .

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    140)

    It was almost impossible for Menem to win in 2003, the results of the ballottage were a foregone conclusion that’s why he stepped down. Never have voted Peronist nor had the age to do so back then but I will admit that we would not have being into the state we are today having him in for another term.

    The Kirchners brainwashed the people over the last 10 years to the point that being slightly conservative or liberal is a blasphemy nowadays
    There was never really el modelo, …What you have is “viviendo el dia a dia de contado” for more than 10 years.
    Traditional Keynesian economics advised the State to save and accumulate wealth in times of economic prosperity and then use it during the downturn stage to reactivate the economy and protect the poorest in society. What they have done is spend everything in the expansion phase and now there is anything left for the WTSHTF….And I suspect we have not improved in real terms any indicator from the 2001 crisis. The statistics are a fraud, education, poverty are the same as 10 years ago, skyrocketing inflation, economical inefficiency and Argentina is becoming a far more dangerous place, no rule of law, with drug cartels coming into the country while if the politicians if not accomplice they have a their heads up there arses doing NOTHING about it

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    I am watching various Argentine channels on line .
    No mention at all of Cristina returning to work ?
    On Canal 7 there is an off topic interview with a dentist , very ironic !

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    I prefer Canal 7 to interview dentists and pass over cartoons than us having to pay for FPT and 678. I can't stand 10 minutes of their news and not 2 minutes of 678

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Truth PaTroll

    @141

    I have persuaded y0u haven't I. I told you, you could not “debate” with these people (expanding the word to its furthest possible descriptive scope here), in colloquy of a socratical, methodical, latitudinarian, and intellectual nature.

    As for this article...

    PEOPLE GETTING WORKED OUT ABOUT SOME PLANS FROM ALMOST 80 YEARS AGO??

    I rest my case wit this crowd.

    But, if such “plans” so revolt you all:

    United States has planned invasions of CANADA, MEXICO, and ENGLAND.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    “The problem is not being monolingual, its being monothematic, like most of the users here are. It makes things so much more boring. People on both sides prefer to troll around than saying anything constructive nor creative.
    This site is just full of BAD FAITH RESENTFUL CUNTS”

    I said on BOTH SIDES

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Truth PaTroll

    @145

    But they deserve it...

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #146
    Yes, YOU do, don't you

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Truth PaTroll

    I didn't do anything to you when I first came here. I came here with an open mind. You people glued it with Gryphenolstraphinecine.

    Reflect on your sins.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    144
    You do of course know the American conclusion of War Plan Red......
    A stalemate..... the Americans didn't have the capabilities to beat the British Navy and take the fight to the UK and the colonies...and the Canadians had their own plan to invade the US through the West until the British could come to the rescue....
    The USA believed they could cut trade to Canada....but that was all....
    .....The British took half of the North American continent off the Americans and retained it in 1812 with the help of the Canadians.....almost bankrupting the US at the time....

    Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
    What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
    Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
    O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
    And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
    Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
    Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
    O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

    This song is describing the British thousands of miles from Britain the bombarding Fort McHenry by the British Royal Navy ships in Chesapeake Bay during the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812.

    As the song says....they survived the 1812, but achieved none of their objectives.
    Not what you would call a great successful conclusion for the Yanks.....
    A better way of describing a war which you declared and where you achieve none of your objectives....is Lost....

    .....So what...all water under the bridge....

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #148
    What “sins” have I personally committed against you apart from trying to find a way though your supercilious postings and your use of archaic and redundant English.
    As I am not an industrial chemist I have no idea what Gryphenolstraphinecine is and this only confirms what I said above.
    When you started posting under umpteen stupid pseudonyms you then lost any credibility that you may have had. You just came across as a teenager who was trying to bolster his ego by pretending to be what he was not.

    One day you may grow up and discover that there is NO black and white solutions to any problem.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • The Truth PaTroll

    A better way of describing a war which you declared and where you achieve none of your objectives....is Lost....

    I thought that was the Iraq war.

    You know, finding WMD's and establishing a beacon of democracy and freedom “at the heart of the middle east”, “free of terrorists”.

    Oops.

    The British can't invade Argentina, let alone hold it. Forget the USA.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    151
    You thought right....perhaps...it depends on what the objectives were....

    Wars are no longer about gaining territory as the UN states it has to be returned to the people that possessed it before the war...
    So what would be the point of invading Argentina?

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    @140 The only thing that kept the Proyecto K alive was the price of soy beans:

    You're forgetting the cash from oil and gas exports.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “.....The British took half of the North American continent off the Americans and retained it in 1812 with the help of the Canadians.....almost bankrupting the US at the time....”

    A_Voice

    Huh?

    When did the US ever have the entire North American continent so the British could take half of it off them?

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    haha....where do you think the Canadians came from?
    After the war of Independence the British retained the whole of the Northern part of America and a border was created....it eventually became known as Canada.

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    When was Canada part of the US?

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    When did I say it was?
    “.....The British took half of the North American continent off the “AMERICANS”

    .....What do you think people born and living in North America were called before North America was split into Two?
    Those colonists were called Americans....you know... people living in America...
    ...and after Independence those south of the border became US Americans...

    Following the American revolution and the influx of United Empire Loyalists into Quebec, the colony was split on 26 December 1791 into Upper and Lower Canada, sometime being collectively known as “The Canadas”, the first time that the name “Canada” was used officially

    John A. Macdonald, who later became the first Prime Minister of Canada, talked of “founding a great British monarchy”, in connection with the British Empire. He advocated, in the fourth Canadian draft of the British “NORTH AMERICA” Act, the name ”Kingdom of Canada,

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    These “Americans”, prior to splitting in two, when did they have the whole of the North American continent so the British could take half of it off them?

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    According to these guys Britain would eventually lose Canada to the US

    America's Planned war on Britain
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKSjlM5GsVQ

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The past is the past,

    perhaps in the future the USA may join the commonwealth,
    and a new federation may emerge,

    anything is possible,
    untill an argie comes along an spoils it,

    perhaps Argentina would like to join this commonwealth, lol.

    justa joka

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    160
    Britain should just be done with it and become the US 51st State....

    The phrase “51st state” can be used in a positive sense, meaning that a region or territory is so aligned, supportive, and conducive with the United States, that it is like a U.S. state. .......Britain

    It can also be used in a negative sense, meaning an area or region is perceived to be under excessive American cultural or military influence or control.....Britain

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Leiard

    The Real Argentina exceeds the best fiction

    http://www.cronista.com/contenidos/2013/11/18/noticia_0012.html

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • CabezaDura

    160)

    I wonder if US greed for North America and the Caribbean might have eased Britan's task of getting the Mexicans to even some scores in the 1930s... But maybe you are right this is all talk is old, the documentary narrator says at 43:20... lets hope the next transition in global hegemony “is as painless” as the UK-US transition was. So the war games are being planned in Asia

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (161) A_Voice

    52st Staters......
    51st Staters is already taken by them Shackle Draggers....

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    164 Think
    You may be right...ever watched an episode of Home and Away Aussie soap.....
    Turn the sound down and you would swear it's the States...
    Don't watch a full one though.....it's like pulling teeth...

    Nov 18th, 2013 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Wow! never seen a thread go 'off topic' like you guys can do! sorry but I had to start scannin it after a while - tangents!!! will you ever get enough? wish I could contribute more, but I come here for informed opinion...
    Respect to Nigel @2 & @7. Seems well informed, but the rest, well, so many well reasoned arguements gentlemen (!), and a few nutters (always fun!), but for FFS try and stay on topic!
    loves, Ilsen

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anbar

    I love the way Vestige de-railed this thread with the absolute minimum of effort...and all the monkeys chased after him without a thought.

    classic mercopress thread. :-)

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    CHRIS R. USURPING PIRATE.
    Altough i have never agreeded on conservative ideas, due to in my opinion most them are too reactionary, i don't invalid thatcher's leadership, because i'm neather misserable nor mediocre, i'm a serious analist. Beside, i have always said in many of comments that if she was reelected twice in the u. k., and ruled britain for than any other prime minister, is because she must have done something right for th u. k., however it doesn't mean that i have to agree on the ideology of her party.
    In relation to this conflict, you don't have to forget that in 1980, her government decided to send nicholas readley to the islands and to buenos aires, with the purpose of achieving an agreement for the sovereignty of the islands. So, this is evident that keeping the islands for britain wasn't neather a priority, nor a wish for her.
    If she had such a repentin wish of recovering th islands for the u. k., she could have achieved it without making any war. In fact, she could have sent a huge militar mission to the islands, in order to protect the human rights of the islanders from the terrible abuses that the junta used to commit, and at the same time, start a negotiation process as it was asked to both countries by the u. n. In the case of the junta, they were disposed to negotiate with thatcher's government, they even were disposed to accept the three flags proposal, however, you don't have to be so smart in order to realise that when she ordered to sink the belgrano, what she wanted to show was that she only accepted a militar victory.
    Perhaps the sinking of the belgrano wasn't a war crime, but it was a clear messagge for the junta, with the purpose of showing those imbecills who ruled arg. in that moment that none negotiation was possible.
    I respect if many people in britain are still pro thatcher, but for me, she was just a despisable human being.

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    Axel : It is very hard to negotiate with a military dictatorship with an appalling human rights record such as the Junta .
    Some of the worst perpetrators were involved , Astiz ( S Georgia ) Giachinno , Dowling , Seneildin , the Buzo Tactico and Battallon 601, plus loads of others . A deliberate policy to sort of “ cleanse ” them .
    These people would have murdered the entire population if they thought they could have got away with it . If all the journalists had been expelled , what's to stop them ?
    As for the Belgrano , a cruiser with 16in guns and exocet missiles was a real threat and had to be taken out .
    The exclusion zone only applied to ships belonging to non belligerents , the Argentine Navy knew that , they had been explicitly told .
    Do agree with you though , if the Junta hadn't invaded , the islands would have been Argentine by 1985 at the latest .
    If Thatcher hadn't recaptured the islands the whole free world would have condemned her for abandoning British subjects to a bunch of murderers .

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @168

    The Ridley episode demonstrates three things :
    1) it's a lie that the UK has always refused “dialogue” or to respect UN resolutions
    2) Argentina doesn't understand what negotiation means
    3) the junta has thereby ensured that the islands will never be Argentine.

    There is nothing to blame Thatcher for here. She did only what any democratic government with the necessary capability would do when confronted with an invasion by a fascist military dictatorship

    The Belgrano was not sunk to forestall a negotiated solution. There would have been no need to do any such thing, since there was no possibility of negotiation as long as the invasion force was in place. The junta could have withdrawn, under cover of the mandatory UN resolution demanding it do exactly that. But the junta chose not to, apparently because Galtieri knew he would be torn to pieces by the howling mob outside the Casa Rosada if he did.

    Obviously you have some difficulties with the notion of responsibility, but the Falklands War was clearly the fault of Argentina and nobody else. It's about time you learned something from it.

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    The malvinistas , and in particular the loathsome Kirchner woman , need to move on from this issue .
    It's like a cancer eating the guts out of the country .
    1 ) Vaca Muerta has huge reserves of shale oil that are easier to extract , so there is nothing they need from the Falklands .
    2 ) Even if the Islands were handed over , someone would steal them from them as they have no forces to defend the place with , or means to supply anyone who would chose to live there . We'd then be bored to death about them complaining about someone else's illegal occupation .
    3 ) No one has ever yet met an Argentine who wants to live there , it's all an abstract concept , mainly to do with with machismo and nationalism . with them
    4 ) You don't hear Germany moaning about being ejected from Poland , or Greece or France . It's because they accept the error of their ways and have moved on . Argentines always worry about how they are perceived . Fact is , the world look at the monumental screw up the politicians are making of potentially one of the richest countries in the world , and honestly wonder why they want to impose their communal misery on others

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    168 axel arg

    If you want to be a serious ANALYST you had better learn to spell the word correctly.

    An ANALIST is something else entirely.

    It really doesn't matter what happened / did not happen with dialogue about the Falklands prior to the invasion by the thugs of the Junta.

    That changed everything for both parties. It saw the end of the Junta and what is laughingly called “democracy” returned to Argentina and a massive rise in the popularity of The Blessed Margaret and her subsequent re-election.

    So something good came out of it after all.

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Actually I did read somewhere that the USA could join,
    But where I cannot remember,

    Could Britain be the 51/2 state of the union,
    As some have suggested,

    Well that’s what all the Ifs and BUTS are about,
    Are they not..lolol

    168 axel arg
    try Again..

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #168 AXEL
    “” you don't have to be so smart in order to realise that when she ordered to sink the belgrano, what she wanted“”...was to protect the British fleet and British lives !
    Your conspiracy theories abound. You will accept no other reason than it was to save her political skin. Your version of the truth makes it easier for you to accept this theory.
    Your scenario would be for the British to have talks over sovereignty while Argentina, de facto, stays on the islands and refuse to move although requested to by the UN.
    The result of these negotiations, from your point of view, would be for Argentina being given joint control of the Islands. Then at some date in the NEAR future, for Britain to leave and grant you total sovereignty.
    Your country effectively had committed an act of aggression towards the UK. What in God's name did you expect us to do? Roll over and say carry on ?
    If you wanted peace you could have kept your fleet in port.
    It was only because of their incompetence that the Belgrano was sunk.
    Did you think that either side was on a pleasure cruise ?
    If you did not want to play rough then you should have stayed on the mainland.
    I think you should just let this go as history and live with it...as we have had to.
    Concentrate on how to sort out your country's problems without blaming the Falklands.

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    #168 AXEL

    Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations.

    Britain acted in self-defence in sinking the Belgrano and it is easy to understand why. Regardless of controversies over the sinking, it had a crucial strategic effect: the elimination of the Argentine naval threat. After her loss, the entire Argentine fleet, with the exception of the conventional submarine ARA San Luis, returned to port and did not leave again for the duration of hostilities. The two escorting destroyers and the battle group centred on the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo both withdrew from the area, ending the direct threat to the British fleet that their pincer movement had represented.

    On the other hand, which of three lawful justifications does Argentina invoke for invading the islands in the first place - self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations?

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    There is too much testosterone on this thread.
    Haven't you men got wives?

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • El capitano

    @168
    Erm.. Axel...The “Belgrano” was indeed a “war ship” caught at sea by an opposition force the “Royal Navy”....The Royal Navy did was it was sent to do..sink any and all Arjuntinian war ships that where foolish enough to challenge it,there -for the constant babbling by a group of “babbling Argie” baboons dont amount to a hill of shit...ie “War crime my ass”...As for your dislike for Maggie Thatcher,under the democratic system that is your right..Under that same democratic system I consider you to have the brains of a clock work turd after reading your many idiotic posts,so you have a great day now.....OK..?

    Nov 19th, 2013 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Usurping Pirate

    @168 : The world according to Axel ......
    Argentina are allowed to mount a military invasion of someone else's territory , imprison the population and impose martial law and an alien way of life on them and then ignore UN resolutions to withdraw , but the UK can only “ negotiate ” ?
    Hitler used to pull that stunt all the time ....

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund

    @178
    Exactly. It's perfectly acceptable to start a war, and send a warship to make war in the war zone, but if its intended target defends itself, that's a war crime.

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @178 & 179,
    Thats because they lost & it hurts(oh how God it hurts!).
    Like children, they will twist facts & lie, just to payback & “win”.
    You would have seen their Football antics.

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rule_britannia

    #175 rule_britannia

    Dear Axel,

    I meant “OR” not “AND”:

    On the other hand, which of three lawful justifications does Argentina invoke for invading the islands in the first place - self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, OR approval by the United Nations?

    Which is it to be?

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    Axel just keeps getting lower and lower, he started here pretending to be earnest and thoughtful but he refuses to recognizes the broader implications of his hemming and hawing and now pretty much applies himself to sanitizing the Junta's actions by “blaming Thatcher 'too'.” The Belgrano's CO freely and openly admitted that he was engaged in military operations against the UK -- preserving the illegal hold of the Islands and further endangering the Islanders form the Junta to which he was loyal by his collaboration. His ship was an essential tool to impose his country's dirty war on the people of the Falklands and their fundamental human rights -- a people I might add who had previously explicitly rejected Argentine fascism and made that message clear to London (which is apparently akin to Poland not giving Germany... Poland, such warmongering provocation!). His ship and all the loyal little Eichmanns on board serving as career navy NCOs and officers (and regrettably the conscripts as well) was part of the continuing threat to the people of the Islands and like every other Argentine military asset dedicated to that purpose were a rightful casualties of a just war to liberate the Falklanders from a threat of his own country's EXCLUSIVE making. Someday, Axel may get his head completely around that, but somehow I doubt it. As a teacher (so he said if I recall correctly) who must teach such lies his students, he must buy that lie hook line and sinker or probably go mad -- or be fired. One has to wonder if he'd blame Poland for staring WW2 or the Allies for prolonging the war by not “negotiating” with Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini when the Axis was at their greatest extent. The principle is the same.

    Argentina chose Fascism. Argentina chose to “share” that Fascism. Argentina was 100% wrong. No excuses. No enablement. No Dominique Francon engraved invitation to invade. No “look what they made us do!” or “they didn't want to 'negotiate'!” after his boys invaded.

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @168
    “her government decided to send nicholas readley to the islands and to buenos aires, with the purpose of achieving an agreement for the sovereignty of the islands. So, this is evident that keeping the islands for britain wasn't neather a priority, nor a wish for her.”

    You will find that was more to do with the Foreign Office than MT herself.
    When Ridley put his proposals to the House Of Commons they were rejected by both sides of the House because the Falkland Islanders rejected lease-back.

    In the 1960s 0r 1970s , whatever ideas the UK had to achieve a settlement over sovereignty, were always subject in the end to what the Islanders wanted. The reason why none of the UK's initiatives were successful, is that Argentina refused to seek the agreement of the very people who inhabited the islands.

    Your country will never get the islands because it is under the delusion that it is the UK they must speak with and not the people who were born on the Islands.

    Once Argentina understands the simple premise that if they get the Islanders agreement, they may then get the Falklands.

    It is an understatement to say this is extremely unlikely as the Argentines can only offer the Islanders a much worse life than they have now because sadly, Argentina is hung over with the peronist doctrine that was originated by Adolf Hitler, i.e. dictate, and under no circumstances listen to anyone else's opinions.

    Argentina is permanently in a peat bog in two wheel drive, without a bumperjack, planks, and running on full revs.

    That's going to smash the diflock Axel, not get out of the bog.

    Nov 20th, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ 174 Clyde15
    “Your scenario would be for the British to have talks over sovereignty while Argentina, de facto, stays on the islands and refuse to move although requested to by the UN.”
    Sorry but UNSC resolution 502 'Demanded' immediate withdrawal of RG forces.
    UNSC are mandatory as per Article 25 of the UN Charter, available here:
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

    What the heck, just another contract flagrantly broken by RGland.

    Nov 23rd, 2013 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    MY ANSWER.
    Sorry for my dely, but i haven't had enough time for checking i mails this week.
    Firstly, i can only tell you that i respect your opinions, beside i understand whether thatcher acted like most british people expected from her during the conflict of 1982, but it doesn't mean that i have to agree on what you think about it.
    I have never justified the invasion of 1982, and i won't never do it.
    In my comment 135 i explain why i think that the junta invaded the islands, it would be better if you read it, and after we can talk about it.
    Some of you love dating resolution 502, which asked the retire of argentine troops, and asked also both countries to solve their differences peacefully.
    The day after the invasion, argentine troops had started to leave the archipelago, because what the junta wanted to do, was a touch and go. The junta was so stupid that they thought that if they took the islands, and left a small garrison in the territory, it would push britain to negotiate the sovereignty with the country.
    I have already said how thatcher could have recovered the islands for britain without making any war, if you don't agree on my opinion, sorry, but it's not my problem.
    Objetive facts which happened before 1982, like ridley's mission of 1980, and thatcher's rejection to keep the defence in the south atlantic, show perfectly that keeping the islands for britain wasn't neather a priority, nor a wish for her government. If you prefer considerating her as hero, or as somebody who did the right thing, i respect it, but i don't buy it.
    Perhaps the sinking of the belgrano wasn't a war crime, which was sealing away from the islands, but it was a clear message to the junta, in order to show them that she wasn't interested in a negotiated solution.

    Nov 23rd, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!