MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' war book '1982 and all that' will answer Argentine questions
A book by John Fowler on what it was like to live through the Falkland Islands 1982 war from an Islander’s view has been made available in Argentina Translated from its British version ‘1982 and all that’ which has been available on Amazon for Kindle for some time, ‘1982: Difficult Days in the Falklands’ is soon to be available in Spanish thanks to the publishing house Winograd. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhy would anyone be afraid of a book?
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unless the truth comes out of course.
Democracy and Argentina should never be put in the same sentence.
The truth has been there and available for any thinking Argentinean; if they desired to learn.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Many Argentines lie about:
-the discovery
-settlement
-1982
-and UN resolutions when it comes to the Islands.
It doesn't matter how many times you can prove them wrong with easily verifiable facts they just won't accept their brainwashing was wrong.
So the book will not change much in Argentina.
I think this is a good idea. It's about time the Argentine public had the chance to access the human face and cost of their governments insane 'Malvinas' policy.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0The truth about what the so-called Argentine 'liberation' force that invaded on 2 April 1982 were actually like, and how badly they treated the Falkland Islanders, should be told to the Argentine public.
The Argentine government has done nothing but try to demonise the people of the Falklands as 'pirates', 'squatters', 'sub-human' or other such things.
The Argentine people need to realise that this isn't about a group of Islands, this is about the people who have lived on that island for longer than Argentina has existed. People who, like every other human on the planet, love, live, work and die. Ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives in peace.
They have no animosity towards the ordinary people of Argentina, they would like to be friends, or at least neighbourly, but it is the Argentine government that doesn't want that.
They prefer the conflict, because they know they can use it to distract the masses (for a short time anyway) from their own economic insanity.
No doubt it will be banned, we don't want them to learn the truth do we?
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0#3 Good post, thank you.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing more than British propaganda rubbish no more true than what comes out of North Korea
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0#6
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, you certainly DO live in a dream world !
I just wonder if MercoPress could make “excerpts” available. It would be such fun to read the malvinista/campora/quebracho/kirchnerist impotent screams of outrage and denial. Let's read how the argie slave soldiers treated civilians and surrendered British troops with the dignity and respect required by the Geneva Conventions. Let's read about how the slave soldiers were shocked at how they weren't greeted as “liberators”, but as what they were. Brainwashed, robot cannon fodder! And for all that argieland now lauds them as “heroes”, why didn't argieland want them back at the time? Is it true that they were just gutter sweepings? A real problem for the argie government. Were they real “heroes” (unlikely) defeated by a smaller force, but entitled to receive proper “benefits”? Or were they useless thugs recruited from the “villas” who couldn't translate gangsterism into combat effectiveness?
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0@6
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you read it?
@2 “The truth has been there and available for any thinking Argentinean; if they desired to learn. ”
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree but the problem is when society has been inculcated with a false version it is very difficult to change their thinking even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence refuting their belief.
@6 Living
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Give me an example of something that you don't believe to be true in it.
I don't think the book will be banned, but I do believe it will be discredited as imperialistic lies.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#6 You certainly are living in a dream world concerning the mythical Malvinas, you have all been fed lies from birth. I suggest you visit the islands and talk to the people there, read this book, read ”Nothing to envy“ to learn the truth about that odious regime, and just reflect on the comparison you made. It is utter nonsense, but I suspect you already know that...
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 ElaineB
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed. The most well known term for this process is called 'denazification'. So eventually Argentina will have to undergo an 'deperonisation'.
That can only usually begin after rock bottom has been hit and Argentina might never get there, just continue their downward slide. Which isn't that bad really, it doesn't really affect anyone outside of Argentina that much.
@livingthedream
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. The sad sad truth is that Argentines are indoctrinated from school age. All you have is the mindless mantra “Malvinas son Argentinas” and your dismal government have a useful whipping boy (the falklands) with which to distract you.
I'm really surprised the Argentine government has let the book through, wasn't only recently that they banned all imported books as they were worried about the lead content of the ink!!!!!!!
LOl @ the “Dreamer” #6......You will never get through to these Argie Dwarfs they have been indoctrinated for far to long(very similar to North Koreans)...Kinda sad really but it is what it is...!!
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3 the people of Argentina have never cared about the islanders, I don't think a book will change that.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 I don't think deperonisation is possible, Peronism has become our culture, and for better or worse Argentina will never be like it was before Peron. Believe it or not, it was the Junta itself that wanted deperonisation, had they won the war they could have probably achieved it (at great cost), but now, it's too late.
THE ANSWERS I HAVE ALWAYS NEEDED.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always known that if i wanted to have an ample knowledge of this cause, i couldn't take into account only, neather our mendacious official history, written by the most reactionary sectors from our society, and by some pathetic sepoys, neather in the history told by an empire in decadence like the u. k.
Many people in this forum have always accused us of believing a false history since we were children, however none of them has never criticised absolutly anything of the too partial arguments which are usually expressed by their side.
The day that many of you investigate deeply as i did, you'll know that the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries, beside, you'll realise that both parts of the conflict often tell just what is convenient for them, before any international scenario, not just arg.
In all my life, i had always thought that the invasion of 1982, was just the desperate act of a criminal regime which tried to get a militar victory, in order to save the dictatorhip from collapse.
However, after years of investigation, i could realise that with or without invasion in 1982, the militar dictatorship would have fallen in a few more years, because the social and economic context of the country was absolutly deplorable, due to the neoliberal programme implemented by the regime, was decimating our national industries, and took the country to a great recession.
I think that if if the militar dictatorship invaded the islands in 1982, it was because they needed a victory, in order to use it to push future civil governments, with the purpose of avoiding any investigation about the crimes of the dictatorship. While it is true that the army had a plan to invade the islands since 1955, but in my opinion, i think the last dictatorship had other ideas when they order to take the islands.
However, they finally gave thatcher a great hand, which was very good for her, to save her misserable and reactionary government.
@18 “the militar dictatorship would have fallen in a few more years, ”
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only a few more years of people terrified to go out on the streets at night.
Only a few more years of people randomly, often wrongly, picked up to be tortured.
Only a few more years of men being routinely castrated and women being raped before they were murdered.
Only a few more years......
Better to have invaded a small island of just 3,000 people and sacrifice 1,000 lives, right?
It is interesting, don't you think, that when interviewed the torturers always claim 'it wasn't me, it was someone else, I just stood outside the door of the torture cell”. We all know that Argentines used to stay after their duty just to watch the torture. How do you explain that?
Do you know, I read @6, and then subsequent comments, and I was going to ask why so many people were ready to waste their time trying to get “living” to think. I was going to point alex the argehole who is supposed to be a “teacher”. Of course, in argieland, “teacher” is the sort of “job” you get shuffled into if you don't have the skills to clean out sewage works, cesspits, effluent drains and the like. By hand.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I scroll down a bit and who do I find. The driveller itself. And what does it have to say. For those who don't know “alex” spent an amazing amount of time (it said) conducting a review. After it'd written up his findings (it said), it invited everyone to contact it so that it could email it's “report” to them. Like anyone would trust an argie with their email address!
But let's look at what it has to say. The first four paragraphs should have been headed “Dear Diary”. But then it moves to ”It had nothing to do with the British assembling a Task Force, sailing 8,000 (approx) miles to confront an invading and occupying force with a capital 1,200 miles away and naval “bases” at similar distances. The argie people would have brought down the military government. The government just wanted a victory. Of course, Thatcher fell for it in order to save her government“.
Anyone ”believe“ this? Right down to basics. ”It wasn't US. It wasn't our fault. We would have put it “right”. And, despite the British, we would have been a prosperous and leading democratic country“.
So tell us, axel, why aren't you prosperous? Why aren't you democratic? Why does your country spend so much of its time telling lies? Try this http://www.falklandshistory.org/false-falklands-history.pdf
Read it. No, I mean, read it. Pascoe and Pepper have far more credibility than you. Do you think you wasted your time?
But we know the truth don't we, people? Argies lie. Argies are greedy. Anyone thinks an argie tells the truth when it says ”I was born......“. Should be ”I was shat out”.
This issue is just a cancer that eats up Argentina's insides .
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately , most Argentines simply don't care anymore , as they are more worried about their personal future than whether these islands become part of the country or not .
In any case , if they were absorbed into Argentina , taxes would have to go up even more to pay for the defence of them , and most Argies will not stomach that .
Grow up , move on . No one cares .
@21 You have a point. When I think about it the majority of Argentines don't give a flying one about the Falklands but they do fret about the rising crime, their disappearing money and inflation.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Difficult Days in the Falklands’ is soon to be available in Spanish thanks to the publishing house Winograd.”
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Slightly off the point, but is it only me who sees a comical relationship between “Spanish” and “Winograd”?
Slightly odd name for a publisher , has to be said .
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Join us next week when Angela Merkel demands Danzig back while invading Strasbourg at the same time .
Interesting book to be read. I'll try to get it next time I visit my hometown.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He believes it is time for a different view of the Falklands”...from both sides.
6 Livingthedream
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing more than British propaganda rubbishes
British truth
We defeated a nasty bullying country more than 8 times the size of us,
We sent your navy running back to port,
We defeated your troops on the ground
We defeated your air force,
We won the war,
Argentina propaganda
You defeated us,
Your navy was victorious,
You lost no ships,
Your troops fought us on the beaches and are now heroes,
Your air force sunk the royal navy,
The Argentina flag is now flying over the Falklands,
Oh- and you won the war,
Next time you travel abroad Read a news paper…lol
poor man, you need a holiday, lolol.
I purchased it on Amazon for £4.47 for the Kindle and read it today. A very informative little book. It doesnt really slate the RGs, in fact mosty of the troops that are mentioned behaved themselves. All the troops, British too, came across as intruders on a peaceful family centred community. Of course the RGs were totally unwelcome.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today the islands are secure, reasonably prosperous, and bemused and offended by the sabre rattling and interference by Argentina. Argentina continues to distance itself further from ever holding any sway over the Falklands.
Off topic but I see Putridjelly has been given the arse... I wonder if it was for corruption or fraud? Didn't think either of them were sackable offences in RGland...
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel Arg has been investigating the Malvinas myth for YEARS and he still can't even quote the UN correctly.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wow maybe MagnusMaster is right and 'deperonisation' is impossible.
bah... as if the british had no interest in the islands themselves. hypocrites.
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Huh?
Dec 03rd, 2013 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course Britain has interest in the islands. Their population is British.
Are Malvinistas getting dumber?
Axel- interested to know which bits did which side lie about in the conflict in 1982?
Dec 04th, 2013 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uk may not have always told the total truth in conflict - bit silly if you do at such times - but certainly never told a complete untruth and lie. But I know Argentina told some “whoppers” at times!
@AngoloLatino
Dec 04th, 2013 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Of course Britain has interest in the islands. Their population is British.
Are Malvinistas getting dumber?”
If UK is so concern about the British Islanders...
Why UK doesn't bring them back to UK and save a lot of troubles with SA?
There is not better place for a British than Britain I guess...
What do you think?
33 Its no trouble your tears of impotent rage power are nuclear death submarines :)
Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0DannyB- We Islanders have the right of abode in the UK- we can go and live there if we WISH. But the difficult thing for you as an Argentine to ever comprehend is that Democracy is based on the wishes and rights of peoples- and our wish - as expressed very clearly last March - is that we wish to exercise our Democratic Right to continue to live in the country of our own choice under the Government of our own choice. If you look at the statistics of March you will see that people who were not of British origen but who also live in the Islands also voted exactly the same way.
Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0These Islands have been my and my family,s home ever since the early 1840s- most of Argentina did not even exist then - it was still populated by its original natural population - you know - the ones who were “dissappeared” in the 1860-1880 period ( a bit like the other 30,000 who had the same fate in the 1970s and early 1980s).
@18 axel arg
Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are blind to the recent find of Junta documents, their plans to remain in power for 18 more years. You are blind to the fact that british forces caused the downfall of the Junta by the very fact that had the Junta won in the falklands, you guys would have licked their boots. You are blind to the fact the military stole the babies of political prisons and handed them out to childless military officers. You are blind because you want to ignore the bitter truth that your country has historically taken the wrong path and is ideologically broken. You ignore the fact that your country perturbed Great Britain, causing loss of life of our people and the enduring losses felt buy our soldiers families and friends. You are wrapped in denial and deeply brainwashed.
@33
Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because it's our home and has been for generations, no reason why we should leave.
@37 DanyBerger
Dec 04th, 2013 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why should they move? Because a backward peronist government and its brainwashed cohorts wants them to? Falklands has been British 50 years longer than Argentina has existed, 11 years longer than America has existed as a sovereign country, 75 years longer than Germany was formed. It was returned to Britain in 1770-ish by an apologetic Spanish King who only discovered its whereabouts because the french told them. Your claim is a sick joke primarily perpetrated on your own people with the islanders and great britain bearing the brunt of your juvenile activities.
@33
Dec 04th, 2013 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why UK doesn't bring them back to UK and save a lot of troubles with SA?”
How can they go 'back' to somewhere they did. not. come. from. in. the. first. place.???????
That's an impossibility!!!
Don't you understand that most of the Falkland Islanders were born on the Falklands and not in the UK, or has your fascist government brainwashed you into believing that EVERY Islander is individually transported from the UK?
Your government has certainly taken you for a sucker.
Why should people in Argentina claim the Falkland Islands when they were NOT BORN in the Islands?
Do you believe that one or two Argentines born in the Falklands who want Argentine sovereignty, should have a bigger say than the majority born on the Islands who don't want to be Argentine?
If so, you obviously believe in totalitarian fascism-try democracy instead, che.
If you want the Islands (where previous to 1982 most Argentines did NOT WANT TO MOVE -they had the chance), then it's REALLY EASY:
1/- Convince the Falklanders that it is in their best interests to be become Argentine-you only have to persuade 3000 people.
If you cannot manage that easy task, does it not indicate how inept and irrelevant your country is?
How is it that your country cannot convince 3000 people that being Argentine is a great idea?
Is it simply because your country is crap?
2/- Go to the ICJ and take proper historical evidence instead of the crap you invent.
It's that easy.
Why UK doesn't bring them back to UK and save a lot of troubles with SA?
Dec 04th, 2013 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,
perhaps Argentina should bring back its people from Antarctica's illegal occupation..
@Pete Bog
Dec 04th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should someone try to convince the Islanders to become Argentine if they always claim to be British and want to remain British?
The only little problem is that those Islands are not Britain you would easy realised that by just taking a look of a world map.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/united-kingdom/britain/britain-location-map.html
@41 DanyBerger the Dumb Ass version
Dec 04th, 2013 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That 2 cm gap between the coast of The Dark Country and the Falklands (there are NO Malvinas) IS NOT 2 CM in reality.
It’s more like 355 Km to the poxy little island off the SE tip known in gibberish as “Isla de los Estados” though it seems not even many argies go there, OR 485 Km to the “Entrada Atlantica del Estrecho de Magallanes”.
Know I now you THOUGHT it was only 2 CM and I realise that I have told you a lie, because your teacher told you that it was only 2 cm. But who gave you the map?
BUT! It doesn’t matter what you “think” or your mate Lunatic “thinks”, “YOU LOT” will never get your hands on them – except by drooling over a map.
Ha, ha, ha. FFS get the DanyBerger with a brain back on shift asap!
@41
Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“why should someone try to convince the Islanders to become Argentine if they always claim to be British and want to remain British?”
The answer to that is so obvious !
If the Argentines want the Falkland Islanders to change their mind about wanting to be British then the best way would be to convince them it is a good idea to be Argentinian.
However, you cannot, so you are stuck in a peat bog up to the axles and all you can do is put your vehicle into 2 wheel drive and rev the engine up- that's not going to get you out of the bog che-so you are stuck and the Islanders have the life they want.
“The only little problem is that those Islands are not Britain you would easy realised that by just taking a look of a world map.”
The problem is YOU DON't look at the world map YOURSELF because you have tunnel vision concentrating on the South Atlantic.
Normandy and Calais in France are near to Britain (nearer than 400 miles)-they used to be British-they aren't now-we stopped crying about it centuries ago-(we have left the bog).
Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is a French Island off Canada-so according to you its Canadian. It's STILL French.
The Faroe Islands are 200 miles north of Scotland (that's much nearer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina).
But they aren't British because they are nearer to the UK, they ARE a self governing territory of DENMARK.
Your problem is, that you would say that Argentina have a claim on the Falklands since the 1820s.
However what was to become Argentina was nowhere near the Falkland Islands but over 1000 miles away.
After the 1880s when you murdered your colonial way through Patagonia you were then nearer to the Falklands-so it is nonsense to claim territorial proximity unless you claim the Islands from the 1880s onwards-by which time the Falkland Islands has been under constant administration for almost 50 years and some of Vernet's settlers had only just died in the Falklands (i.e. the ones we let stay in 1833)
Dany says:
Dec 04th, 2013 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If UK is so concern about the British Islanders... Why UK doesn't bring them back to UK and save a lot of troubles with SA?
There is not better place for a British than Britain I guess...”
The Falkland Islanders are already part of the UK. A British Overseas Territory is a territory of the UK.
So thanks for highlighting that fact.
A state's territory doesn't have to be contiguous. Nor do all parts have to be under the same or uniform government structure.
The Falkland Islands are part of the UK. And as you recognise that its inhabitants have a right to reside in the UK, then you just supported their rights to live on the Islands.
Anymore gems of wisdom?
“The Falkland Islands are part of the UK”
Dec 05th, 2013 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really?
So may be UK is part of Argentina also why not?
Don't worry sooner or later Argentina will prevail...
“Don't worry sooner or later Argentina will prevail...”
Dec 05th, 2013 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You keep telling yourself Dany, it won't make it true but if it brings you a little comfort go for it.
#45
Dec 05th, 2013 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's YOU that is worrying, not us ! You have been peddling the same old message for as long as I have been on this site, What has changed to your advantage ? NOTHING !
45
Dec 05th, 2013 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you saying, [the way it interps ]
That the UK will soon be argentina, lol
Perhaps you feel Guernsey and jersey should be French,
Portugal should be –Spanish,
Andorra should be cut in half between France and Spain
Brazil and Chile, right on the boarder, should be argentine,
It gets more silly as the ego grows,
Rest my friend and have a cuppa lol..
.
ELAINEB. ISLANDER1. ANGLOTINO. MUSKY.
Dec 06th, 2013 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry for my dely, but we had a big blackout yesterday, and i didn't have enough time for cheeking i mails.
I know that what i say in my comment 18 is terrible, but i don't want to be hypocrite. I was born and grown up in argentina, so, as an argentine citizen i have always known and suffered the consecuences of the dictatorship, like many other of my compatriots, so, i don't need anybody to tell me how criminal the regime was.
Last month were unveiled documents of the dictatorship which show that the regime pretended to last intill 2000, however reality was totally different finally. In my opinion, i think that the militars realised that their purpose was going to be impossible, due to the social and economic context was absolutly deplorable, because of the economic model implemented by the dictatorship. That's why the needed something so important like the sovereignty of the islands, because it was going to be their key, which they would use, in order to push future civil governments, with the purpose of getting impunity in relation to their crimes.
I respect whether many of you don't agree on my analysis, but what really annoys me, is when see that many people here argue that only arg. makes a partial analysis in refference to the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict. In my opinion, i think it's very hypocritical to insist on that posture. You already know what i think about our official history, and about what politicians from both sides manifest before int. scenarios.
On the other hand, i respect also whether many of you agree on thatcher's actions in relation to the conflict of 1982, i understand that perhaps she acted like most british people expected from her, but it doens't mean that i have to think the same than you. In fact, my posture respecting the actions of both governments in 1982, has always been very clear.
@49. Your government started the war. Prime Meanister [sic. -- for once, my typos lately have been awful] Thatcher the Terrible the Milk Stealer ended it. To borrow a recent rueful quote, you go to war with the government you have. You may argue that you didn't chose the Junta but it is clear that it galls you to no end that Thatcher was the PM that humiliated Junta with defeat which lead to their premature but well-deserved demise when they made your problem her people's problem. We are very sorry for you that it wasn't Prime Minister Perfect Pants, an unobtainable fantasy liberal democrat with just the right amount of Kirschnerism thrown in so that you can at least real good about THAT.
Dec 06th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We apologize for history's inconveniences.
GFACE.
Dec 07th, 2013 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beyond some of your stupid ironies, i'll tell you what i think about the behaviour of both governments in 1982.
In my opinion, i think that the militars failed in interpreting correctly the political context of britain, with such a reactionary and unpopular government like thatcher's.
Anyway, they didn't want to make a war for the islands, what they wanted to do, was to take the islands, and leave a small garrison there, because they thought that this mecanism woud push britain for a negotiation. Beside, resolution 502 asked the retire of argentine troops, which had started to retire the day after the invasion, and asked also both nations to solve their problems peacefuly.
In the case of the u. k., you don't have to forget that in 1980 thatcher's government decided to send nicholas ridley to the islands and to buenos aires, with the purpose of finding a negotiated solution for this conflict. Beside, in 1981 she was warned about the danger of her decision of retiring the defence from the south atlantic, but she rejected to keep in in the territory. These two objetive facts show that the islands weren't neather a priority, nor a wish for her. Anyway, if she had such a repentin wish of recovering the islands for britain, she could have achieved without making any war. In fact, she could have sent a huge militar mission, in order to protect the human rights of the islanders from possible abuses by the militars, and the the same time start a process of negotiations as it was asked to both countries. However, when she ordered to sink the belgrano, which perhaps wasn't a war crime, what she wanted to show, was that none negotiation was possible.
For all these reasons, beyond i respect whether many people in the u. k. agreeded on her actions in 1982, for me she was just a despisable human being.
@51
Dec 07th, 2013 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“n fact, she could have sent a huge militar mission, in order to protect the human rights of the islanders from possible abuses by the militars”
To be fair, although MT was the Prime Minister, the fault of sending Ridley was the Foreign Office, and the defence (or lack of it) of the Falklands was the fault of the idiot egghead John Knott.
But you are correct in this axel-the British government sent the wrong signals out to the junta by not doing enough to defend the Islands.And you are right-the Falklands would not have been invaded by the Junta if a British submarine had been kept down there, and with that I cannot disagree.
Hence the military presence now.
However, the sinking of the Belgrano did not halt negotiations -they continued on well into May 1982 up to the San Carlos Landings-indeed there were still indications that the UN would get involved provided the Argentines withdrew from the Islands.
Also, it has to be emphasised again, that the Argentines were warned in April that any of their military that was deemed a threat to British forces could be attacked-anywhere. That's why the UK defended Ascension Island with Phantoms. The fact that the junta ignored this or did not believe this shows how they disrespected their own troops by putting them in danger.
Indeed when the Argentine Boeing 707 reconnaissance aircraft was shadowing the British fleet in April 1982 a request from the task force to shoot it down was refused by Margaret Thatcher as was a request to sink the 25 de Mayo aircraft carrier because diplomatic negotiations were still ongoing.
Also, Argentina are extremely lucky that a more belligerent Prime Minister was not in charge as an 'American president' style Prime Minister would have almost certainly had the Argentine mainland/airbases bombed.
Argentina was also lucky that Sandy Woodward's idea to build an airstrip at Port North for Phantoms and Buccaneers did not happen as Argentina's airforce would have been erased.
@51
Dec 08th, 2013 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0We agree that the Junta completely misread the political situation in the UK.
We can also agree that the John Knott's defence cuts, coupled with Nicholas Ridley's visits to Buenos Aires & the Falklands gave the impression that Britain would not defend their citizens.
Other governments also made the same mistake. The Americans thought we would give in & accept the invasion as a fait accompli, whilst the Soviets (and most of the rest of the world) thought that Britain lacked the political will & more importantly was militarily incapable of retaking the Falkland Islands.
Things may have turned out entirely differently if the Argentine Government had not already been a murderous dictatorship - putting the fear of death into their own citizens, let alone any new ones.
If Argentina had made overtures to the Islanders, offered them a lot of money (millions) to sell their farms, their homes & invited them to move back to the UK as millionaires, whilst encouraging the British to enter into trade deals which would be beneficial to both countries. Some might have sold out, but very few.
The problem with this hypothetical story is that the Falkland Islands means more to the Islanders than mere money. It's their HOME.
Yes they are British and they have the right to reside in Britain & some do have homes there, but you cannot put a price on your heritage. These islands have never belonged to Argentina - AND THEY NEVER WILL.
The problem is that your country & citizens have been indoctrinated with false national aspirations for more than half a century. You've been spoon fed a false history to back up your claim to the Islands, but you've never tested those claims in a court of law - despite many urgings to do so by the British Government over 150 years.
Argentina has taken the claim to the UN, but they never took it to the ICJ - WHY?
Because they would never win at the ICJ,
because the claim is false,
& because the Islanders have the right of SELF-DETERMINATION.
I haven't read Mr. Fowler's book. BUT,
Dec 11th, 2013 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just can't imagine a better book than John Smith's
74 DAYS: AN ISLANDER'S DIARY OF THE FALKLANDS OCCUPATION.
London, Century Publishing Co. Ltd, 1984.
Philippe
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!