Falklands War 1982 Documentary

UK Man

Registered
The unspoken truth in this painful fiasco is and remains that the UK was defending its own selfish interests a viable presence in the area, unsustainable otherwise, in view of a future exploitation of the huge resources in the area. They might not be cheap to harvest now but the Antartic continent (land under the ice) is rich, the seas are rich (ask the chinese fishboats) and the sea bed is also rich and unexploited/able at present.
This truth revealed would have gathered little or no support from the people, the other crap did.

Iz
Tough shit I'm afraid.
 

camberiu

Registered
No reasonable argentinian adult will agree that we should add the falklanders to our population. Or make them as miserable as we are.
Today that is the case. But back in 1982, even the Left jumped on the "Las Malvinas son nuestras" bandwagon. The junta's strategy to forcefully annex the Islands in order to rally wide popular support for the regime did work extremely well in the beginning. The mood only started to shift when it became obvious that an Argentine military victory was not attainable.
So, the Argentinian population was not unwillingly dragged into a conflict that they were reluctant to support. And for that, the country paid dearly.
 

Bajo_cero2

Registered
Today that is the case. But back in 1982, even the Left jumped on the "Las Malvinas son nuestras" bandwagon. The junta's strategy to forcefully annex the Islands in order to rally wide popular support for the regime did work extremely well in the beginning. The mood only started to shift when it became obvious that an Argentine military victory was not attainable.
So, the Argentinian population was not unwillingly dragged into a conflict that they were reluctant to support. And for that, the country paid dearly.
A few comments.
The junta was a triunvirate: army, navy and airforce. They divided the country in 3 so they do not shoot each other in the illegal kidnappings.
The navy decided and did the invasion without even consulting the other 2 forces. It was the call of a drunk.
The war was in the end good for Argentina because it weakened the military enough to allow a full democracy not alike in Chile where Pinochet was a senator for life.
Even the airforce did an outstanding job, they were nazis and they were the brain behind every coup. Because so many died, democracy was able to grow.
 

Alpinista

Registered
A few comments.
The junta was a triunvirate: army, navy and airforce. They divided the country in 3 so they do not shoot each other in the illegal kidnappings.
The navy decided and did the invasion without even consulting the other 2 forces. It was the call of a drunk.
The war was in the end good for Argentina because it weakened the military enough to allow a full democracy not alike in Chile where Pinochet was a senator for life.
Even the airforce did an outstanding job, they were nazis and they were the brain behind every coup. Because so many died, democracy was able to grow.
What a success story Argentina has been since then, especially in comparison with Chile.
 

camberiu

Registered
The navy decided and did the invasion without even consulting the other 2 forces. It was the call of a drunk.(...)Even the airforce did an outstanding job, they were nazis and they were the brain behind every coup. Because so many died, democracy was able to grow.
I am pretty sure Galtieri (Army General) ordered the invasion and the Navy was not consulted in advance.
Individual Argentine pilots did well and there was some success at the tactical level. At the strategic level, the Argentine air force was as lost, amateurish and unprepared as the other military branches.
 

Ronnie Hotdogs

Registered
Where is the evidence for the frequent claim by Argentines that the UK only intervened for some as yet unknown resources that are somehow expected to benefit the UK. What exactly are these resources? There is a small amount of oil that will most likely never leave the ground and a reasonably large squid fishery. None of this will benefit or benefits the UK in any way.

The Argentine government picked an unbelievably inopportune moment to invade, where it was politically beneficial to the UK government of the time to intervene. Now that British blood has been split there, there will be no political will to negotiate sovereignty. At least for the foreseeable future. In my view it's as simple as that. It is not about geopolitics.

Once again Argentina it's own worst enemy.

As has been stated the only good thing to come out of if was the fall of the military dictatorship.
 

Redpossum

Registered
In terms of human rights, indeed. Chile is just now abolishing the Pinochet’s regime, something we did in 1984.
Indeed, Bajo, very well said. I would like this comment three times if I could.

And also on the level of higher education. If you look at the number of Chilean students who come to Argentina for university, I think it's clear which country is ahead on the subject of public education at the university level. Private universities may well be a different matter, but what good is a fancy university that one cannot afford to attend?

Now, that being said, obviously public education at the K-12 level is very poor here, and that dichotomy is something I still do not understand.
 

Alpinista

Registered
Indeed, Bajo, very well said. I would like this comment three times if I could.

And also on the level of higher education. If you look at the number of Chilean students who come to Argentina for university, I think it's clear which country is ahead on the subject of public education at the university level. Private universities may well be a different matter, but what good is a fancy university that one cannot afford to attend?

Now, that being said, obviously public education at the K-12 level is very poor here, and that dichotomy is something I still do not understand.
How do you come to this conclusion? Chile is not only economically better off, but every index that I have come across in terms of personal freedom, rule of law, democracy etc. rates Chile higher than Argentina. I am curious to know why is this the case? (the fact that Argentina provides free education and health services for the whole continent - despite not having enough money to provide for its own citizens - does not really mean that they are better off in terms of human rights, rule of law, personal freedom).

1. The Economist: Democracy Index

#21 Chile: "Full democracy"
#48 Argentina: "Flawed democracy"

2. Reporters without Borders: Press Freedom Index

#51 Chile
#64 Argentina

3. Cato: Human Freedom Index

#28 Chile
#77 Argentina


1605715860416.png


1605715970040.png
 

Dougie

Registered
Funny how you never hear Argentines advocating to give back the land they took from Paraguay after the Triple Alliance war.
 
Top