Visiting The Falklands/Malvinas

[pauper]

Do the islands really need 3 weekly flights though? That would result in a crazy number of people coming in via air all the time or lots of empty planes.

Allowing charter flights would have been a better first step.

Yes, if the rationale of the Argentine administration was really conciliation, it would've been a more logical move (I think Henry's understanding of the offer is closer to the mark though).

 

[Amargo]

Blaming the Argentines won't bring a solution either. And this is the only thing the UK currently does.

By the way, the UK owes a lot to the Soviet Union. Without their sacrifice who knows how long the UK would have resisted (this is something not many in the West like to admit). A few days after their Victory Day (May 9th) I salute those less known and less acclaimed -and sadly very offen ignored by the West- heroes from the countries of the former SSSR.

 

[ElQueso]

Blaming the Argentines won't bring a solution either. And this is the only thing the UK currently does.

By the way, the UK owes a lot to the Soviet Union. Without their sacrifice who knows how long the UK would have resisted (this is something not many in the West like to admit). A few days after their Victory Day (May 9th) I salute those less known and less acclaimed -and sadly very offen ignored by the West- heroes from the countries of the former SSSR.

Don't forget that even the USSR would not have been able to hold out had it not been for the lend-lease program of the US which gave an incredible amount of armament and supplies to the Soviets - and never got paid back. And it certainly wasn't the Soviets who "saved" Great Britain. Any relative help the USSR gave to GB was due to Hitler's stupidity for getting the Soviets involved in the war after he and Stalin had signed a pact of non agression.

And had it not been for the Allies (including Britain, BTW), who carried on the war in Europe against the Nazis, all of Europe would have fallen and Hitler would have been able to concentrate on the USSR later. Of course, while that was going on, until Hitler actually did something really stupid, the USSR was sitting things out in neutrality and couldn't be bothered to help those who later helped them.

We won't talk about what the USSR did to half of Germany and the other countries who they "liberated."

To say that Britain owes ANYTHING related to WWII to the USSR is absurd.

But a typical comment, in my opinion, for someone who seems to embrace the current government and state of Argentina. After all, considering the hero of Argentina, Peron, who Cristina is trying to emulate in many ways, was a disciple of Mussolini and Argentina herself was neutral throughought the war, declaring war against the Axis only some few weeks before Germany surrendered...

 

[scotttswan]

Blaming the Argentines won't bring a solution either. And this is the only thing the UK currently does.

By the way, the UK owes a lot to the Soviet Union. Without their sacrifice who knows how long the UK would have resisted (this is something not many in the West like to admit). A few days after their Victory Day (May 9th) I salute those less known and less acclaimed -and sadly very offen ignored by the West- heroes from the countries of the former SSSR.

What nonsense, If Argentine Government was serious about getting the Falklands back they would not be acting in the pathetic and childish way they are now!

I think you should also do some research on WW2 too. Russia owes a lot to the UK too as they sent a lot of aid to Russia to help fight the Nazi's whilst their military machine stepped up a gear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...1/Britain-aid-Soviet-Union-World-War-Two.html

“It’s impossible to overestimate the role played by British sailors to provide vital supply routes across the Arctic,” Mr Fedotov said. “The sailors are still remembered in Russia for their bravery and self-sacrifice.”
A total of 1,400 vessels plied the route in 78 convoys between August 1941 and May 1945; 101 ships were lost. Belfast’s own sister ship, HMS Edinburgh, was sunk near Murmansk.



The first convoy was carrying a very special cargo. By September 1, 550 pilots and ground crew from No 151 Wing of the RAF arrived in Murmansk with 40 Hawker Hurricane fighters, the planes that, together with the Spitfire, had won the Battle of Britain. Their objective was to provide immediate air defence against the Axis forces that had launched Operation Silver Fox in the hope of capturing this vital port. They were also there to train Soviet pilots to operate the first of what would eventually total almost 3,000 Hurricanes delivered to the Soviets.

Everyone in the UK knows the roles the Soviets and the Americans had in helping fight the Nazis and that if it wasn't for them both entering the war there is no doubt the Nazi's would probably have eventually won. But being an Island would certainly have made it much tougher for them.

 

[scotttswan]

But a typical comment, in my opinion, for someone who seems to embrace the current government and state of Argentina. After all, considering the hero of Argentina, Peron, who Cristina is trying to emulate in many ways, was a disciple of Mussolini and Argentina herself was neutral throughought the war, declaring war against the Axis only some few weeks before Germany surrendered...

Its important to not forget the many Argentine volunteers who fought on the allied sides. Especially the No. 164 Squadron RAF.

Not all the Argies were enamoured by Peron and his Nazi loving ways.

 

[ElQueso]

Its important to not forget the many Argentine volunteers who fought on the allied sides. Especially the No. 164 Squadron RAF.

Not all the Argies were enamoured by Peron and his Nazi loving ways.

You're quite right and I don't mean to disparage those who then, and now, fight against tyranny and stupidity, particularly in their own country as well. But Amargo's comments, to me, represented the viewpoint of those who sit and watch the s**t fall and even seem to agree with those who are throwing the s**t.

 

[Amargo]

This is what I meant, zero recognition to the soldiers of the Red Army. A shame. I am not talking about Stalin and or their system, but of the simple soldiers of the Red Army. On the other hand, the help the Soviets received is exagerated by the West.

21 Mio. Soviet citizens died, their sacrifice changed dramatically the events of the war and possibly -as any serious historian will admit- the outcome of the War.

The West has still a Cold-War mindset which is absurd. Recognition should go where it is due. The sacrifice of the people of the former Soviet Union was the decisive factor of the war. Even if it suits the propaganda from the UK/US or not.

 

[Matt84]

By the way, the UK owes a lot to the Soviet Union. Without their sacrifice who knows how long the UK would have resisted (this is something not many in the West like to admit).

Godwin's Law at its finest.
By the way Fascism would not have existed and a Nazi Germany would not have arisen had it not been for Russia becoming the USSR. The Germans learned from the Soviet experience- so nothing to thank them.
Interestingly the other side would say the exact same thing about Western Democracies.

 

[Matt84]

This is what I meant, zero recognition to the soldiers of the Red Army. A shame. I am not talking about Stalin and or their system, but of the simple soldiers of the Red Army. On the other hand, the help the Soviets received is exagerated by the West.

21 Mio. Soviet citizens died, their sacrifice changed dramatically the events of the war and possibly -as any serious historian will admit- the outcome of the War.

The West has still a Cold-War mindset which is absurd. Recognition should go where it is due. The sacrifice of the people of the former Soviet Union was the decisive factor of the war. Even if it suits the propaganda from the UK/US or not.

The Russian people never had any choice, but there was war in the first place because comrade Jo' decided to carve half of Poland during the time he was an ally of the Germans.

The drafted soldiers of the Red Army were only defending their homeland during their 'Great Patriotic War'.

It would almost be like recognizing the Muscovites who burned their city for the defeat of Napoleon instead of Admiral Nelson and Wellington.

Almost because the Red Army actually 'liberated' two thirds of Europe, a fact that most liberated Europeans would lament for the consecutive 45 years.

 

[camberiu]

I am not quite understanding the point of this debate.

The UK has nothing to thank the USSR for, and vice-versa. Both countries were acting solely out of self-interest during WWII. Do you guys really think that either Churchill or Stalin (or Roosevelt) gave a rats ass about the Poles, the Austrians, the Czechs or the Chinese? No government went into WWII for the "good of humanity". Were there idealistic individuals who volunteered to fight? You bet. But no country, be it the UK, USA, USSR, France or whatever got in out of altruistic reasons. They went in because they were either dragged into the war or felt directly threatened and declared war on Germany.

Churchill and FDR did not send convoys through the treacherous North Atlantic infested with U-boats out of compassion towards the Russian people. They did it because it made strategic sense at the time. If it had not, they would have had no issue letting the Russian people be crushed under the tracks of the German army.
At the same token, the Russians did not endure the siege of Leningrad, held the German army at the gates of Moscow, crushed the German 6th army at Stalingrad and ultimately broke the back of the German war machine on Kursk out of their love towards the "free world".

Even the USA did not join the war out of compassion. It did so because Hitler declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor. Had he not done that, it would have been politically impossible for FDR to send troops to fight in Europe, since at that point, most of the US public wanted nothing to do with another conflict in Europe.

Let's also remember that France and UK had no problems with Hitler in the beginning, as they saw him as a counter balance to Stalin. Later, it was the USSR's turn to have no qualms with signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany and split Poland between them.

There were no "good guys" during WWII, when we talk about governments. There were some governments that were arguably less brutal than others, but in the end, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR all had very little regard towards human life. They were all willing to bomb cities full of civilians into oblivion if that was what it took to accomplish their goals.

Let's restrict this "good guy X bad guy" thing to Hollywood and out of history, shall we?