That would make one British soldier for every three Falkland Islanders. By most accounts, the Argentinians sent in poorly trained soldiers and let them starve. 323 sailors died when the Belgrano was sunk. French factory workers cheered when one of their Exocet missiles sank HMS Sheffield, killing 20 British sailors. It was one of those strange wars that should never have happened, among people who were traditionally allies.

Argentina made a gamble that the British were too weak-willed to come 8000 miles to fight for the islands and were proven wrong. The largely conscript army was ill prepared to fight a professional army with modern weapons. I was a young Republican then and respected Margaret Thatcher and Britain's resolve... but 3 decades later it doesn't make a lot of sense after Britain gave Hong Kong back to China. The islands are much closer to Argentina than Britain and the small population doesn't necessarily translate into self-determination... to do what? Play with sheep? The only things the islands have is oil offshore- THAT is what both Argentina and Britain really want ;-D

“but 3 decades later it doesn't make a lot of sense after Britain gave Hong Kong back to China”

Hong Kong was a completely different situation. Most of Hong Kong was only held on a 99 year lease which had been signed in 1898 & so had to be returned in 1997. Hong Kong is 1,080 square kms, of which 953 were held on the 99 year lease. The UK negotiated an agreement which allowed the whole of Hong Kong to continue as a separate capitalist state for a further 50 years. It will only become part of socialist China proper in 2047, by which time most of the inhabitants who lived under UK law will be dead. Nearly a million residents emigrated during the 1980’s & 1990’s. The most popular destinations were Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, USA & Canada. I hope that helps to explain why giving back Hong Kong has no bearing on the Falklands/Argentina situation.

Who discovered the Malvinas is still disputed, but I would venture to say that it makes sense that they were in reach of the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego long before the Europeans arrived and even then Britain was not first- it TOOK the islands by force in the 19th century. The fact that Argentina tried to take it back by force in 1982 was not a "great wrong" as Britain claimed. Britain used to be part of the old Colonial Overlords that oppressed indigenous peoples for hundreds of years all over the world. That's why I am glad Nazi Germany caused them to lose the bulk of their colonies postwar. Germany only lost a few petty African and Pacific colonies in WW1 which were of no consequence to them. Germany made the colonials pay and cost Britain its superpower status to the US and USSR with loss of control of the seas due to the US carrier development and the German submarine tech. What comes around goes around. Who cares about the HK agreement? They robbed the West of high tech and HK is a piracy stronghold of western media products and operates a reproduction industry of Western goods. A loss for not only Britain but the West in general.

Historical follow-up. If you really want to get into the WHY of the Third Reich you would actually have to start way back prior to the unification of Germany in the 1860s! Prior to that Germany was a patchwork of over 300 baronies, principalities, dutchies, etc... that were unified under Prussia and quickly defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War. France had been the largest and modern army on the Continent and it shocked the world that within 4 years of unification the united Germans beat them with advanced arms like the Dreyse Needle Gun, the first Anti-Aerial guns to fight French balloons, heavy cannon, and a well-trained and disciplined army that by 1900 was the best in the world. The Kaiser also started an ambitious attempt to rival the Royal Navy and THAT started everything as Britain tried to force naval agreements on size and weaponry for the German fleet as well as form various treaties that boxed Germany in. With Archduke Ferdinand and his wife killed by a Serb in Sarajevo the stage was set for the Great War with the Serbs supported by Russia and Austria backed by Germany. As Russia mobilized the Germans enacted THEIR plan to cut through Belgium to get to France and over the course of what became WW1 the Germans invented or introduced gas warfare, unrestricted submarine warfare, used the Paris Gun, Big Bertha, invented flamethrowers and the first true SMG, Stormtroopers, AT guns, mobile flak, first strategic bombing, and had the best fighters of the Fokker family plus Albatros and Pfalz, SSW and Junkers. But they were outnumbered by men and material by 1918 and stalemate at the front with trench warfare. There was also a blockade and German Navy plus civilian officials decided to overthrow the Govt. The Kaiser fled to Holland and Germany signed an ARMISTICE while still occupying foreign soil. No one was on German soil so they marched back in full gear and still produced war material into 1919. But the the ACC arrived and Germany lost aircraft building, limited army size, limited everything. And they lost some territory too plus all African and Pacific colonies. Afterwards there was the humiliating Treaty of Versailles which was unfair and then the Depression hit the corrupt Weimar Govt. With Communists in the streets, it was easy for Hitlers NSDAP to step in with the SA and beat the Communists, winning the '33 election by a slim margin and Hitler taking control promising real change. He fulfilled all of his promises to the German people and restored Germay to greatness by 1936 with the Olympics, television, and with rearmament by 1939 again had the best armed forces in the world from scratch. So, it wasn't fascism nor anti-semitism that caused all of that. It went back to the 19th century and German unification! So, I am not praising nor preaching Nazism in my last post but remarking that the old colonial overlords like Britain, France, the Netherlands, and such got what they deserved for their oppression of other cultures all around the world and the unfair tratment of Germany post-WW1. Everyone was eager for that war and the damage Germany caused in Europe and in the air and on the sea with the U-boats sinking 11 million tons of shipping including the armed Lusitania (which was warned not to travel in battle waters)... it is unfair to hold Germany accountable for everything. The terms of surrender were not good at all, not fair and a generation later those Allied parties paid dearly for that unfairness. Also, rearmament started with the Weimar Republic and NOT the Third Reich. Secret bombers were drawn up, paratroppers trained in Russia along with tank building, etc... Most people just do not know history that well nor my people the Germans. The Allied nations have corruption and have commited massacres throughout history but are seldom held accountable for them. The US practiced inhuman slavery for 400 years, tried to exterminate the Native American with disease, land-grabbing robbery, forced relocation, and allowing citizens to just kill them in disputes! During WW2 Japanese-Americans were interned, lost everything, were humiliated and degraded, and many died. US troops committed war crimes too like rape and murder but were not held accountable. They also brain-drained Germany of all its intellectual properties and technological advancements, denying them any real military industrialization for 10 years. This is real history and not victor-song history propaganda in official US history books.

“Who cares about the HK agreement?”

The people who lived there under UK law!

Are you saying that the UK should “give back” the Falklands because “The islands are roughly 800 miles from Argentina's coast and 8000 from Britain!!!”?

The residents of the Falklands want to remain British, and the British have lived there for longer than Argentina has even been a country. When Britain established its first settlement there, the land which would eventually become Argentina was still a province of Spain that was known as the Viceroyalty of Peru.

American Samoa is roughly 40 miles from Samoa's coast and 6000 from the USA!!! Should it be given to Samoa, even if the citizens would rather remain as American nationals? Answer please! Anyone else reading this care to join in?

Guam was ruled by Spain from 1565 to 1898. The US took control of it in 1898 during its war with Spain. Should it be given back to Spain, even if the citizens would rather remain as American nationals?

Should Hawaii be given back to the descendents of Queen Lili’uokalani, even if the citizens want to remain American?

Take a look at the history of other US islands. Many of them have similar historical backgrounds!

If you think the Falklands should be “given back” because of distance, shouldn’t the USA give up all of its Pacific islands? What about the islands that belong to France, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia & New Zealand?

The Faroe Islands are off the coast of Scotland. Should Denmark give them to the UK?

The Channel Islands are off the coast of France. Should the UK give them to France?

The Canary Islands are off the coast of Africa. Should Portugal give them to Morocco?

The list is a long one…

“it TOOK the islands by force in the 19th century.”

There was no force used. Read the timeline below (especially the 1832/1833 parts) and see if you change your mind.

1600 Dutch explorer, Sebald de Weert, made the first recorded sighting of the islands and named them the Sebald Islands.

1690 The British captain of HMS Welfare, John Strong, made the first recorded landing on the islands. He gave the name Falkland Channel to the sound between the two main islands because Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, had commissioned the expedition.

1764 The privately funded French admiral, Louis Antoine de Bougainville, claimed the Falkland Islands for France and established a settlement on East Falkland.

1765 The British captain of HMS Dolphin, John Byron, had arrived on the west coast of West Falkland by January 1765 and claimed the islands for Britain. He may have been unaware of the French on the east coast of East Falkland, or he may have claimed the islands because of the 1690 expedition by Captain Strong.

1766 The British captain of HMS Jason, John MacBride, established a settlement on West Falkland.

1767 The privately funded French admiral, Louis Antoine de Bougainville, sold his claim on the Falkland Islands to the king of Spain. The Spanish then claimed the Falkland Islands and took over the ex-French settlement on East Falkland.

1770 The Spanish attacked the British on West Falkland and expelled them. War was threatened, a peace treaty was signed, and the British returned.

1774 The British withdrew from the Falklands but continued its claim on the islands by leaving a plaque.

1776 The Spanish province known as the Viceroyalty of Peru was divided by the king of Spain. The land that would eventually become Argentina then became part of the smaller Spanish province known as the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.

1806 The Spanish withdrew from the Falklands but continued its claim on the islands by leaving a plaque.

1810 The citizens of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata began a revolution for independence from Spain. The land that would eventually become Argentina became known as the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.

1816 The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata declared its independence from Spain. The area remained a confederation of provinces.

1820 An American privateer, David Jewett, was hired by the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. He arrived at the Falklands and claimed them for the United Provinces. The islands at that time were inhabited by around 50 British and American sealing ships.

1828 There were problems between the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata and the USA over fishing rights. It’s too complicated to go into here – look it up yourself if you’re interested. End result was that the USA, who had no claim on the Falklands, declared the islands to be free from all government.

1832 The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata sent Major Esteban Mestivier to East Falkland as the new governor. He arrived on November 15th to set up a penal colony but was immediately killed by his troops when they mutinied. The United Provinces then sent Lieutenant Jose Maria Pinedo, who arrived in December and put down the mutiny.
At the same time, Britain sent Captain John James Onslow with HMS Clio to West Falkland. He arrived on December 20th.

1833 Captain Onslow arrived at East Falkland on January 2nd and told the Argentinians to leave. There was no force used because 80% of the troops under Lieutenant Pinedo were British mercenaries who refused to fight their own countrymen. Their flag was replaced with that of the British on January 3rd, Lieutenant Pinedo left on January 5th, and the Falklands have remained British ever since.

1862 The provinces that made up the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata finally unified to become the Republic of Argentina.


If the Argentinian claim on the Falklands comes from the 1764 French claim (that was bought by the Spanish in 1767), then I presume the reason Britain shouldn’t rule them is because it had no right to territory that already belonged to someone else. Working on that theory, the Argentinians have no right to rule their own country because it was taken from someone else by the Spanish.

So, does it all come down to the 1833 expulsion of the Argentinians by the British? The Spanish did exactly the same thing in 1770 when they expelled the British from the islands. They only caved in because of the threat of war. That’s the way it worked back then. If you were dominant enough to take the land, you then ruled that land. When the Argentinians later expanded their country south, they took Patagonia from the natives because they were dominant enough to do so. Where are the calls for them to give it back to its original people!

“The terms of surrender were not good at all, not fair….”

Terms of surrender rarely are good. Japan didn’t exactly get a great deal either. It was a war and the Germans lost – get over it!

“The Allied nations have corruption and have committed massacres throughout history but are seldom held accountable for them.”

It seems to me that many nations have corruption and have committed massacres throughout history but are seldom held accountable for them. Was the treatment of the Christian inhabitants of Iberia (modern Spain & Portugal) by the Muslim North African Moors fair? The Moors took Iberia by force in 711 and it took until 1492 for the Christians to finally kick them out and regain full control.

Have a read about the Ottoman Empire and see how they treated the Europeans that they conquered in modern Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, etc.

Don’t even get me started about what the Japanese did to the Chinese…

There are plenty more examples. The list is endless…

“The US practiced inhuman slavery for 400 years, tried to exterminate the Native American with disease, land-grabbing robbery, forced relocation, and allowing citizens to just kill them in disputes! During WW2 Japanese-Americans were interned, lost everything, were humiliated and degraded, and many died. US troops committed war crimes too like rape and murder but were not held accountable. They also brain-drained Germany of all its intellectual properties and technological advancements, denying them any real military industrialization for 10 years. This is real history and not victor-song history propaganda in official US history books.”

Finally, something I agree with you on! LOL. I know a little bit about real history too!

I was a teenager when the Falkland Islands war of 1982 was fought. At that time Argentina was ruled by a fascist regime that was guilty of "disappearances", death squads, gross brutality, stealing children from "liberal" families, and dumping prisoners of conscience from cargo planes into the ocean. Do you think the Falklanders would want to live under that? The war affected both sides: the defeated Argentine junta had egg on their fascist faces and this embarrassment led to the downfall of the regime and democracy returned. In the UK the victory boosted the popularity of the Iron Lady and she won reelection the next year. Note: in 1983 the video for "Too Shy" by Kajagoogoo featured the band playing a "welcome home" for Falklands Islands war veterans. Def Leppard penned "Die Hard the Hunter", a track on their classic 1983 "Pyromania" album about a Falklands vet with PTSD or "shell-shock" who commits acts of violence because of his war trauma and the fact that he needs help.

The situation is so complicated now, I don't think there is an easy answer. What worries me is thinking that David Cameron might decide to 'do a Maggie' and start another Falkands War in the misguided belief it will restore his party's popularity with the public (since they're screwing everything up at the moment.) David Cameron is NOT Maggie, and whilst in 90% of ways that's a good thing (God knows we don't ever want another one of her again) when it comes to fighting wars he's not man enough for that. And then we end up in yet ANOTHER conflict we can't afford, are ill-equipped for and then subsequently can't get out of again.