It's also important to note that Argentina's government was fascist at the time, was actively disappearing tens of thousands of its own people with the help of the U.S., and only started the war in an attempt to distract from its many domestic failings. It's a stretch to think of any argument in favor of them, even as much as Terf Island sucks.
The "claim" that argentina has over the falklands is one from imperial spain before argentina even existed
This isn't a struggle session, they didn't even give a shit about the islands until the 40sSeems pretty suboptimal to:
- Allow a fascist invasion to go unchecked, and
- Abandon people who strongly oppose that fascist government's rule to those fascists, especially when those fascists are busy killing tons of their own citizens.
The "do nothing" argument is good to consider, but it doesn't lead to a very good outcome here. Consider also that Argentina's junta lost power shortly after this, but may have been able to maintain power had it not gotten its ass handed to it.
“Fascist invasion”, implying that Argentina would be putting people in concentration camps in the Falklands.
The junta was kidnapping people, torturing them, then disposing of them by drugging them, flying them out over the ocean, then throwing them out of a plane with their stomachs slit open. They did this to somewhere around 30,000 people suspected of opposing the regime. It's entirely reasonable to wonder how Falkland Islanders -- who opposed Argentina's rule -- would have fared under the same government.
Depriving imperialists of power is a priority.
Depriving fascists of power is also a priority.
Plus, Argentina waged a war of extermination against its indigenous people. Neither side can really claim to be non-imperialist here, especially considering that Argentina was (again) invading occupied territory it had never previously settled.
That the junta fell, possibly because of the Flaklands War, isn’t something that could have been known at the time
Seems pretty reasonable to predict that humiliating a fascist government already under significant duress would hasten its fall.
I don’t see a meaningful distinction.
The distinction is that Falkland Islanders were at no risk of being yanked from their houses and disappeared under the British, and were at some risk of that under the Argentine junta. Obviously the British Empire sucks and has committed no shortage of atrocities, but the context of this situation meant that one government was clearly better for the island's inhabitants than the other.
I don’t see how exchanging a murderous military dictatorship for a murderous imperialist oligarchy justifies killing a thousand+ people
First, this is like counting Nazi deaths as part of the total casualties of WWII. Second, how much value do you place on countering fascist wars of aggression? How much value do you place on striking a hard blow against a wavering fascist regime?
The British, known for not committing genocide against indigenous peoples.
The point is that this was not a war between an imperial power and a non-imperial power. It was a war between a strong imperial power and a weaker one. Argentina's military junta certainly wasn't a victim here; they started the war.
Was there any actual evidence at the time that the Falklands would make or break the regime?
The Argentine economy was in the tank and there was widespread opposition to the government.
No, because they quite literally were not Nazis.
They literally were fascists.
Argentina’s largely conscripted troops
The Nazis conscripted plenty of folks, too, and killing Nazis was still good.
How much value do you place on countering imperialist wars of aggression?
The only imperialist war of aggression here was imperialist Argentina invading an island they had never settled, and that they had made no attempts to even occupy for 150 years. Calling Britain the aggressor when Argentina invaded the islands is straight-up fantastical shit.
Meaning that they were on their way out already.
lol you've gone all the way from "there's no way of knowing this would have sped the downfall of the junta" to "well the junta was going to collapse anyway."
Fuck TERF island in general, but considering the Falklands were uninhabited before the British arrived and that the residents wanted to remain part of Britain, and the entire Argentinian justification was that Malvinas are on the same continental shelf as Argentina, and that their defeat massively contributed to the downfall of the right-wing military junta
However the British victory massively helped Thatchers reelection, so it's a toss up but leaning towards terf island being justified in this rare instance
We should also consider the damage poor Andy's sweat glands suffered during the conflict
their defeat massively contributed to the downfall of the right-wing military junta
Huh, killing fascists is a good way to stop them
No no, don't you know the only way to fight fascists is to :vote: ?????
It's right to be skeptical of that, but I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise, and not every tiny island has always had people living on it.
That's stretching the definition of "settled." Whatever you call it, the fundamental questions are (1) what is necessary to establish a claim and (2) what is necessary to supersede a claim.
They did not live on the land, use the land, or anything of the sort
If living on the land and using the land is the test for a legitimate claim -- at least where previously uninhabited land is concerned -- Britain has as good of a case as anyone. There weren't permanent settlements on the land (or even consistent use) until they established them in the mid-19th century. Sporadic attempts to make use of the island (first by imperial Spain, then by the settler-colonial state of Argentina) don't strike me as any different from Britain's earlier sporadic attempts to make use of the island. I don't see how one can write off the early British attempts, but count the similar Argentine attempts as legitimate, and then write off the later British settlement that proved to be lasting.
Their only claim to the island and desire for it was geopolitical staging
If tomorrow I land on a previously-uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific, and along with some other people I "live on the land and use the land," it doesn't matter what our intent is. No one has a better claim to that land than us.
Everyone's all "Britain this" and "Argentina that" but I think we all know who really has the valid claim to the Falklands.
I am disappoint
That's the reaction most people have to seeing him.
They’re so fucking stupid, look at those tiny little arms.
Dont insult my short armed boy like that :angry-hex:
But what about the displaced population of the last remaining dinosaurs who were living in isolation and managed to survive millions of years there?
The key questions are:
- What is necessary to constitute a claim over previously uninhabited territory?
- What is necessary for that claim to be superseded by someone else's claim?
Permanent settlement was only established in the 1840s, under the British. Prior to that can be summed up as a bunch of parties planting flags, staying for a bit, and leaving.
There was a high probability that a diplomatic solution could be achieved, but to jin up british nationalism and to help her reelection campaign Thatcher started a war.
As long as we're fact checking, none of this is accurate. Diplomatic efforts had been made since at least 1965, and weren't close to a resolution by the '80s. Argentina was the aggressor, so claiming the war was engineered by the British is a stretch at best. And the invasion began in April 1982, over a year before Thatcher called an election (in May 1983).
Thatcher certainly benefited from the war, and probably called the 1983 election in part due to her rise in popularity from the war, but none of that suggests she started the war. If I land a job as a bouncer because I tackle some drunk guy who swings at me, I'm benefiting from that fight, but I didn't start the fight. You should need a damn good reason to start a war, and I don't see that here.
the british settlement did not differ in any meningful way from the spanish
The British one was permanent starting in 1840, the Spanish never was. How meaningful that is depends on your answers to those two key questions I highlighted, but there is a real difference.
My main contention is that several hundred people died so that a colony (which garrison is more expensive than the worth of the falklands economy) would remain as such for the good of “national dignity and self respect”
What's the alternative? Letting fascists invade and doing nothing? That's appeasement, and we know how that works out.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regarded the islands as a nuisance and barrier to UK trade in South America, so, whilst confident of British sovereignty, was prepared to cede the islands to Argentina. When news of a proposed transfer broke in 1968, elements sympathetic with the plight of the islanders were able to organise an effective Parliamentary lobby to frustrate the FCO plans. Negotiations continued but in general failed to make meaningful progress; the islanders steadfastly refused to consider Argentine sovereignty on one side, whilst Argentina would not compromise over sovereignty on the other. The FCO then sought to make the islands dependent on Argentina, hoping this would make the islanders more amenable to Argentine sovereignty. A Communications Agreement signed in 1971 created an airlink and later YPF, the Argentine oil company, was given a monopoly in the islands.
In 1980, a new Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which met with strong opposition from the islanders. On returning to London in December 1980 he reported to parliament but was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout. (It was unlikely that leaseback could have succeeded since the British had sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whilst Argentina was pressing for a much shorter period of only 10 years.)
Where's the unwillingness by the British to engage diplomatically? It seems like their FCO was fine giving the islands to Argentina, but the biggest obstacle was the people living on the islands. Britain tried at least three approaches: a straight transfer, a closer commercial connection of the islands to the mainland, and finally a Hong Kong-style lease scheme. It's honestly hard to argue they could have done more -- they tried to just give them away right off the bat! The only country acting outside of multinational organizations here was Argentina, when they abandoned diplomacy and invaded.
But maybe we should mark “appeasement” for discussion in the next session. I think it really doesn’t hold in this case
The junta had launched a quickly-aborted invasion of Chile in 1978. There are also oil interests that had already spawned one war near Argentina's border, and within the territory that had originally broken away from Spain as one unified country (before Bolivia and Uruguay split off). There were ample opportunities for continued aggression.
Seems you have a point there, should have known better than to argue only having read one article
There are a subset of weirdos on here who's politics become completely incoherent on contact with either yankeeland or terf island not being the biggest dickheads in a situation, as rare as that is
And one of them has shown up lol
To be fair that position will lead to you being correct at least 95% of the time
The Falklands War was probably the only time in history that the British were unequivocally in the right.
Fighting against the Nazis was pretty decent, too, even though they pissed away a number of opportunities to avoid the war in the first place.
and the fact that they just shook hands with the nazis after they werent threats anymore, like the rest of the anglosphere, not the best
Might not want to mention the nazis in a thread about argentina lol
Apparently instead of having the Nuremberg Trials they just wanted to shoot Nazi leadership. Potentially that could have led to more effective de-Nazification, and it's not as if Nuremberg set any worthwhile precedents anyway. They definitely don't deserve credit for something that didn't happen or the benefit of the doubt (on anything, really), but it's an interesting counterfactual to consider.
I think this is an interesting situation for interrogating why imperialism and fascism are bad, and how bad various parts of them are. Neither side is really good here, so you have to reach beyond "well of course Britain sucks and is in the wrong" or "well of course fascist Argentina sucked and was in the wrong."
In this particular instance it really is just first come first serve
