Argentina demands UK nuke apology

[mrmitchell]

Let's take a looksie at this. All of this is based on the same website I linked to earlier.

-1522. Argentinian stories state that Spain discovered the Falklands. The Spanish correctly realised the islands were a few square miles of worthless, barren rock, so they ignored it.
-1592. British stories state that a British guy discovered it first. Since it's in dispute, and you can believe either side without the end result mattering, I won't touch on it any more.
-1600. A Dutchman makes the first undisputed sighting. The Dutch should have it.
-1690. Britain makes the first landing on it, and claims it for itself--why they would want some deadweight to burden the rest of their empire, I dunno.
-1764. The French settle on the east hellhole. IIUC, the settlement--a fishery--is soon manned by people from the Spanish colonies (now, Argentina.)
-1765. Britain settles on the west hellhole.
-1767. Spain purchases France's half of the hellhole.
-1770. Spain arrives at West Hellhole with a large military force, convincing the British to wisely abandon the hellhole.
-1771. The British ownership of the hellhole is restored.
-1774. Britain abandons the hellhole for "economic" reasons. IOW, they figured out it was a hellhole.
-Now, total control is in Spain's hands.
-1820. Argentina controls the hellholes. Everything before this point is irrelevant anyways, but listing it was a good excuse to demean the hellholes a few times.
-1831. A US warship, revenging Argentina's misdeeds, empties the hellhole.
-1833.

Afraid that the Americans seized the islands, the British remember the expedition of the 17th century, re-invade the islands, forcefully depose Vernet and send the Argentines back to the mainland albeit without having to fire a shot.

This is the important part. Britain INVADED Argentina and GAINED TERRITORY. When peace was signed, it KEPT IT as the victor usually does.
-The Falklands are British.
-March 1982. Argentina attempts to take the Falklands back. It INVADES Great Britain (specifically the Hellhole Islands, but that's part of Great Britian), and is quickly REPELLED. Argentina, being the LOSER, does not gain any territory of course.

Argentinians (and MZ) have a real funny way of doing war, apparently to them, the loser is supposed to gain land

[Unspeakable Horror]

Misdeeds?

From your source.
The American warship USS Lexington destroys the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area.

http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm

In 1831, after arresting American sealers accused of poaching, Louis Vernet sails in one of them for Buenos Aires where the captain is to stand trial. In reprisal, the US warship "Lexington" arrives off Puerto Soledad, destroys the fortifications, arrests some of the people and declares the islands free of government before sailing away.

The british.

Argentina and the United States argue furiously over each other's high-handed behaviour, and next year a new governor is appointed but then murdered by rebellious colonists. As Argentine forces attempt to restore order, Royal Navy warships "Clio" and "Tyne" under the command of Captain Onslow arrive in early 1833, force them to leave and claim the Falklands for Britain. Argentina protests strongly, but the British Government maintains that all rights to sovereignty were retained during the 1770 negotiations with Spain.

British Colonisation - Britain later starts to settle the islands and formally declares a colonial administration in 1842, although Argentina continues to press her claim and from the 1960's on, with increasing vigour. Stanley is established in 1845. By this time, Britain's right to ownership rests mainly on her peaceful and continuous possession over a long period of time, and when serious negotiations begin, they become dominated by the islander's desire to remain British.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Britain looks like it barely won that war. Did it affect her military strategies afterwards? How?

They didn´t sell some warships they planned to sell before the war.

Biggest lesson they had to learn was that outdated Argentine aircraft attacking at extreme low altitudes (sometimes only ca. 10 m above the water) with simple unguided bombs could sink a lot of ships. The British ship losses could even have been higher when some of the ca. 20 bombs that hit other ships actually had exploded.

The Brits also had luck that the Argentinians didn´t had more modern guided antiship missiles (as EXOCET, which sunk the eg. the HMS Sheffield).

OTOH the British SeaHarriers did very well as fighters and downed a lot of Arg. planes.

In land warfare, the Brits were superior mostly due to better equipment and better training (many Arg. soldiers were conscripts).

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by BeBro
In land warfare, the Brits were superior mostly due to better equipment and better training (many Arg. soldiers were conscripts).

The Argentinians did have better equipment in some cases, particularly night vision gear. They pulled most of their elite units out before the blockade leaving poorly led conscript units to do most of the garrison work.

The main reason for keeping the Falklands from the mid 19th C onwards was as a coaling station for the Royal Navy. That's why in WW1 Von Spee headed there after Coronel and why he ran into the battlecruisers that destroyed his ships.

To Argentina this seems to be a major issue of national pride. To Britain for most of the last two centuries the Falklands were just one more small link in the communications routes tying all the pink bits of the world map together. Now it's the post-colonial obligation of letting the locals choose freely which way they go.

Hopefully the UK is past the apologist stage and is prepared to simply say "you lost - get on with it" over the Falklands, Gibraltar and a few others. The fact that the British overran a large chunk of the planet in competition with other countries trying to do the same isn't something we should be ashamed of (there are individual incidents that were shameful but acquiring an empire isn't one of them).

[BeBro]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


The Argentinians did have better equipment in some cases, particularly night vision gear

I thought it was the other way around, esp. when it comes to night vision equipment, the Brits had quite modern NATO stuff.

But I read this long ago....