The nature of the Malvinas conflict.

[Andy Bowden]

Britain recently remembered the 25th anniversary of the war in the Malvinas (Falklands, to use the British name) and has expressed "regret" over the dead - not of course, any belief that the war was unjustified.

Argentina still maintain their claim to the islands today, albeit through peaceful means.

What do comrades think the nature of the conflict in the Malvinas war? Was it an imperialist war, a war of national liberation and was either sides victory preferable?

The only real point of unity across most left groups (at the time) was that Galtieri and Thatcher both to a degree used the conflict to shore up support for their respective governments.

[MarxistFuture]

I have mixed feelings on this issue.

I have no doubt both of those arseholes used the conflict to gain national support for their failing "governments", of this no there is no question. They sent the working-class of both nations to die for electoral gains. The success of the British forces is widely believed to have helped secure another reign of terror for Thatcher.

Very difficult issue I have problems thinking rationally about. Shows the effect imperialism has, even on such a remote harsh piece of land.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

You have to wonder if Britain would go to war with Spain if Spain invaded Gibralter.

[seraphim]

The conflict from both sides was to cover up failing economies, the Argentine Junta were facing economic crisis and the Thatcher 'regimen' had similar issues. As I've stated before throughout history from the Greeks and Romans through to The US in the modern day when there are troubles at home the best distraction is to find an external threat.

[Janus]

I agree that the war was caused by the desire of both sides to instill nationalism within their nations and as an attempt to generate more popularity for their respective governments. Thus, although British response could be seen as imperialist in order to protect its international interests as well as its claim to Antarctica, they probably wouldn't have done anything had the timing been different since the island was little more than a footnote in their history. Thus, Argentina certainly has a more legitimate case but the national desire in order to reclaim it was simply manipulated by the government in order to divert people's attentions from their failures.

[Andy Bowden]

So does anyone think it would be legitimate to support Argentina in the war, or are both sides as bad as each other?

[Ander]

You have to wonder if Britain would go to war with Spain if Spain invaded Gibralter.

Gibraltar is an extremely important and strategic NATO base, so I highly doubt this would ever happen. If it did, I'm sure the UK and the US would jointly stomp Spain's ass.


So does anyone think it would be legitimate to support Argentina in the war, or are both sides as bad as each other?

I think it's fucking stupid to support either side.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:19 pm

So does anyone think it would be legitimate to support Argentina in the war, or are both sides as bad as each other?

I think it's fucking stupid to support either side.
Obviously it was. It didn't stop various leftist groups in Britain supporting Argentina, and if I remember correctly at leadt one one supporting Britain (Argentina was fascist being the reasoning).
Devrim

[dez]

in the matter of international law, argentina WAS right and england was imperialist.
But what the hell is that anyways

[Andy Bowden]

It didn't stop various leftist groups in Britain supporting Argentina, and if I remember correctly at leadt one one supporting Britain (Argentina was fascist being the reasoning).


What Left group backed Britain??? :o

I read that the British ISG backed Argentina, but apart from that I cant think of any Left organisations that did.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

While Janus was pretty much correct in stating some of the reasons the Argentian governmen tried to seize the island at the time it did, once the war started, the communist position would have been to defend the Argentian forces against the British ones (for the defeat of the British imperialists), while at the same time fighting along side our Argentinian class brothers and sisters to overthrow "their" bourgeoisie.

This wasn't an inter-imperialist war, after all.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)I read that the British ISG backed Argentina, but apart from that I cant think of any Left organisations that did. [/b]

The RCP certainly did. I imagine that lots of other Trotskyists would have.


Andy Bowden
What Left group backed Britain??? :o

Actually, I think it was yours. Though they deny that they suported the war now, I can remember Militant members arguing that we had to support Britain against fascist Argentina. That is not to say that this was the party line. The Militant was a big organisation at the time, which seemed to have very little internal education. I did hear it more than once though. I tried to search and find some details but I only found one article where thet denied it. It would be interesting to see their press from the time.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

Lol Im not old enough to have been in the Militant :lol:

I've never heard anything remotely by the Militant saying that they should back Britain against Argentina. Militants position was this http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/...me.htm?ch20.htm (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/mil2frame.htm?ch20.htm) - a belief that there should be a Socialist federation of Britain, the Malvinas and the UK.

Which is a bit er, optimistic for the timeframe...

In terms of internal political education the Militant had plenty of it - problem was that it wasnt always right.

East German workers for example did not die to defend the state planned economy and a Socialist revolution was not the only way to overthrow apartheid in South Africa for example.

[Faceless]

I can hardly say what individual Militant members said with respect to the Falklands conflict, but it is certainly not true that they supported any British adventure. In fact they pointed out the reason behind Thatcher's intervention was dictated by the needs of British imperialism.



I've never heard anything remotely by the Militant saying that they should back Britain against Argentina. Militants position was this http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/militant/...me.htm?ch20.htm - a belief that there should be a Socialist federation of Britain, the Malvinas and the UK.

Which is a bit er, optimistic for the timeframe...
http://www.marxist.com/britain-falklands-crisis020402.htm
Here is an excellent article produced by Ted Grant of Militant fame in 1982 which actually explains carefully what the real situation was in the Falklands and the relationship between Argentina and Britain. Certainly a socialist federation of Britain, Argentina, the Falklands and the whole world would have been the only lasting solution. That barely goes past the ABCs though and infact this article recognises the need to go beyond this and to take meaningful slogans to the workers. You are probably right though that the greatest weakness of the Militant in its final years was that they failed to properly educate incoming members. No doubt this facilitated the "open turn" which the majority in Britain took.

[EDIT: Sorry Andy, I misread you. You think there infact was plenty of education in the Militant. In this instance it is total rubbish that Militant was backing the British. It can only be put down to miseducated Militant members. But I stick to what I said. I think a lack of proper education of new comrades was the reason that Militant made the huge mistake it did]


While Janus was pretty much correct in stating some of the reasons the Argentian government tried to seize the island at the time it did, once the war started, the communist position would have been to defend the Argentian forces against the British ones (for the defeat of the British imperialists), while at the same time fighting along side our Argentinian class brothers and sisters to overthrow "their" bourgeoisie.

This wasn't an inter-imperialist war, after all.

Argentina was not some colonial country fighting against imperialist occupation. The facts speak for themselves. This country had a stock exchange, over 80% of the population lived in the cities, and it invaded the islands as a way of deflecting attention from its own problems and as a way of possibly securing for itself the oil and other resources which existed in Antarctica!! As for the islands themselves, the population isn't composed of oppressed spanish speaking Argentinians, but spoke English and considered themselves more British than anything else.

How can you say you "fight alongside" the Argentinian "class brothers and sister" when you support the Junta in its occupation of the Islands in a successful effort to deflect the attention of the workers from mounting, explosive contradictions internally??

[Sankara1983]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 22, 2007 07:24 am
once the war started, the communist position would have been to defend the Argentian forces against the British ones (for the defeat of the British imperialists), while at the same time fighting along side our Argentinian class brothers and sisters to overthrow "their" bourgeoisie.
What about the wishes of the Falkland Islanders? I get the impression that most are staunchly pro-British and would resist if the Argentines attempted another invasion.

Most of the remaining British overseas territories are small outposts in the Caribbean and the Atlantic that wish to retain their relationships with the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar aren't politically comparable to the Congo Free State or Saint-Domingue.

Why should communists have given support to the Argentine military junta in any situation? Shouldn't they have focused their support on fomenting a revolution on the mainland rather than "liberating" people on little specks of land offshore who clearly didn't want Argentine rule?

[Devrim]

Excert from an artile from the period commenting on the attitudes of various leftist groups in Britain:.


Originally posted by CWO
In World War I Lenin denounced those social democrats who supported the war and who told the working class to fight for the aims of the bosses. He called them social chauvinists: socialists in words, chauvinist in deeds. When the war between Britain and Argentina broke out over the Falklands all sections of the left in Argentina played a chauvinist role, showing that they were simply left varieties of Argentine capitalism. A statement from the main Trotskyist group in Argentina stated:

The war, if there is one will mean more hunger for the workers and the people. However, this will not deter the Argentine workers and ourselves … Without giving the slightest political support to the government, we will form part of the military camp of the dictatorship in the fight against the British Imperialists.

Published in Socialist Organiser, 6th May 1982

But Galtieri’s gamble was not an attack primarily on British imperialism, but against the working class of Argentina, which in the spring had begun to organise strikes and demonstrations against the Junta. To support the military camp of the dictatorship can only mean proclaiming “social peace” for the duration of the war – in other words, supporting the interests of the ruling class. This was exactly what the Argentine CGT (equivalent of the TUC) did when they called off all strikes and proclaimed their support for a regime which was soaked in workers’ blood. These chauvinists were not alone: the Argentine Communist Party supported the Junta, touring Europe to organise support, while the Monteneros guerrilla group volunteered to come back from Cuban exile and fight for the Junta that had all but exterminated them!

The British left was not to be outdone in chauvinism by the Argentine left, though some of them disguised their chauvinism with “internationalist” rhetoric – by supporting Argentina! The British trades unions loyally supported the war effort, as did the Argentine CGT. COHSE called off their industrial action in the hospitals for a week as a “mark of respect” for the dead. The T&GWU called off a national dock strike due to begin on 10th May to aid the war effort. The NUS encouraged seamen to volunteer for active war service, and jingoistically called for the Tories to “finish the job” quickly. Other union leaders went on record by denouncing the stupidity of the Tories — since they had not armed Britain well enough and cut too many jobs in the arms industry! The pacifism of the Labour Party also quickly evaporated, and it supported the British war effort, as it had done in World Wars I and II, and in subsequent occasions.

Foot and Co’s criticisms of the Tories were that they had not acted quickly enough or built enough warships to nip the Argentine fascist aggression in the bud. The Labour lefts’ opposition to the war was nothing but spurious pacifist phrase-mongering illusions that “negotiations” in the UN can remove capitalism’s drive to war. And Benn himself made clear his defence of capitalist society when be said,

... the nation will respond to a call to arms to defend a foreign invasion, or repel those who have successfully occupied a part of our country.

The Times, 29th April 1982

This was echoed by the pacifists of CND who had recently called out 250 000 people to demonstrate against Trident. They were conspicuous by their absence on the tiny demonstrations against the Falklands adventure. Their pamphlet Beyond the Cold War in fact echoes current Pentagon/Kremlin thinking in favour of conventional weapons against nuclear ones. “We are the real patriots” says Bruce Kent and their lack of opposition to the Falklands war lines up CND with the social patriots of the Labour Party and Trades Unions.

Most of the far left in Britain, particularly the various Trotskyist groups, noisily announced their support of Galtieri – the WRP, RCP and others all took this line. Workers’ Power, for example, in their statement of 4th April 1982 revealed their anti-working class chauvinism clearly,

In a conflict over the islands we are for the victory of the Argentines despite their political regime... and despite the fact that this clash... is undertaken for demagogic reasons, i.e. to head off mass revolt against the dictatorship.

In other words, they are for the crushing of the Argentine working class. Some groups like the SWF, after an initial flirtation with support for Argentina, moved towards a pacifist position, i.e. of being opposed to both sides, but without calling for any working class action against the war, and while chiding the CND and Labour left for their inactivity and failure to “give a lead”.

The total inability of these groups to adopt an internationalist perspective on such a stupid little war, confirms that when a real war comes along, they will be at best useless and irrelevant, and at worst active supporters of one or other group of capitalist hangmen.

[Cheung Mo]

People who want Thatcher are clueless as to what they truly desire.

[sexyguy]

[QUOTE=CompañeroDeLibertad,April 22, 2007 12:24 pm] , once the war started, the communist position would have been to defend the Argentian forces against the British ones (for the defeat of the British imperialists), while at the same time fighting along side our Argentinian class brothers and sisters to overthrow "their" bourgeoisie."



Has anyone got the time to check on how many ‘communists’ did in fact adopt this position? It might tell us something about the nature of the ‘communist’ movement at the time............. and now.!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I certainly don't have the time.. but I could take a guess.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:12 pm
[QUOTE=CompañeroDeLibertad,April 22, 2007 12:24 pm] , once the war started, the communist position would have been to defend the Argentian forces against the British ones (for the defeat of the British imperialists), while at the same time fighting along side our Argentinian class brothers and sisters to overthrow "their" bourgeoisie."



Has anyone got the time to check on how many ‘communists’ did in fact adopt this position? It might tell us something about the nature of the ‘communist’ movement at the time............. and now.!
Kind of makes the European communist traitors...to support a government who hunted down, tortured and killed everything that was even remotely left wing. Defending against imperialism? Fuck that crap! This had nothing to do with defending Argentina against imperialism. It was Argentina's impopular right wing regime waging a war to unite the people under the banner of nationalism. They were attacking a piece of British territory (if that piece of land belongs to Argentina or not is another debate) so the UK responded. Its not like Britian invaded Argentina and wanted to conquer that.

The European communists should have remained neutral in this conflict and should have supported the Argentine people in overthrowing their military government...

As for the Malvinas, I really doubt the people living there would want to become part of Argentina, similar to how the biiiiiiiiiig majority in the last Carribean colonies dont want their countries to become independent. (something which must be very hard for some leftists to accept)

[PRC-UTE]

There is only one correct position here - to demand the immediate disarming of all anti-British forces, condemn anyone who fights the British as "bourgeois-nationalist-gangster-Titoites" and to greet the invading British forces (especially their covert elite regiments ie the SAS) as Workers In Uniform and propose a federative Argentinian-British Soviet state. The only weapons acceptable are pamphlets and other literature in desperate need of editing, and any actually existing workers organisations, such as unions, must be disolved.

All other positions are clearly variants of bourgeois-nationalist-gangster-Titoiteism.

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:38 pm
It was Argentina's impopular right wing regime waging a war to unite the people under the banner of nationalism. They were attacking a piece of British territory (if that piece of land belongs to Argentina or not is another debate) so the UK responded. Its not like Britian invaded Argentina and wanted to conquer that.

As for the Malvinas, I really doubt the people living there would want to become part of Argentina, similar to how the biiiiiiiiiig majority in the last Carribean colonies dont want their countries to become independent. (something which must be very hard for some leftists to accept)
Ahm...
NO!
Most argentinians are strongly nationalist. I don't see where that unite under the banner part would fit.

They junta was trying to send a message to the argentinian people:

"Forget the monumental screw ups that we have been doing we did governments in past 100 years didn't do for you, we are more competant than anyone"

It kinda makes me remember of a certain US president in the past 5 years going to war over a security leak. But it doesn't make england's role any less imperialistic.




That piece of land belonged to argentina, and it's not another debate.
It changes completely the perspective of UK's "response".

1520: The malvinas were discovered by Esteban Gomez, a spanish dude.
The papal bulla that divided the 'new world' had set it to spain.

1690: a brittish captain, John Strong, sailed in the neighborhood and called it 'Falklands', 'honoring' the viscount of Falkland.

1764: the french invaded part of it and called it the Malouines. They then gave that part to the spanish, that called it malvinas back again.

1765: brittish troops invaded it back.

1770: spain via diplomatic means spain persuaded britain to remove its troops, and

1776: the Virreinato del Río de La Plata (what would become present day argentina) was created, and it included the malvinas. Buenos aires had administrative control over them.

1825: UK recognized the argentinian state (after its independancy) and didn't claim the malvinas.

1833: the english 'responded', and argentina claims it since then.










The people of the 3rd reich wanted it to happen. That doesn't necessarily make it more acceptable. The true question should be: Will the people of the malvinas truly have a say on their own affairs?

[Luís Henrique]

Some points:

1. It is true that Britain is an imperialist power, and Argentina is not;

2. However, the military aventura in the Malvinas was by no stretch of imagination an anti-imperialist struggle: there were no "oppressed Argentinians" to be liberated there, and Argentina was not fighting for its independence;

3. British internationalists should have fought for the immediate calling back of British troops, against the British bourgeoisie and its neoliberal government;

4. Argentinian internationalists should have fought against the war, against Argentinian bourgeoisie and its military dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[metalero]

Good points Luis Henrique; The Argentina Military Dictatorship move was rather motivated in a desperate attempt to pump up nationalism to counter social unrest that not even with years of tortures and state terrorism they could stop.
Communist should have fought for inmediate withrawal of british troops as well as exposed the Military Junta adventure, and struggle (as many did) to overthrow it.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Ahm...
NO!
Most argentinians are strongly nationalist. I don't see where that unite under the banner part would fit.
People were pissed off at their military government because they were a bunch of assholes. If the Falkland War never happened you would have hated them too...

So what to do when a government is impopular? Simply wage a war and make all heads look in the same direction.


"Forget the monumental screw ups that we have been doing we did governments in past 100 years didn't do for you, we are more competant than anyone"
And now in correct English?

And thank you Luís Henrique for pointing out the obvious :)

[PRC-UTE]

Luis H outlines what I would agree with pretty much. Does anyone have info on how the workers movement and left in Argentina reacted? did they see this as an opportunity for the working class or did they mostly rally behind 'their own' bourgeoisie?

[dez]

Quote-> Forget the monumental screw ups that we have been doing we did governments in past 100 years didn't do for you, we are more competant than anyone"

And now in correct English? -

They were trying to give results in order to divert people from the oppression and fuck ups in administrative level. Kinda like bush after 9/11, but bush tried to divert people from frauds instead of phisical oppression. =D






Quote -> And thank you Luís Henrique for pointing out the obvious

"1. It is true that Britain is an imperialist power, and Argentina is not;" -

Obvious.
=D

[Avtomat_Icaro]

They were trying to give results in order to divert people from the oppression and fuck ups in administrative level. Kinda like bush after 9/11, but bush tried to divert people from frauds instead of phisical oppression.
Yes...and that really justified the invasion of the Falklands right?


"1. It is true that Britain is an imperialist power, and Argentina is not;" -

Obvious.

Ah...the military junta in Argentina were actually liberating the people of the Malvinas right? I wonder why the Argentines received no support what so ever from the locals...I mean they were conquered and oppressed by the British right? <_<

Argentina and British being imperialist powers or not doesnt have that much to do with those facts.

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:41 am

"1. It is true that Britain is an imperialist power, and Argentina is not;" -

Obvious.

Ah...the military junta in Argentina were actually liberating the people of the Malvinas right? I wonder why the Argentines received no support what so ever from the locals...I mean they were conquered and oppressed by the British right? <_<

Argentina and British being imperialist powers or not doesnt have that much to do with those facts.
Of course it does.
A rat fighting imperialism is a good rat.
Shows to the good guys that it is possible.

Why are you so eager to say that the argentinians were wrong in the malvinas conflict and the brittish were right?
I mean, that&#39;s what it looks like over here.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Because you seem to fully ignore that the people in the Malvinas dont want to become part of Argentina. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

The Argentines were wrong in this conflict, the British...well they are simply the British. The Argentines started the war not in the name of anti-imperialism or liberation, but purely to have their own people simply obeying them. The government were bastards, assholes, enemies of leftists...not just rats. You supporting that government shows you are not worthy of calling yourself a leftist and are nothing more but a reactionary traitor&#33;

Not every battle against an imperialist force is a war of liberation and justified. The Falkland War was simply two reactionary forces fighting against each other, not worthy to pick either side because they were both bad. Why are you defending the Argentine military junta so much? Are you a supporter of the anti communist former government there?

[dez]

"Because you seem to fully ignore that the people in the Malvinas dont want to become part of Argentina. Why is that so hard for you to accept?"

I didn&#39;t really see a reliable poll, neither did you. You are just assuming.



"The Argentines were wrong in this conflict, the British...well they are simply the British."

That seems like you agree with their imperialist/colonialist stance simply because they are brittish.
I say that a dictatorship based on the colony is better than a &#39;democratic&#39; government from colonizers.
And i say that based on my own country&#39;s experience, even though gvts here were quite corrupt and weren&#39;t really based on true brazilians.
Also, compare life quality on the &#39;falklands&#39; and in britain.
Or in french guiana and france.
Why there is such a disparity?



"The Argentines started the war not in the name of anti-imperialism or liberation, but purely to have their own people simply obeying them."

No... They started it on the ufanist pretention of fighting brittish imperialism.
That, the soldiers and people who supported and died in the war.
The government wanted to divert attention from their flaws, and to make argentinians less angry over the gvt.
They knew they were about to fall.

"The government were bastards, assholes, enemies of leftists..."

So were the brittish gvt.
I remember it was a brittish "centrist" (churchill) that said that protesters should be machine gunned.
I wonder what tatcher though, since she thought there is no such thing as society.



"not just rats. You supporting that government shows you are not worthy of calling yourself a leftist and are nothing more but a reactionary traitor&#33;"

I know i am a leftist over my daily activities.
I don&#39;t need to prove anything to anyone, specially someone that supports imperialism.


"Not every battle against an imperialist force is a war of liberation and justified."

Yes, it is.
DEATH TO ALL IMPERIALIST FUCKS&#33;



"The Falkland War was simply two reactionary forces fighting against each other, not worthy to pick either side because they were both bad."

I agree that both were reactionary.
In a fight between two enemies, i will always support the weakest one in order to make the conflict last more and both be weakened.
=D



" Why are you defending the Argentine military junta so much? Are you a supporter of the anti communist former government there?"

No.
As a matter of fact, i find it pretty sad that many of the members/supporters of that regime got away with amnesty.
I also threw a party in the day pinochet died.
=D

[sexyguy]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 26, 2007 04:42 am
Some points:

1. It is true that Britain is an imperialist power, and Argentina is not;

2. However, the military aventura in the Malvinas was by no stretch of imagination an anti-imperialist struggle: there were no "oppressed Argentinians" to be liberated there, and Argentina was not fighting for its independence;

3. British internationalists should have fought for the immediate calling back of British troops, against the British bourgeoisie and its neoliberal government;

4. Argentinian internationalists should have fought against the war, against Argentinian bourgeoisie and its military dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

What you and others are not grasping here is the importance of the damaging effect that military DEFEAT would have on a major imperialist state. Think about it. It would have--and will be truly revolutionary.

Defeat the Imperialist Warmongers&#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:55 pm
What you and others are not grasping here is the importance of the damaging effect that military DEFEAT would have on a major imperialist state. Think about it. It would have--and will be truly revolutionary.
And what you seem to fail to understand is that the task of leftists in Argentina is to destroy, first of all, the Argentinian State. To which end they should have worked for the military defeat of Argentina, not of Britain.

To work for the military defeat of Britain is the task of British leftists, not of Argentinians.

Of course, the situation would be different if British intervention threatened Argentinian independence - then the war could be transformed into an anti-imperialist struggle. But this was never the case in 1982.

And, ah, it is pointless to argue about how revolutionary a British defeat would be, unless such defeat was a material possibility. Which it would only be if the British proletariat actively opposed war. Hoping that the Argentinian military could defeat Britain without that (or the support of another major imperialist power, which was the junta&#39;s miscalculation) is just wishful thinking - Argentinian gorillas cannot perform British workers&#39; chores for them.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:01 pm
"Because you seem to fully ignore that the people in the Malvinas dont want to become part of Argentina. Why is that so hard for you to accept?"

I didn&#39;t really see a reliable poll, neither did you. You are just assuming.
Of course it is not assumption. All of Malvinas&#39;s inhabitants are English speakers, with no cultural ties to Argentina - and the prospect of living under the brutal Argentinian junta&#39;s rule would have not helped.

But the issue is different - there are about 2,000 people in Malvinas, and no visible migratory movement from Britain to there. Argentinians could flood the place with people in a week and completely subvert the demographics - if Britain would allow Argentinian migration, which of course it does not.

Luís Henrique

[sexyguy]

And, ah, it is pointless to argue about how revolutionary a British defeat would be, unless such defeat was a material possibility. Which it would only be if the British proletariat actively opposed war. Hoping that the Argentinian military could defeat Britain without that (or the support of another major imperialist power, which was the junta&#39;s miscalculation) is just wishful thinking - Argentinian gorillas cannot perform British workers&#39; chores for them.

All this is easy to say now, but at the time the ‘British Task Force’ commanders and the government were crapping themselves because the Argentinean Air Force was scoring some remarkable hits on the British sipping - 2 destroyers sunk, 2 frigates sunk,1 major merchant vessel sunk, 258 killed, 777 wounded and106 taken prisoner compared with Argentinean loses - 1 light cruiser sunk,1 submarine lost,1 gunboat sunk 649 killed, 1,068 wounded and11,313 taken prisoner at the end of the war.

The Brits came within a nat’s cock of disaster and it wasn’t just “a consummation devoutly to be wished“ it was a very real possibility.

[RedKnight]

This was a case of the british trying to hold onto a part of there empire, and Argentinia trying to add to there&#39;s. Also would anyone who would have been supportive of the argentinian annexation of the malvinas been as supportive of Francisco Franco, had he claimed the Gibraltor?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Again, Argentina isn&#39;t and wasn&#39;t imperialist, didn&#39;t have an "empire" and wasn&#39;t attempting to add to any such "empire."