In international relationships both exes are usually jerks.
I don’t dare tell anyone how they should think about such fraught matters.
Indeed, and I also thank you for the information. My irritation is at irrationality in all its forms; Argentinian, American, or other.
Also, we do blame the U.S. for that and for all the many many other deaths in the hands of the dictatorship.
But England gets sort of mixed into it because of all the other things I mentioned, plus may be ancestral memories form when we were Spanish and England was our natural enemy, plus conflating the U.K. and the U.S. into “The Anglosphere”
This is comfortably the longest post I have ever read on the SDMB.
Coincidentally last week, I had someone (my cousin) try to explain to me the “logic” of the SSPX movement (?). He was talking for a couple of hours and I listened without asking a single question.
And had the same impact. I was left feeling “This is fucking insane!”
I think you have been quite clear that you are not presenting this as your opinion, but the commonly held opinions of many or most Argentinians. And I thank you for writing this all out.
But JFC! This is almost all completely irrelevant to any reasonable claim on the islands.
In Realpolitik, if your troops are there, it is yours. Mind you, that doesnt answer moral, ethical. geographical or historical claims. Nor will I attempt to say “who is right”.
To be honest- IMHO if Argentina hadnt tried to take the islands by force (1982), the UK would have likely made a deal. However, it appears that the residents were very much opposed to the idea.
The residents of Hong Kong were not particularly happy to be returned to the PRC (they did not trust the promises of the PRC, and they were right) - but their opinion did not count in the end.
Perhaps the same would have happened to the Islanders.
Ironically enough, if Galtieri had waited a few months before launching the invasion, Argentina would have had it somewhat easier. The UK was about to downsize its navy and take the Vulcan bombers out of commission.
@Frodo - Question for you: what about Chile’s role during the war? I have read that Pinochet’s government was actually helping the British with intelligence and information about Argentine military movements (and that that was a big factor for the UK not surrendering Pinochet when Judge Garzón asked for his extradition when Pinochet was detained in London)
Not really. I realise this doesn’t help at all, but in the UK, they’re just not that big a deal. There’s been a bit of a recent upswing in attention, but you can live here years without ever hearing them mentioned. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the UK has fought with, for and in so many former colonies, territories and other places, that they’re only notable for the war being so recent. Most people in Britain aren’t all that aware of South American politics (there’s an occasional joke that people thought the Falklands were off Scotland), it didn’t matter who was invading, just that they were.
As for British exploitation of Argentina, well, almost no-one here would be aware of that, it’s barely a footnote in our history books. Especially as it happened with cooperation of the local government by private enterprise, I think most people here would think the blame should be on the individuals who carried out any specific acts, and the government in the area who allowed it. As with the average Argentinian feeling that their soldiers were drafted for the war, so bearing little responsibility, the average British person feels little or no connection to the actions of wealthy landowners in the past- maybe some do if it’s their own ancestors. If your ancestors were being exploited by the landowning classes at the time, it feels a little harsh to also be blamed for the overseas actions of the same oppressors.
With engineered famines and exterminations of native populations hogging all the national guilt, I’m afraid there’s not much left for Argentina. It actually seems a little odd that a country we’ve had comparatively little to do with seems to have such a grudge, while countries we’ve done far worse to get on OK with us, not that most people are aware of it.
So for the Falklands/Malvinas, it’s not that it’s viewed as sacred land, but a sign like the one displayed at the football is absolutely seen as supporting the invasion. So from an English perspective, we have a country that unjustifiably invaded then try and bring up the claim again in a wildly inappropriate event. It’s seen as incredibly tactless, if not outright offensive, especially while the survivors of that war are still around. As part of a strategy for a diplomatic takeover of the islands, it can only backfire. In terms of tactics, it’s a bit like cheating on your girlfriend, getting back together, then bringing up that the girl you cheated with was really hot so it was understandable, as part of the marriage proposal.
There’s also the issue that the British really like seeing themselves as the supporters of the underdogs; given the invasion, plus the desire of the residents to maintain the status quo, supporting the underdogs means rejecting the Argentinian claim, and the harder it gets pushed, the harder the pushback.
It’s interesting that you say in Argentina Milei is seen as not interested in the issue; since his election, the British news reports of him making claims about the islands, have gone way up compared to previous governments. Unsurprisingly he’s getting more attention than previous governments, but I don’t think I’ve read one article where he’s mentioned Britain without a statement that the islands are Argentinian and they will reclaim them one way or another. This is part of the recent upswing in attention, the football being the rest. No-one reading the banner in the UK saw it as anything other than a support for both the invasion and and Milei’s stated policy.
Ironically, if Argentina stopped treating it as a matter of national pride and didn’t bring it up for a few more decades, I suspect their chances of actually obtaining the islands would be higher.
Hong Kong is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The British claim was based on a couple of treaties, including a time-limited agreement saying we would hand most of it back on a certain date. China was not willing to extend that treaty and splitting an already small area into a tiny British chunk surrounded by a vast uncooperative China was going to be practically impossible in a location like that. International borders are difficult to retrofit in extremely dense cities where buildings and roads weren’t built with them in mind. Contentious ones infinitely more so.
Bear in mind that, at the time, the situation in Northern Ireland, with different factions violently supporting either the British or the Irish rights to the area, was very much ongoing. Bomb threats were a regular occurrence in England at the time, both false and read and there were regular deaths in Northern Ireland. The idea of creating a similar situation, with a more hostile and hugely more powerful neighbour, in one of the most densely populated areas of the world was understandably somewhat unappealing.
The other option to retain it was breaking the treaty and refusing to hand the rest back. That was a non starter. We weren’t going to assume that a world power would accept the loss of some of their lands without a fight; they’d already told us they wouldn’t. It it had come to war the death toll could easily have been huge, Britain wouldn’t win, and both sides knew it.
It doesn’t seem so irrelevant to me, I don’t support it because it goes against self determination but if the islands were uninhabited it would be a good (if by no means sure) case to present in an hypothetical court.
Of course, I’m biased, you may be biased too, probably we both are.
Some years ago in a football forum someone asked about the nationality of a player, don’t remember who, let’s call him “Perez”.
“Perez es mas chileno que la traición” was the answer. (“Perez is more Chilean than betrayal”)
My own personal position is that I don’t blame Chile, the country and the population for the acts of dictators,I know they had nothing to do with it. (But “more Chilean than betrayal” is hilarious).
Furthermore the band of geniuses in charge of Argentina had been rattling sabers against Chile too, so even in the realm of pure realpolitik it made some sense for Chile not to want Argentina to win the war.
I understand that’s how it looks from your perspective, and it looks reasonable to me.
The point about Argentina’s protests making it harder to retrieve the islands instead of helping is interesting, I hadn’t seen it that way.
As for the exploitation issues, IMHO it works more or less this way: The ruling classes in both countries got the money and the countries now get to be blamed by the descendants of the victims.
The money seems to have been better spent in developing Britain than it was in developing Argentina (also Britain got most of it), so you at least can bear the rhetorical darts with a better economic position.
Anyway the U.K. got an economic colony for 50 years or so and it return the only price paid was a football national team that will rather die than let you win the world cup, it looks like a good bargain…
Also the grudge is not so terrible, there are a lot of English people living in Argentina and never any incident, you may be teased unmercifully (especially after the Argentinians get more acquainted, teasing is a sign of friendship) but you wouldn’t detect any kind of hate.
The grudge is more with the concept of Empire, and it having a “colony” in the islands than with the peope, we love British music and British literature (see my user name for an example)
… I’m sort of baffled at how Argentinians could possibly consider Chile’s support of the UK a betrayal after they had just invaded Chile (or at least, come extremely close) and were considering doing so again.
Nothing like an invasion had happened, both countries were rattling sabers at each other due to unresolved border disputes but cooler heads prevailed and both stood down.
And the betrayal thing is said in jest, but it comes from the concept of Latin-American Brotherhood, we in Latin America would like to be like brothers, who may fight against each other but unite against someone not from the family, it’s a nice dream.
Tangentially related, the Welsh colony in Patagonia (Y Wladfa), founded in 1865 and notionally there precisely to avoid the English government, has depite that periodically requested help from the UK in ways that challenge Argentian sovereignty, which also caused some friction between the two countries, mostly prior to WWII.
Now, the Welsh are very much rooting for Argentina over England in the World Cup because of this connection. (This came up a LOT last week.)
I mean, Argentinian ground troops were prepared, had plans for an invasion, an invasion plan was signed, a date was set, a declaration of war drafted, and Argentinean troops may or may not have crossed the border, which would constitute an invasion. That’s about as close to an invasion as it’s possible to get, and beyond what i would consider typical saber rattling, but YMMV.
That’s a good point. It seems like the Junta was decided to get a war sooner or later.
ETA: I didn’t know things had gotten so far, I will read about it, thanks!
This should give you an idea where my bias lies. In the last 40 years, I have backed England in a World Cup match exactly four times. If England are playing Russia, North Korea or Sudan, I’m backing the pariah countries. I don’t even have any animosity toward Argentina generally. I’d back them against most countries.
But this long stream of nonsense you posted as if it is something quite reasonable, tells me that I am 100% in my conclusion that Argentina’s position is just insanity.
Your position is no more reasonable than someone saying, “I don’t believe in eternal jihad/crusade to kill the infidels, but hundreds of millions of Christians/Muslims believe it. So we need to recruit some soldiers. But be very clear, I don’t believe this, I just UNDERSTAND it. And here’s 1200 years of history to justify it.”
Fair enough, we won’t be able to agree on this then.
Scotland largely just support whoever’s playing England… During the Euros last time I could tell every time someone scored against England because I could hear one of my neighbours cheer.
I have actually been to Buenos Aires, if only on a day trip (I was in Uruguay for a friend’s wedding, I’m not completely insane), and I’d happily visit again. I also work with an Argentinian couple (though I did refuse to sit next to one of them at lunch on Thursday- she was a bit hurt for a second, until she realised I’m English, not Scottish like most of the group, at which point I got unmercifully laughed at).
Incidentally, you mentioned how the war initially gave a boost to the government there- same happened here. There’s a good chance Thatcher would have been out of power earlier if there wasn’t a nice morale-boosting invasion to repel. Which is not a point in Argentina’s favour for a lot of people. Probably helped equalise the infrastructure legacy a bit.
The war was one of those fractally wrong things, even it’s failures have failures inside.