The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Skyland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That should deter ideas any South American country or group of countries have about reclaiming something which was never theirs!
For historical purposes I would like to point out about the Argentinian claims over the Falklands/Malvinas islands..
Before 1810 those islands were included into the Sudamerican territories controlled by the Spanish crown.
After the Argentinian independence war with Spain those islands were under Argetinian government control.
In fact, the Argentina had positive control of the islands from 1820 until 1833 when the British government took the islands shipping the Argentinian people back to the continent (there was not self determination...).
Six month after, there was a rebelion initiated by two Argentinian "cowboys" and 5 other Charruas. They were commanded by el Gaucho Rivero, who killed the British governor.
The UK took over again after 5 month, during that period the Argentina was in a civil war between Buenos Aires and the rest of the country.
So, it is not true that those islands have never being Argentinian...
Before 1810 those islands were included into the Sudamerican territories controlled by the Spanish crown.
After the Argentinian independence war with Spain those islands were under Argetinian government control.
In fact, the Argentina had positive control of the islands from 1820 until 1833 when the British government took the islands shipping the Argentinian people back to the continent (there was not self determination...).
Six month after, there was a rebelion initiated by two Argentinian "cowboys" and 5 other Charruas. They were commanded by el Gaucho Rivero, who killed the British governor.
The UK took over again after 5 month, during that period the Argentina was in a civil war between Buenos Aires and the rest of the country.
So, it is not true that those islands have never being Argentinian...
Yes yes all this talk of things that happened in 1820-33 is irrelevant.
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, explored Saunders Island in the west, and named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands.
Oh yes prior discovery.....
English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."
In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."
A little earlier than 1820, although we can excuse any lack of knowledge, afterall Argentina as it is today only existed properly after the constitution of 1853, 261 years AFTER John Davis and the Desire.
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, explored Saunders Island in the west, and named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands.
Oh yes prior discovery.....
English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."
In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."
A little earlier than 1820, although we can excuse any lack of knowledge, afterall Argentina as it is today only existed properly after the constitution of 1853, 261 years AFTER John Davis and the Desire.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could give the islands back, as long as all non native South Americans leave the new state of Argentina and return the country to it's original owners.
Fair?
No doubt this option would not be welcome, especially in the North American continent
Fair?
No doubt this option would not be welcome, especially in the North American continent
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Skyland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also know how to copy and paste from the wikipedia, vernon99... but if you do not want to take time and study the history of the islands, please be fair and paste the whole article! The first part says:
-"The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers, but there is evidence that Patagonian Indians may have reached the Falklands in canoes. Artifacts including arrowheads and the remains of a canoe have been found on the islands. There is also the presence of the Falkland Island fox, or Warrah (now extinct), but these may have reached the islands via a land bridge when the sea level was much lower during the last ice age. A group of islands in Falkland Island region appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting either Ferdinand Magellan or another expedition of the 1500s may have sighted them. Amerigo Vespucci may have sighted the islands in 1502, but he did not name them. In 1519 or 1520, Esteban Gómez, a captain in Magellan’s expedition, encountered several islands. Members of his crew called them "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" ("Islands of Samson and the Ducks"). These islands were probably the Jason Islands, northwest of West Falkland, but the names "Islas de Sansón" (or "San Antón," "San Son," and "Ascensión") were used for the Falklands on Spanish maps during this period. Piri Reis, a Turkish admiral of the time who drew remarkably accurate maps, also showed islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands."-
And continues with text you have pasted, but it´s not cleared... there are no documents, unless the maps, of the discovered.
Tonker, with that way of thinking you should must give back the Ulster to Ireland and Gibraltar to Spain, is that fair enough for you?
-"The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers, but there is evidence that Patagonian Indians may have reached the Falklands in canoes. Artifacts including arrowheads and the remains of a canoe have been found on the islands. There is also the presence of the Falkland Island fox, or Warrah (now extinct), but these may have reached the islands via a land bridge when the sea level was much lower during the last ice age. A group of islands in Falkland Island region appeared on maps from the early 16th century, suggesting either Ferdinand Magellan or another expedition of the 1500s may have sighted them. Amerigo Vespucci may have sighted the islands in 1502, but he did not name them. In 1519 or 1520, Esteban Gómez, a captain in Magellan’s expedition, encountered several islands. Members of his crew called them "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" ("Islands of Samson and the Ducks"). These islands were probably the Jason Islands, northwest of West Falkland, but the names "Islas de Sansón" (or "San Antón," "San Son," and "Ascensión") were used for the Falklands on Spanish maps during this period. Piri Reis, a Turkish admiral of the time who drew remarkably accurate maps, also showed islands that may well have been the Falkland Islands."-
And continues with text you have pasted, but it´s not cleared... there are no documents, unless the maps, of the discovered.
Tonker, with that way of thinking you should must give back the Ulster to Ireland and Gibraltar to Spain, is that fair enough for you?
Last edited by maddog37; 28th Feb 2010 at 10:40.
Yes but you parped on about the Islands belonging to Argentina because of an event around 1820, when clearly they "belonged" to someone else first. As for trying to say they are yours because Stone age or Ice age man had possibly been there..........
It is generally accepted that the status of the world is as it is now as a result of colonisation by Europeans, it is also unlikely that the world will ever return to how it was before colonisation.
Conflicts have also changed the ownership of countries, in some cases several times, again some countries have gained land and some have lost land, just what date in history would you like to pick for the rearrangement of national borders? Obviously a date that suits you would not suit someone else, so we cannot realistically change things, and so we have the staus quo that we have today.
Interestingly in 1995 we signed an agreement with Argentina over oil exploration, a treaty that Argentina ripped up, maybe you should ask the Argentine government why they ripped up a treaty that gave shared access in favour of nothing, and then have the gall to complain about it!
It is generally accepted that the status of the world is as it is now as a result of colonisation by Europeans, it is also unlikely that the world will ever return to how it was before colonisation.
Conflicts have also changed the ownership of countries, in some cases several times, again some countries have gained land and some have lost land, just what date in history would you like to pick for the rearrangement of national borders? Obviously a date that suits you would not suit someone else, so we cannot realistically change things, and so we have the staus quo that we have today.
Interestingly in 1995 we signed an agreement with Argentina over oil exploration, a treaty that Argentina ripped up, maybe you should ask the Argentine government why they ripped up a treaty that gave shared access in favour of nothing, and then have the gall to complain about it!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Skyland
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunatly my mobile phone it´s out of charge, so I will plug it and I will phone the goverment asap...
I have my own version about the history, and seems to be very far from yours. You didn´t understand anything that I said... maybe the problem is my english, but I strongly recomend you to read, read and read! In a story there are always two versions, so please hear both and them apply your common sense. I wrote in the early days of this topic one or two posts that you can review, and you will see that I am not complaining about anything. I just exposed how argentinians view the islands, very far from saying that UK must move from the Falklands by force. So please do not be so obtuse to rescue a sentence(ref. ice age) from a post and comment it.
I have my own version about the history, and seems to be very far from yours. You didn´t understand anything that I said... maybe the problem is my english, but I strongly recomend you to read, read and read! In a story there are always two versions, so please hear both and them apply your common sense. I wrote in the early days of this topic one or two posts that you can review, and you will see that I am not complaining about anything. I just exposed how argentinians view the islands, very far from saying that UK must move from the Falklands by force. So please do not be so obtuse to rescue a sentence(ref. ice age) from a post and comment it.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've followed this thread for a week or so and have resisted the temptation to get stuck into this; but on a damp Sunday afternoon between paperwork, the temptation is overwhelming. And full marks to Cosmicomet and maddog37 for continuing to make their points - but gentlemen, here's why it's doomed- my apologies for not having enough Spanish to write it in your mother tongue. In advance, my apologies for the length.
<<International Law Anorak Mode: ON>>
It is widely accepted that the islands never had an aboriginal population, so before their discovery in 1600 (ironically, by Seebald de Weert, a Dutchman), they were unknown to humans. Initially called the Sebald Islands, they were named the Falklands by the British in 1690 after John Strong named them after Viscount Falkland, Commissioner of the Admiralty. However, there was no permanent settlement on the islands - variously claimed by Britain, France, Holland and Spain - until the French arrived in 1764, establishing Port Louis on Berkeley Sound, East Falkland (north of Stanley). Port Louis was sold to Spain in 1767.
Meanwhile, the Brits were busy establishing a colony at Port Egmont, on Byron Sound - West Falkland. It is probable that the British and French / Spanish didn't know that the others were even there - Byron Sound is on the northern coast of West Falkland and everyone concerned seems to have believed that they had been banished to some godforsaken windswept wilderness on the edge of the world; at least both sides had this in common.
When they found out about Port Egmont, the Spanish were enraged, and attacked the place twice before the British surrendered and sailed on 10 June 1770 under protest. This eviction nearly precipitated war between Britain and Spain in Europe as well as the South Atlantic, with a deal done to allow the British to return - which they did in 1771 before departing again in 1774, but not without leaving a lead plaque which claimed the whole archipelago for Britain forever.
In 1790, an agreement called the Nootka Sound Accords was signed, which didn't help matters at all by talking about "the adjacent islands" to the South American mainland - without telling us whether this covered the Falklands or not. By 1811, the Spainish governor also ordered the Spanish colony to withdraw from the islands.
So, when the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata - that would become Argentina - revolted against the Spanish in 1816 and gained independence, it took seven years to emplace another colony on the islands, achieved in 1823. For the next 10 years, Argentina occupied the islands, despite the British claim from nearly 60 years earlier, before Britain returned under Captain John Onslow to Port Egmont, West Falkland in 1832, and forcing the surrender and evacuation of Puerto de la Soledad on 4 Jan 1833. The Union Flag would fly over Stanley until 1982.
Thus, though a legal argument can be made about the legal status down to 1833, it is quicker, easier (and probably more accurate) to accept that the British takeover in 1833 was imperial conquest. Which as this was the principal mode of territorial acquisition in 1833 - and had been for 5000 years - should excite no-one.
So what happened in the 149 years of British rule? Firstly, the UN Charter was adopted in 1945 and the UN would lead on decolonisation based on self-determination. However, as the Falkland Islanders had become the indigenous population since 1833, their wishes were the ones which need to be observed - not those of the Argentine settlers expelled more than a century before.
Hence, the fundamental problem for Argentina: if you accept self-determination as the cornerstone of international sovereignty, then you'll have to wait for the Islanders to decide to become Argentines. If Argentina doesn't accept self-determination as the basis, then they should say so, and be howled down by the rest of the international community who do accept it.
Alternatively, Argentina could invade again, but as acquisition of territory by conquest has been illegal since 1945, they'd also have to bin the UN Charter as well.
<<International Law Anorak Mode: OFF>>
Bottom line: the islanders will determine the future status of the islands - be that British, Argentine or independent. Good luck to them!
S41
<<International Law Anorak Mode: ON>>
It is widely accepted that the islands never had an aboriginal population, so before their discovery in 1600 (ironically, by Seebald de Weert, a Dutchman), they were unknown to humans. Initially called the Sebald Islands, they were named the Falklands by the British in 1690 after John Strong named them after Viscount Falkland, Commissioner of the Admiralty. However, there was no permanent settlement on the islands - variously claimed by Britain, France, Holland and Spain - until the French arrived in 1764, establishing Port Louis on Berkeley Sound, East Falkland (north of Stanley). Port Louis was sold to Spain in 1767.
Meanwhile, the Brits were busy establishing a colony at Port Egmont, on Byron Sound - West Falkland. It is probable that the British and French / Spanish didn't know that the others were even there - Byron Sound is on the northern coast of West Falkland and everyone concerned seems to have believed that they had been banished to some godforsaken windswept wilderness on the edge of the world; at least both sides had this in common.
When they found out about Port Egmont, the Spanish were enraged, and attacked the place twice before the British surrendered and sailed on 10 June 1770 under protest. This eviction nearly precipitated war between Britain and Spain in Europe as well as the South Atlantic, with a deal done to allow the British to return - which they did in 1771 before departing again in 1774, but not without leaving a lead plaque which claimed the whole archipelago for Britain forever.
In 1790, an agreement called the Nootka Sound Accords was signed, which didn't help matters at all by talking about "the adjacent islands" to the South American mainland - without telling us whether this covered the Falklands or not. By 1811, the Spainish governor also ordered the Spanish colony to withdraw from the islands.
So, when the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata - that would become Argentina - revolted against the Spanish in 1816 and gained independence, it took seven years to emplace another colony on the islands, achieved in 1823. For the next 10 years, Argentina occupied the islands, despite the British claim from nearly 60 years earlier, before Britain returned under Captain John Onslow to Port Egmont, West Falkland in 1832, and forcing the surrender and evacuation of Puerto de la Soledad on 4 Jan 1833. The Union Flag would fly over Stanley until 1982.
Thus, though a legal argument can be made about the legal status down to 1833, it is quicker, easier (and probably more accurate) to accept that the British takeover in 1833 was imperial conquest. Which as this was the principal mode of territorial acquisition in 1833 - and had been for 5000 years - should excite no-one.
So what happened in the 149 years of British rule? Firstly, the UN Charter was adopted in 1945 and the UN would lead on decolonisation based on self-determination. However, as the Falkland Islanders had become the indigenous population since 1833, their wishes were the ones which need to be observed - not those of the Argentine settlers expelled more than a century before.
Hence, the fundamental problem for Argentina: if you accept self-determination as the cornerstone of international sovereignty, then you'll have to wait for the Islanders to decide to become Argentines. If Argentina doesn't accept self-determination as the basis, then they should say so, and be howled down by the rest of the international community who do accept it.
Alternatively, Argentina could invade again, but as acquisition of territory by conquest has been illegal since 1945, they'd also have to bin the UN Charter as well.
<<International Law Anorak Mode: OFF>>
Bottom line: the islanders will determine the future status of the islands - be that British, Argentine or independent. Good luck to them!
S41
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entertainingly, I have just had a, admitedly not particularly helpful, post of mine removed from this thread.
Since this is a thread about the right (or not) of Falkland Islanders to decide their own furure, I enjoy the irony of having my post, and effectively my opinion, deleted from the debate when I am almost certainly the closest thing to a true Falkland islander on the whole of Pprune, and definately Military Aircrew.
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
Since this is a thread about the right (or not) of Falkland Islanders to decide their own furure, I enjoy the irony of having my post, and effectively my opinion, deleted from the debate when I am almost certainly the closest thing to a true Falkland islander on the whole of Pprune, and definately Military Aircrew.
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should the USA not be able to claim "Neutrality" in this issue and do so legitimately?
Do "Friends" blackmail one another to enlist assistance or do "friends" come to the aid of the other when they really need help?
What concerns me is that people assume the Argentinians will not have another try militarily. Yes, it would be costly, unwise and uncertain - but since when have those factors ever stoped a war in the past?
I would wager good money that military options are under serious consideration by the Argentine government. The questions are can they take the islands, and can they get away with it? Taking them will be more costly than last time, but if they can do it their chances of hanging on to them seem much better given the state of the UK military and the political environment (not least fence sitting by the worlds remainign superpower).
Squirrel,
Good post on the face of it, but discovery in 1600?
Before that date there were previous 'discoveries' of the islands. These were variously discovered by Magellan (Portugese), Vespucci (Florence), or Piri Reis (Turkish). Davis (English) discovered and named them again in 1592, and Hawkins did the same in 1594. Certainly by 1600, they had been discovered.
Good post on the face of it, but discovery in 1600?
Before that date there were previous 'discoveries' of the islands. These were variously discovered by Magellan (Portugese), Vespucci (Florence), or Piri Reis (Turkish). Davis (English) discovered and named them again in 1592, and Hawkins did the same in 1594. Certainly by 1600, they had been discovered.
Let us hope that the history of 1982 will remain just that but let us also, as a Military Aviation forum, pay tribute to the skill and courage of all military aviators who engaged in that conflict. The Argentine Air Force seemed determined to prevent the retaking of the Islands by UK Forces, perhaps rather more so than its sister services. Appropriate then that the name of its commander, Brigadier General Lami Dozo, when spelled backwards became phonetically "Oh Sod 'em All"! We should respect such determination and they should respect ours and not make the same mistake again.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Fair enough - Sebald was definitely the first to definitively find the islands - rather than the Jason Islands, or one of the other smaller groups. It is true, however, that since Amerigo Vespucci's third trip Europeans have suspected that there were some islands there without knowing the precise detail. My broader point is that:
- title to the islands has been contested by at least four powers in the last 500 years;
- there was never an aboriginal people there;
- since 1833 the Falkland Islanders have become the people in who self-determination resides;
- that as the international law has changed post WW2, self-determination has become central to resolving the dispute;
ergo, Argentina is going nowhere on this as long as it cannot convince the Falklanders to become Argentines.
And I for one would - and regrettably at some point in the next 20 years may have to unless the Argentine body politic gets the message - fight for the Falkland Islanders' right to choose their own future.
I hope it doesn't come to a punch-up again; but I've an awful feeling that it will. Let's hope sanity on all sides prevails - as has been said, there's no reason that Argentina shouldn't do very well out of the oil, if indeed it is economically viable.
S41
Fair enough - Sebald was definitely the first to definitively find the islands - rather than the Jason Islands, or one of the other smaller groups. It is true, however, that since Amerigo Vespucci's third trip Europeans have suspected that there were some islands there without knowing the precise detail. My broader point is that:
- title to the islands has been contested by at least four powers in the last 500 years;
- there was never an aboriginal people there;
- since 1833 the Falkland Islanders have become the people in who self-determination resides;
- that as the international law has changed post WW2, self-determination has become central to resolving the dispute;
ergo, Argentina is going nowhere on this as long as it cannot convince the Falklanders to become Argentines.
And I for one would - and regrettably at some point in the next 20 years may have to unless the Argentine body politic gets the message - fight for the Falkland Islanders' right to choose their own future.
I hope it doesn't come to a punch-up again; but I've an awful feeling that it will. Let's hope sanity on all sides prevails - as has been said, there's no reason that Argentina shouldn't do very well out of the oil, if indeed it is economically viable.
S41
Chugalug,
I know this is more an aircrew forum than anything else....but while throwing credit about the place....one must remember the role played by the Army, Navy, and Marines in 1982. I assume your intent was not to diminish their role in the action but one should be sensitive to other's feelings in the matter.
It is not like I have any reason to say what I do...as I was not involved in any way... but the Lads humping heavy bergens and weapons over some very tough terrain, living out in the elements, and taking the fight to the enemy day after day, as well as the Navy standing by and taking losses while supporting the troops ashore just should not be left out when giving praise.
It took the efforts of everyone to accomplish what was done.....let's brag on all of them!
In my war, I flew support missions for the troops on the ground, taking them into the fight, supplying them while they were there, retrieving their dead and wounded, and flying them out afterwards. That was what I was there for....the guys on the ground....that was the reason for my being. I brag on them not my unit although I am very proud of what we did and how we did it. We took our losses too....just like the guys on the ground but they did the heavy work and dealt with the bad guys nose to nose.
I know this is more an aircrew forum than anything else....but while throwing credit about the place....one must remember the role played by the Army, Navy, and Marines in 1982. I assume your intent was not to diminish their role in the action but one should be sensitive to other's feelings in the matter.
It is not like I have any reason to say what I do...as I was not involved in any way... but the Lads humping heavy bergens and weapons over some very tough terrain, living out in the elements, and taking the fight to the enemy day after day, as well as the Navy standing by and taking losses while supporting the troops ashore just should not be left out when giving praise.
It took the efforts of everyone to accomplish what was done.....let's brag on all of them!
In my war, I flew support missions for the troops on the ground, taking them into the fight, supplying them while they were there, retrieving their dead and wounded, and flying them out afterwards. That was what I was there for....the guys on the ground....that was the reason for my being. I brag on them not my unit although I am very proud of what we did and how we did it. We took our losses too....just like the guys on the ground but they did the heavy work and dealt with the bad guys nose to nose.
Given that there has been talk of Argentina "not being alone" should things kick off again, which countries are likely to assist, and how? Are these "friends" likely to have stronger military capabilities than Argentina? There was talk of Flankers "giving the RAF something to think about" (or something along those lines) earlier in this thread; from which country would this threat materialise?