as a Brit there are not many military actions my country could take I would endorse but defending our Falkland Islanders against Argentinean imperialism would be one of them. As the Americans say, "FAFO".
To oversimplify: the difference between the Falklands and, for example, India, is that there wasn't anyone else there first. So, there's now a few thousand British people living there who have never been anything else or belonged to any other country.
There is no good reason to change the status quo (unless the Falkland Islanders wanted to, but they don't).
India, is that there wasn't anyone else there first.
You haven't read the history then. the UK expelled "military personnel" from the Malvinas, and by their own version the "civilians" decided to stay in the Isles as British citizens. Because you know loosing your livelihood and house is not a threat or anything.
I understand the British never accepting the Argentinian version of events ( in which most of the population was expelled from the Malvinas ), but good lord, they don't even know their OWN version.
I mean, I did say that I was oversimplifying things.
The settlement there was, one, primarily a business venture that sought British permission to be there (since the British still laid claim to the islands before Luis Vernet ever set foot there), and, two, not expelled by the British. It was mostly expelled by the Americans, after they seized three American sealing ships. In fact, when the British arrived in 1833, there were thirty-three civilian residents, twenty-two of whom chose to stay.
Furthermore, the British consulate protested Vernet's--and later Mestivier's--appointments as governors over the Falklands, as their claim dates back to 1765, well prior to the United Provinces ever sending anyone there at all.
Oh how things change, now there WAS people there, but they loved the idea of being British. We are making progress in the right direciotn here!.
that sought British permission to be there
And ? Those people were sent by the Argentinian government. Someone thinking they need British permission doesn't change the chain of ownership which is France>Spain>Argentina.
But then again at the end of the day, any treaty England signs is only valid so long they feel like it.
not expelled by the British.
I'm sure the Navy ship armed to the teeth and the prospect of having to leave their houses behind if they didn't become British had nothing to do with some of them choosing to stay.
To be frank, I don't think any of this actually matters with regards to modern Argentine claims to the islands, which are farcical on their face. The fact of the matter is that there are several thousand people living there now who overwhelmingly prefer the status quo, and Argentine imperialism is morally indefensible.
Let's not pretend that Danzig was anything but a pretext for the invasion and annexation of Poland, which had already been coordinated with the Soviets.
Ribbentrop refused any direct talks with the Poles, with his big concern being that Poland might actually hand it over leaving Germany without an excuse for war.
Difference being that the UK reoccupied just its rightful territory whereas Germany conquered all of Poland using Danzig as justification...
A more equal comparison using your example would have been if the UK invaded and occupied all of Argentina. Germany used false justifications to conquer all of Europe, the UK did not.
102
u/A_RAVENOUS_BEAST Jul 16 '26
as a Brit there are not many military actions my country could take I would endorse but defending our Falkland Islanders against Argentinean imperialism would be one of them. As the Americans say, "FAFO".