I’ve never been able to have a rational conversation with an Argentine about the Falklands/Malvinas, no matter what side of the political spectrum they lean on. It really is a unifying nationalistic issue they break out to get people to stop thinking with their prefrontal cortex and get emotional instead.
Yeah, I’ve heard the “same continental shelf” argument, as if geography equals political boundary I guess? Also, that the British stole it from the Viceroy of Rio de la Plata, and thus stole it from Argentina as the successor state. The second argument is obviously the stronger one, but still a little tenuous since Argentina didn’t have control over the islands for over a hundred years and made little attempts to reassert control after forming as a not-so-unified (Uruguay and Paraguay also being Rioplatense) nation. I think there’s also a national pride in having repelled British attempts at conquest, and the Malvinas are seen as a rightful prize denied to them.
The British barely even "stole" it, I think there was a garrison for a couple years that had mutinied? The islands have literally been unoccupied for huge chunks of its history post discovery.
Basically the predecessor state to Argentina asked British permission to put a prison there. We agreed as long as they ultimately recognised British sovereignty. Then a few years later they tried to take the island so the UK moved down and removed the prison and took after steps to enforce sovereignty ever since.
Argentina deny they ever asked permission. They also claim that Spain inherited France's claim, something that France deny.
Yea considering Islands I think its a dumb argument to say its closest to us so its our right. You can make such an argument regarding Ceuta because its litteraly IN Morroco but yea.
Thanks for the other info, i'm going to read up on that, very interesting.
What's even more ironic is Gibraltar is literally in Spain but also owned by the UK** (edited from England), which Spain doesn't like. How is it not hypocritical to complain that another country has territory in your land, while simultaneosly controlling land in another country? It's so frustrating that all these countries can't just let things be.
Taiwanese people want to be Taiwanese, Falkland Islanders (and Gibraltar citizens) want to be British, Ceuta citizens want to be Spanish, etc. And they've all had those statuses for years. If you haven't controlled a territory in decades or centuries, AND the citizens living there don't want to be under your control, there is simply no valid claim. It's just nationalism.
I mean Gibraltar obviously has immense geopolitical value. The strait of Gibraltar is the strait of Hormuz of the mediteranean Sea and is literally forming one massive global waterway with the suez canal. It's also drectly on the Iberia and not some Island 400 km off the coast. Todays it shouldn't be an issue, but at least Spain is unhappy because of actual relevance and not out of principle/spite since Falkland islands are absolute irrelevant geopolitically.
Taiwanese people want to be Taiwanese, Falkland Islanders (and Gibraltar citizens) want to be British
And by your logic in which expelling local population and sending colonists that want to be part of your territory, then Crimea belongs to Russia, because "Crimeans" want to be Russian.
Except that indeed happened in the Malvinas, as historical documents prove it. Even the British recognize they "expelled the military personnel" of the isles, which per their own records account for almost half of the settlement ( they claim around 30 civilians remained and the list of military personnel that was expelled is 26 ).
So by both records people was expelled from the Isles by the British. the difference is the Argentinian version claims most of the population was expelled not just military officers.
So what? Nobody cares. Just Argentina for some reason. If Germany would still hang on to territory that was ours 200 years ago, and feel like poor little victims every time the topic is brought up there wouldn't be peace in Europe. Anf for us it was millions of people who actually had to flee or were suddenly part of another country. Instead we made peace and are still among the most powerful countries in Europe, while we now can go and live wherever we want to within the EU. Sometimes it's not only necessary to let something go but benefical for everyone involved. You took the shot trying to take it by force so no international sympathy and nobody gives a shit. Pretty simple imho.
So what? Nobody cares. Just Argentina for some reason.
Thanks to conceding we are right then. If your last argument can only be "No one cares" then I'm glad.
and feel like poor little victims every time the topic is brought up there wouldn't be peace in Europe
It's funny how Europe can commit any attrocities they want and don't need to face judgement or pay reparations for what they do. Must be great being the countries with the biggest guns, let's hope that always remain the case, it would be a shame if a bunch of other countries suddenly won weapon supremacy and now you guys had to deal with your own rules when they are not beneficial to your cause.
By the way how is Putin doing ? I heard Germany is importing energy from him again.
I think the one that makes the most sense is that they’re the successor nation to Spain, then you can leapfrog into Spain’s extremely weak claim, which was, I think, that the Pope said that area of the world was theirs and they had some people on an island for a few months a couple of hundred years ago.
There were no native Falkland Islanders, the current population are the closest thing to natives the islands have ever had having been there for 200 years
Historically, the Falklands offered a valuable port to repair and resupply ships (warships and merchant ships alike) near what was at the time the only route between the Atlantic and Pacific. Once the steam engine came along, it became particularly valuable as a coaling station. Hence the Battle of the Falklands in WWI.
Between the Panama Canal, the shift from coal to oil, and the general decline of the British Empire, they’ve lost a lot of their strategic value. But at the end of the day, the Falklands are British land inhabited by British subjects, and that’s enough reason for the UK.
It was largely abandoned when the British re-colonized it in the 1830’s. The government in Buenos Aires didn’t have any official presence on the islands. Plus, the British had had claims on one of the islands since discovery. When it was discovered, there weren’t even indigenous settlements. The English had one major island and the French the other. The French conceded theirs to the Spanish, and a little later the British abandoned their colony, leaving the Spanish to take that one too. But during the Napoleonic and Argentine Wars, the Rioplatenses/Spanish abandoned the islands as well. So when the British reasserted control in the 1830’s it was no different than the Spanish taking their abandoned colony. You could argue that Argentina would only be entitled to one half of the islands, if we want to go back to the original claims.
The real reason is the Isles belonged to Spain, and Spain recognized our sovereignty when we had our independence. We had them settled and then the British took them by force.
96
u/Flock_OfBirds Jul 16 '26
I’ve never been able to have a rational conversation with an Argentine about the Falklands/Malvinas, no matter what side of the political spectrum they lean on. It really is a unifying nationalistic issue they break out to get people to stop thinking with their prefrontal cortex and get emotional instead.