Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 18th, 2013, 08:47 AM   #311

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,921
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
What is clear is simple: there is a colonial occupation, an Argentine vindication, an international support and a decadent colonialism
What a lot of cant about colonialism! Argentina is itself a colonial construct in which outsiders from Europe have taken over the country from the indigenous inhabitants, and introduced an alien culture. Your objection to the Falkland Islanders is just that they are the wrong kind of colonists! Why should they want to enjoy all those freedoms that you mention under Argentine rule when they already have self-determination under the British? It seems to me that what you should really be doing is trying to win them over! If you were honest, I think you would admit that their lives would become so uncomfortable under Argentinian rule that they would leave.
Linschoten is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 18th, 2013, 08:51 AM   #312

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,127

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
There you go again. If everyone thought like that, who would have risked D-Day? Surely the Germans would have realised where it was going to happen or had the sense to mount sea and air patrols to warn themselves of it? Surely their air defenses would have fended off bombing attacks given the intense defensive networks, integrated radar sites and interception squadrons, ground to air missiles, and other facilities?
And they did. It was called the Atlantic Wall. And look at the resources the Allies had to pour into it, along with immaculate planning, new technology and gaining air and sea superiority. None of which Argentina has the capability of doing.

Quote:
It would in fact be perfectly feasible to mask any modification of civilian vessels for this purpose. All you need to do is move ships around prior to loading and provide alternative explanations for their use. That happens to be standard misdirection which has been used in warfare for a very long time.
No, it wouldn't. You need contractors with military experience for that, not to mention the fact that you'd need both a large number of ships to be modified, as well as new purchases of new helicopters that would be give the mission a realistic chance of success, rather than being targets in a shooting gallery.

Quote:
You keep assuming the British automatically detect and defend. That's why you would lose a war. There is always the human element, always the unexpected, and simply because a Typhoon happens to be a well regarded fighter does not automatically mean the islands are safe from intrusion. After all, it wasn't the Spitfires and Hurricanes that fended off the Luftwaffe in 1940. It was the men who flew them, the men who organised their responses, those who supported their efforts on the ground, and we were lucky that we had enough foreign nationals willing to fight on our side because we ran well short of enough pilots ourselves.

The forces currently stationed on the island are there for deterrent, not defense. Most of the islands territories are pretty well unprotected and unpatrolled.
You're assuming that "human ingenuity" is going to prove to be a decisive factor, but your assumptions are based on simplistic scenarios, and you haven't made any suggestions of what is possible with Argentina's outdated inventory and resources. You've made claims about their military strength which have been shown to be inaccurate and based on factors such as political alliances, which bear no resemblence to the reality on the ground. And now you're trying to cover up that flawed analysis with a nebulous "human ingenuity" factor, as if the British don't have it as well. The Japanese in WW2 thought human spirit could overcome the disadvantage of material. They were wrong.

And if you want to draw another WW2 analogy, Hitler was busy moving around whole divisions and armies on his map that were divisions in name only. And that's why you'd lose your war, sending in forces that exist only on paper.

Last edited by Naomasa298; January 18th, 2013 at 09:01 AM.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:04 AM   #313
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,612

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Templario View Post
I do not intend to discuss here advantages or disadvantages of military power between the two countries, as it is clear that Argentina will not attempt any military action against the islands, but the path that has been chosen is the path of sovereignty, President Cristina F. Kirchner has reiterated in the most solid and peaceful way the demand that negotiations be opened, that the UN has encouraged for many years to resolve the conflict. The United Kingdom has refused to this instance, rejecting international law, because sitting at the table will be Argentina's first victory. And the beginning of the negotiation will be the beginning of the end of British colonial rule. It is the twenty-first century and colonialism is still present among us.

What is clear is simple: there is a colonial occupation, an Argentine vindication, an international support and a decadent colonialism. That Argentina society must examine that war is necessary, it is quite obvious that it is doing and will need to keep doing it. But sovereignty goes beyond the war. And should not be defined by military victory or defeat.

But when it rejects the sovereign Argentine proposition alluding to "the way of life of the Kelpers" actually is intended to outwit as established by unanimous decision in the National Constitution of Argentina. This states that "the Argentina Nation ratifies its legitimate and sovereignty over Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the corresponding maritime and insular areas for being an integral part of the national territory. Recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants and according the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people. "

Respect for the way of life is so simple inspiration and execution, Argentina must be always ready to welcome former Kelpers (now British) into Argentine nationality, but should not impose them. Should assume that a colony of British citizens will reside in the Argentine territory. No news for a country largely made up of immigrants and with a preface constitutional openness to "all men of the world." Former Kelpers will speak their language; pray the way they want, work freely, etc.

It is clear that Argentina's position is not intended to make them forced migrants. Support the theory of the "third actor" is simply accepted oblique and resignedly the British colonial rule.

The current Argentine position finds a remarkable support in Latin American countries and the international community.

It's just the British military power which maintains the unjust "status quo."
The instant the residents of the islands, to whom they rightfully belong, vote to open negotiations, I'm certain Her Majesty's government will oblige.

Furthermore, who is Argentina to complain about colonialism? Argentina is a state of colonists. According to Wikipedia's article on Argentina's demographics, over 85% of Argentina is of European ancestry and most the remainder are at least partially of European ancestry. If not for colonialism modern Argentina wouldn't even exist.

The United States has a better claim on Bermuda than Argentina has on the Falklands. Not only is it closer to the US and most it's trade is with the US, it was once part of Virginia and was even largely supportive of the American Revolution. But even in light of all that, it would be absurd for the US to claim Bermuda in this day and age without a clear mandate from the residents of the island and likely the consent of the British government in addition. The only people engaging in colonialism over the Falklands are the Argentinians, trying to force the islands under their dominion against the wishes of the inhabitants, a classic definition of colonialism if I've ever seen one.
constantine is offline  
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:48 AM   #314

Earl_of_Rochester's Avatar
Scoundrel
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Perambulating in St James' Park
Posts: 10,838

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Templario View Post
I do not intend to discuss here advantages or disadvantages of military power between the two countries, as it is clear that Argentina will not attempt any military action against the islands, but the path that has been chosen is the path of sovereignty, President Cristina F. Kirchner has reiterated in the most solid and peaceful way the demand that negotiations be opened, that the UN has encouraged for many years to resolve the conflict. The United Kingdom has refused to this instance, rejecting international law, because sitting at the table will be Argentina's first victory. And the beginning of the negotiation will be the beginning of the end of British colonial rule. It is the twenty-first century and colonialism is still present among us.

What is clear is simple: there is a colonial occupation, an Argentine vindication, an international support and a decadent colonialism. That Argentina society must examine that war is necessary, it is quite obvious that it is doing and will need to keep doing it. But sovereignty goes beyond the war. And should not be defined by military victory or defeat.

But when it rejects the sovereign Argentine proposition alluding to "the way of life of the Kelpers" actually is intended to outwit as established by unanimous decision in the National Constitution of Argentina. This states that "the Argentina Nation ratifies its legitimate and sovereignty over Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the corresponding maritime and insular areas for being an integral part of the national territory. Recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants and according the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people. "

Respect for the way of life is so simple inspiration and execution, Argentina must be always ready to welcome former Kelpers (now British) into Argentine nationality, but should not impose them. Should assume that a colony of British citizens will reside in the Argentine territory. No news for a country largely made up of immigrants and with a preface constitutional openness to "all men of the world." Former Kelpers will speak their language; pray the way they want, work freely, etc.

It is clear that Argentina's position is not intended to make them forced migrants. Support the theory of the "third actor" is simply accepted oblique and resignedly the British colonial rule.

The current Argentine position finds a remarkable support in Latin American countries and the international community.

It's just the British military power which maintains the unjust "status quo."


Why do you think the British military are there? The answer is because if they weren't then Argentina would try to nick the Falklands, they are there for defence.

The civilian population of the Falklands want to remain British, notice I said 'civilian'. Not 'military'.

Now, according to Self Determination shouldn't the people who actually live on the islands be given the right to choose who they want to belong to? That is after all, how the modern world works.

If a bunch of Argentinians go and claim British Falkland citizenship and then vote to join Argentina then you can have them back.

If Argentina invaded the Falklands and won and then deported all the British what would that be?

Colonialism?
Earl_of_Rochester is online now  
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:29 AM   #315
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
There you go again. If everyone thought like that, who would have risked D-Day? Surely the Germans would have realised where it was going to happen or had the sense to mount sea and air patrols to warn themselves of it? Surely their air defenses would have fended off bombing attacks given the intense defensive networks, integrated radar sites and interception squadrons, ground to air missiles, and other facilities?

It would in fact be perfectly feasible to mask any modification of civilian vessels for this purpose. All you need to do is move ships around prior to loading and provide alternative explanations for their use. That happens to be standard misdirection which has been used in warfare for a very long time.

You keep assuming the British automatically detect and defend. That's why you would lose a war. There is always the human element, always the unexpected, and simply because a Typhoon happens to be a well regarded fighter does not automatically mean the islands are safe from intrusion. After all, it wasn't the Spitfires and Hurricanes that fended off the Luftwaffe in 1940. It was the men who flew them, the men who organised their responses, those who supported their efforts on the ground, and we were lucky that we had enough foreign nationals willing to fight on our side because we ran well short of enough pilots ourselves.

The forces currently stationed on the island are there for deterrent, not defense. Most of the islands territories are pretty well unprotected and unpatrolled.
I'm really not sure what your point is here caldrail. A squadron of Tranche 3 Typhoons would wipe out the Argentine Air Force and Navy without considering other elements of the force mix.

There won't be any shortage of pilots on this occasion.
BookJunior is offline  
Old January 19th, 2013, 02:57 AM   #316

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,827

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
And they did. It was called the Atlantic Wall. And look at the resources the Allies had to pour into it, along with immaculate planning, new technology and gaining air and sea superiority. None of which Argentina has the capability of doing.
And the Atlantic Wall stopped the allied invasion for how long? As for getting onto the Falklands, if you doubt Argentina's ability to do it, read up about a certain conflict that happened in 1982.

Quote:
No, it wouldn't. You need contractors with military experience for that, not to mention the fact that you'd need both a large number of ships to be modified, as well as new purchases of new helicopters that would be give the mission a realistic chance of success, rather than being targets in a shooting gallery.
You need three ships. No more. There is no requirement for military contractual experience or indeed anything sophisticated at all. The element of suprise makes the operation possible and it's only the capture of important military objectives that is necessary in the first instance. Subdjucation is secondary and once the island is 'captured', a matter of routine because I doubnbt the islanders themselves would put up much resistance.

Quote:
You're assuming that "human ingenuity" is going to prove to be a decisive factor, but your assumptions are based on simplistic scenarios, and you haven't made any suggestions of what is possible with Argentina's outdated inventory and resources. You've made claims about their military strength which have been shown to be inaccurate and based on factors such as political alliances, which bear no resemblence to the reality on the ground. And now you're trying to cover up that flawed analysis with a nebulous "human ingenuity" factor, as if the British don't have it as well. The Japanese in WW2 thought human spirit could overcome the disadvantage of material. They were wrong.
Argentina's armoury isn't as outdated as you believe. They have, despite budgetary problems, engaged in upgrades and replacements, and as I pointed out earlier it's highly unlikely you know everything that Argentina has. My descriptions haven't been sjhown to be inaccurate at all. All that's happened is that some of you have dismissed them. As for 'human ingenuity' being a decisive factor, it always is. For crying out loud this is a history site. There's more than enough proof on these forums alone. As for the British, as last nights documentary on ther Falklands (The Great Falklands Gamble, shown on Channel 5) makes clear, it was British ingenuity in the face of appalling mistakes and operational hazards that made success possible (besides a lot of sores and blisters, and believe me, I know how painful those can be)

Quote:
And if you want to draw another WW2 analogy, Hitler was busy moving around whole divisions and armies on his map that were divisions in name only. And that's why you'd lose your war, sending in forces that exist only on paper.

Wow, mate, I don't even know where to start putting you straight about that.
caldrail is offline  
Old January 24th, 2013, 09:45 AM   #317

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,262

Oops!

Symbol of Argentina's Decaying Navy Sinks in Port - ABC News

For anybody wondering about the readiness of the Argentine navy, the veteran ARA Trinidad, veteran of the Falkands war and currently spare parts store of whatever theyre struggling to keep afloat since the government wont pay for enough spare parts just sank at portside.
Nemowork is online now  
Old January 24th, 2013, 12:12 PM   #318

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,383

^ !!! She was under review for possible conversion to a museum ship. Unique in being the only Type-42 in the world to be built outside Britain.
Sicknero is offline  
Old January 24th, 2013, 01:31 PM   #319

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,262

They could make a nice aquarium out of her now, thats always a good visitor attraction for the tourists coming in off the cruise ships?
Nemowork is online now  
Old January 24th, 2013, 02:46 PM   #320

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,127

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post

Wow, mate, I don't even know where to start putting you straight about that.
Why don't you try? You're the one who keeps making far-fetched WW2 analogies with nothing of substance to back them up. Every argument you've made in this thread about the capabilities of the Argentine military has been shown to be false, and you've been reduced to speculation about some nebulous "what if" scenarios (that you haven't been able to articulate) about some kind of "human ingenuity" factor that you seem to think would enable Argentina to be on a level playing field.

Yeah, and what if Britain nuked Buenos Aires?

When you're in a hole, it pays to stop digging.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
bashing, falklandsget, ready


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting the Economy ready for WWI Isoroku295 War and Military History 11 December 7th, 2010 07:35 AM
Hitler-bashing is boring. throughthepastdarkly European History 230 August 23rd, 2010 02:21 PM
Getting ready in the summer... ttanner History Teachers 2 May 30th, 2009 12:50 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.