(Advertisement/Werbung/El Alnuncio) Play War Thunder now for free and receive a cool bonus pack with boosters and vehicles by using my link: playwt.link/Politicswithpaint
While the British Army is weaker today than it was in 1982, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are both considerably stronger than they were during the first war. Both services have stealthy Lightning IIs in service, the RAF has the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the RN has two full-size aircraft carriers instead of the "through-deck cruisers" they had in the 1980s. The Argentine navy and air force, meanwhile, have never actually recovered from the 1982 war, and certainly couldn't prosecute a war in the Falklands even against the local garrison forces, let alone an expeditionary task force.
Not sure about the Royal Navy, the UK now has two large fleet carriers (one needing repairs to it's propulsion). Unfortunately the RN has less destroyers & frigates now to escort the carriers & landing force. A number of the RN destroyers/frigates were about to be decommissioned in 1982. but stayed on for the Falklands conflict. If the Argentines had waited a few months, the RN probably couldn't have done it. A lot of the RN fleet is old, & all 3 services are saying that they cannot really be expected to do the job they were designed to do. Thankfully for the Falklands/UK, the Argentine navy & economy is in even worse shape.
@@eze8970 Yes, the RN has fewer ships, but those it has are much, much more versatile. Old? No, not really. The oldest front-line warship in the RN is the _Hunt_ -class minesweeper HMS _Ledbury,_ which was launched in 1979. Old? Yes, but not bad by warship standards. Everything else is younger than her. The _Daring_ -class are genuinely world-class warships, the _Duke_ -class are aging but solid, and of course there is the Silent Service with their brand-new _Astute_ -class. The RN at the time of the Falklands War was a NATO navy, designed almost entirely for anti-submarine warfare, fighting Soviet submarines in the north Atlantic. The mistake in this fleet composition was glaringly obvious after the Falklands, so the RN has spent the last forty years restoring their capability. And yes, of course they're going to say that they can barely do the job they're expected to do - that's how you get funding. That's why the Army leaked the idea of scrapping all their tanks - nobody intended to do it, but they wanted public outcry to protect their budget.
@@Werrf1 Thank you for your reply. I appreciate what you say, but more versatile still can't have a ship in two places at the same time, that's the biggest issue, & when a ship has a systems failure, you have less redundancy. Anything from the last century is old. We are already 23 years into this century. During the first Gulf war, the UK had about 8-900 main battle tanks, it's now got about 250, the loss in capability is real. What hasn't helped is having to rebuild a lot of the barracks & infrastructure in the early 2000's, economic crashes & since 9/11, surveillance & cyber warfare take up far more of the budget from the same pot. The British Army is now done to around 80,000?, the lowest it's been for decades. It now also struggles for recruits, after various UK Governments have broken the covenant with it's armed forces. Yes, like you say, the UK armed forces have far more capability in some areas, like unmanned drones etc, but the old adage of 'boots on the ground' always rings true.
@@eze8970 It's true that 'more versatile' doesn't allow a ship to be in more places at once, but it _does_ allow you to perform the same mission with fewer ships. One Type 45 destroyer can track 2,000 targets at once, and engage 48 with a single salvo. That's more than all eight Type 42 ships in the Falklands task force _combined._ It's incorrect to assert that "anything from the last century is old" - the _hulls_ may be old, but warship systems are continuously upgraded and updated. Warships can and do serve for a _long_ time - they're too expensive to do otherwise. That said, all of the Type 45 _Daring_ -class are from the 21st century - the first was commissioned in 2009 - three of the Type 23 _Duke_ -class are from post-2000, and they're all scheduled to be replaced with the new Type 26 design starting in five years. That said, I agree with you that the British Army is in a poor state. In the post-2001 era it overspecialised in counter-insurgency, and has lost a lot of its heavy hitting power. That said, take a look at the last couple of decades - there was a huge, expensive project to replace the RAF's old Tornadoes with Typhoons, then a huge, expensive project to replace the _Invincible_ -class with the _Queen Elizabeth_ -class. Now everyone's talking about tanks; it makes sense that it's the army's 'turn', and sure enough the war in Ukraine has turned attention to fixing up the army's outdated equipment.
Ironic how Argentinians who are overwhelmingly of colonial and European decent (Argentine is even more white than the US), dismiss Falklanders' right to self-determination by calling them "none-native". Even though the Falklands had no native inhabitants while what is now Argentina did.
Patagonia: *exists* Edit: Patagonia was a region that prior to Argentine annexation had its own government and country that got colonized by Argentina not by Spain despite having its own native inhabitants while the first inhabitants of Falklands were not Argentinian but instead French and British
Because the UK has garisoned the Islands since the war, taking them again would be very difficult. For Argentina it it is a distraction from solving their own problems.
not a bad assessment, seems like the whole of South America doesn't want to pay attention to the real problems. The people need help and the government just wants to spend money on war or themselves. Military being in charge is never a good thing
They have always had a garrison, it's located at Moody Brook. The only reason why Argentina attack was because of Thatcher, she wanted a war so she could win her second election, so she egged the junta on by reducing the royal Marines down to 1/4 of the number, and it worked, only thing is Thatcher wanted it to happen the following year, so she would get a full term in office before calling a General Election, but because the attack came early she had to call a general election early
@@southerneruk That has to be one of the most entertainingly delusional comments I've ever seen. Thatcher "egged on the junta"? The election was almost a full year after Argentina surrendered. It wasn't called until almost 11 months after the surrender. Either you're trolling, in which case, bravo, or you're an amazing idiot.
I think one thing should have been pointed out and that is that despite how much Argentina may WANT to reconquer the islands, they functionally can't. The Argentine military is less capable now then they were in 1982.
the argentine military's decline is due to british opposition to any aquisition of modern equipment by the argentine army/air force etc, argentina had several projects to modernize and aquire new fleets of air craft and equipment but every time the british either struck a deal behind their backs and changed the sellers mind or just straight up threw a tantrum and didnt allow for argentina to buy those weapons, combine that with a strong opposition from our population to anything "military"(mostly trauma from the days of the dictatorship and results of only like 0.2% of our money going towards the military and defence industry) and you get an army that is understrenght, under equipped and not properly modernized, not to mention our basically non-existant air force. that and chile and brazil like to have an argentina without an useful miltary around since during the 1970's we were always at the brink of war lol.(specially chile, argentina and chile do NOT like eachother)
@@somefurryguy1811 Go on believing that if you want. It boils down to your government spending a very long time being really bad with money. Hell, they defaulted on a $500 million debt payment less than 3 years ago. Doing business with the Argentine government is risky.
@@somefurryguy1811 Of course the British will oppose you getting any modern equipment if the last time you had any they were used to invade British territory. Seems quite sensible of them to me. If the roles were reversed, am sure Argentina would do much the same.
@@somefurryguy1811 if Argentina stopped acting so aggressively towards the Islands, the UK might lift the embargo. Also, it isnt doing things behind closed doors, they just produce various parts for most modern equipment, giving them a VETO to who it is sent to
It’s worth noting that the captain of the Belgrano (Hector Bonzo) said that they were ordered to head INTO the exclusion zone and even said that he would’ve done the same thing as the British did
It doesn’t matter where he was heading, the exclusion zone was simply a place where any ship would get shot at no matter what banner it flew. However obviously an Argentinian ship would get shot at anywhere since they were at war.
Did he say that, or did he just say they weren't moving away from the TEZ? Subtle difference I know and either way, he did "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal".
The General Belgrano was heading away from the Exclusion Zone, however the ship was already at war and her heading was temporary. It was trying to make a pincer move with the Vincente De Mayo and was preparing to attack. Her captain morally exonerated the British decision, and it was legal due to the invasion itself having already opened hostilities. Furthermore and something that was not known at the time, prior to the sinking of the General Belgrano the Vincente De Mayo had sailed into strike range of the Task Force and had a fix on the British positions. She was green lit for air operations and would have made the first strike with her air group of Skyhawk bombers. However something very unusual occurred, there was exceptionally clam conditions and even at maximum speed there was not enough wind speed to conduct air operations. Thus the Argentinians had already actioned the first naval engagement, but freak weather had prevented it from being carried out. The sinking of the General Belgrano was legal, morally acceptable within the conduct of war, and tactically necessary.
I don’t think you understand. If it was resolved emphatically then why do Argentina still claim the islands? It’s not resolved until both sides come to an agreement.
@@theassasinboy13 Argentinian here. Govt's claim the islands for several reasons that have nothing to do with patriotic ones: 1) They are shitty at governing. They indeed gave lots of land away for foreign people and govt's. Soy they need a rethoric to make masses think they fight for "la patria". I bet they prefer never reaching the desired scenario, because that way they woudln't be able to be milking the subject in their favor. 2) War was declared by a dictatorial right-leaning gov't. So because most of the govt's are left-leaning, they need to invalidate any decision made by opposition, no matter they sent soldiers to die there. 3) There's a chance that there's oil in the continental platform that now is in British hands, so as usual, there are economic motivations behind. 4) Related with prior, we had two generations of indoctrination that claim the sovereignty of the islands for historical reasons, so it's hard to be objective here.
The Treaty of Tordesillas only establishes that Portugal makes no claim on the islands. Nobody else waived their rights to make any claims on the other side of the line.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... .
The sinking occurred outside of the Total Exclusion Zone. According to the Argentinians, the ship was not a threat at the time since it was heading away from the British Task force, while the British argue that the ship was a legitimate military target no matter its position. I had to cut that story to keep it somewhat short.
It's 'controversial' because Argentina wants it to be. The cruiser's captain even sided with the british that it was justified and he would've done the same.
@@PoliticswithPaint "The sinking occurred outside of the Total Exclusion Zone." And? "According to the Argentinians, the ship was not a threat at the time since it was heading away from the British Task force" Literal lies, tomorrow it would have headed to attack the british force in a pincer movement with the other force that was right outside of the northern side of the exclusion zone. "while the British argue that the ship was a legitimate military target no matter its position." Im not british, and thats literally just the truth.
The whole point of the exclusion zone was to keep civilian and neutral countries ships out with a simple warning that if they were to enter they’d likely be shot at without warning, lot of people have misconceptions of it, it never applied to the argies because we’d target their vessels anywhere.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Yea, even crew members, i think it was the captian of the ship have said publicly that they where going to flank round and try do that, i think i remember somthing about an Argy carrier was ament to take part in that pincer attempt but it got detrected and hunted first, but the battleship was still going to carry out its part, it was basicly the argies getting mad that their plan got stoped and for some unknown reason they naively thought that just cause the ship is outside the combat zone that it was immune from attack, they played dumb games got dumb prizes.
The island has no native populations that were there before colonialism. It was abandoned and then resettled, so for any intents and purposes the British people now living there can be considered native, and I think that alone settles the dispute.
Sorry to tell you, But that is lie. Argentine colinized before the british came. We have tried 3 Times and the third was succesfull, until the british came and expelled the islanders. Search about Luis Vernet If You don't trust me
@@jereferreira5086 sorry to tell you but it were the French then the Spanish (the French sell it to the Spanish) then the British but never the Argentina The British permit one person from Argentina to do whatever he is doing there but when he is gained the title of governors from Argentina then we come back to kick him out because we never permit him to own that island or even Argentina
The sinking of Belgrano was not controversial. The exclusion zone was designated that ANY ship or aircraft in this area may be attacked. Nobody said anything about Argentine forces being safe outside it. If they genuinely believed that this was the case, they were very naive.
It was controversial because the public didn't know what the exclusion zone meant. When asked about it in an interview, Thatcher chose to make a different argument rather than clear up the confusion. As a result, a lot of people in Britain assumed we'd done something _unfair._
It's because Argentina is weak. They are crybabies who tried to justify a fascist government's failed propaganda campaign. Don't engage with their bad faith.
Its just brought up by the Argentinian state in propaganda to prove the cruelties the British done to the Argentinians since it resulted in around a thousand deaths most deaths in one battle during the war and a national tragedy and to paint the British as brutes/savages
It’s crazy to say the right to self determination does not apply to these islands. 12:09 by saying “they are not native to this land” then give it to the penguins.
@@suburbanCyclist6 Crimea has been more Russian than Ukrainian throughout history. However even that was built on genocide of the preceding tatars, before them Goths and other steppe folk. If genocide is okay then it is legitimate Russian territory. However they did cede ther territory, but ceding territory is illegal in many nations, so the legitimacy of that can be questioned. Btw i'm absolutely racist towards russians, but the idea that ukraine has some long historical claim is nonsense, it has been russian longer than ukrainian.
I mean, if I remember correctly, Spain made a treaty with Uruguay when it got independent that gave it the Falklands, so if they aren't British, they are technically Uruguayan
In 1833, Ireland was part of the UK, California was part of Mexico and Alaska was part of Russia. The world has changed, accept it and move on! The people living there want to remain British. It is not like the argentinians were native to the islands either.
Well if there were to be any peace id suggest the English give them part of Port Louis as a lease with the United States. Not for the reason you might think. See the US has the descendants of the French Acadians that were the first inhabitants of the colony whom had to leave for the Spanish.
@@velnz5475 no. They want something from us and even if they only get 1/300 of it then it's still a win for them cause they're getting something that aren't even their And I won't ever let that happen
@@velnz5475 And bacteria beat us all to the entire planet by over a billion years. of course that's a totally silly argument, but that's why it has to be the people who live somewhere now who must decide who rules them. Historical arguments can rapidly get very, very silly.
@@velnz5475 The British would be happy to hand over the islands if there was a legitimate claims or if the islanders themselves wanted indepenance. They've done it many times with the rest of the Empire, such as India and Hong Kong and the entire commonwealth. But the Argentinians have no claim since the islands have always been a British colony for 400 years and the British are the native population. The Argentinians will have to convince the native population if they want the islands.
Just something I noticed you got wrong; The exclusion zone set up around the islands did not make everything in it a military target. It was specifically for civilian vessels to let them know that they MAY be fired apon, should they enter the exclusion zone. This did not apply for Argentine Navy vessels, which were rightly viewed as viable militart targets regardless of their positioning.
Involving Beijing in this kind of topic can be dangerous in the long run, it is ironic because the Argentine coast guard often finds Chinese vessels illegally fishing within their waters, as a Latino i would never understand why a lot of Latin American countries are seeking aid from China but is not like our governments cares about the people they just want power and we citizens are the ones' who paid the consequences of them aligning with such a corrupt and inhumane regime.
@@MJG2012 indeed On the other hand you have the history of USA involvement in Argentina and they do resent the Brits and USA and that's why they opted to get back up from China since it's a nuclear superpower now, all around a messed up situation.
China just wants legitimacy for it's adventure in the South China Sea. Research' Nine Dash Line'. And who knows remove the British from the Falklands and what a wonderful wonderful base China could have in the South Atlantic 😢
@Leck400 the natives...so you mean the penguins..because the island was completely uninhabited by any humans before the French...so yeah its "natives" are actually the English since they've been there the longest with claims to the island.
Argentina saying the referendum isnt legitimate because the people on the island aren't native has to bw one of the dumbest arguments ever. I guess most of the population of Argentina shouldn't be able to have a say either considering they aren't native to south America.
The People Who lives in the Island before the arrived of british were Argentinians and they were expelled of they land Like they did whit all other nations, cause its what the british are along all the history f**ck pirates
@bmj4659 The first English arrival in 1592, with the first landing being in 1690 and the first settlement being in 1765. Argentina wasn't a thing in any of these dates.
@bmj4659 The only reason there was a settlement in the 1820s is because British permission had been secured for it. This settlement was not expelled in 1833, only the illegal Argentine garrison was that Britain had warned against at least twice.
There is no middle ground solution here Argentina just need to realise their claim is fictitious and focus on other things. Joint sovereignty agreements are never long lasting and always end up coming to conflict in one form or another. (Not that there is any argument for this anyway) An British officer from the falklands war put it perfectly when interviewed after the conflict. He said ‘the Argentinians were fighting for the islands, we were fighting for the islanders’
I do not see Falklanders willingly accept a joint rule with a foreign imperialist power that a few decades ago killed several locals to conquer the islands
Listen here boss, anywhere the British have gone they have left nothing but trouble in their wake. Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, Israel, Las Malvinas, etc. Look at them (the British) now, they can barely keep their own country together. These sparsely populated islands are a remnant outpost of the past, a crumb of the former Empire. The British need to accept they are in the third division now and they don't like it one little bit. See how Brexit went for them. I have zero sympathy for this post-empire nationalist nostalgic spittle.
There's an easy way to do that: accept a mediation, let both sides expose their claims and fundaments, and give a verdict compliant with international law. But the British government rejected every attempt. So until then, it's an unresolved dispute.
@@moteroargentino7944 well yes? If Argentina claimed sovereignty over the Shetland islands and wanted to bring a case to the UN Britain would also refuse to partake as there is no basis for the discussion. You don't cater to fictitious claims !
@@stevetaylor8298Taiwan also has the largest claim of any country that includes parts of over 15 countries. So i wouldnt say legitimate unless they can actually take all that land back
Yea but way before that the British had kicked out the Argentine Settlers. And if the UK claims the Crimean referendum is invalid, the same can be said of the Falklands referendum.
@@tetraxis3011 Cope harder. 1513 votes for staying with U.K, 3 for going with Argentina. 92% turnout. I think that sums up where the people of the Falklands want to be.
@@tetraxis3011Your analogy only makes sense if Argentina not the UK held the referendum in the falklands and just decided to annex it regardless of the outcome.
Falkland islands could go to Chile it is economically more stable and there are actual Chileans on the island (and Falklanders and British on good terms with Chile) xd
@@GwainSagaFanChannel They could... But why? The island already voted and the vast majority wanted to stay a part of the UK. Giving the island to Chile would only assure conflict. Chile has border disputes with it's neighbors already. Giving them another neighbor that has a claim would absolutely lead to a war that would distabalize the entire region. No the Falkland staying with the UK is the best option.
Technically speaking all settlements prior to the British were temporary seasonal settlements the British did the first permenant self sustaining settlements
How is sinking an enemy cruiser in the middle of a war 'controversial'. Exclusion zone only means any ship no matter which country risks getting sunk. This doesnt mean war ships of the enemy get a free pass if they dont go in it.
The trouble was it was outside the exclusion zone when it happened - even though it was headed towards it. My friend was on the submarine that sank it and I fully agree with him saying it was justified
At this point with ever so declining economic situation in Argentina and with the Falkland islands having close ties with Chile and important trade partner its more likely it would seek to join Chile if it had to choose to join another power on top of that there are also some Chileans living on the island and the locals(Falklanders) and British themselves are on good terms with Chile since Chile is the only country in the region which did not condemn British presence on the islands
having been there myself, the locals will always be British and are vastly more patriotic then your average Brit. they never forget what happened to them and don't appreciate that many foreigners dont care what the falklanders wish. they also contributed a high number of people to fight in both world wars. you'll never convince them to join Argentina without brute force.
Sorry but there is nothing controversial about sinking the Belgrano. Even the captain - captain Bonzo-has publicly said it was a legitimate naval action. It was only people who objected to Thatcher who made it a controversy which the Argentinians then seized upon.
I love watching these videos about where I live, we learn a lot here about the war but it’s always interesting revisiting it and then going to sites where battles took place
For isolated islands, The Falklands has a variety of nationalities living there. In the 2012 census, a majority of residents listed their nationality as Falkland Islander (59 per cent), followed by British (29 per cent), Saint Helenian (9.8 per cent), and Chilean (5.4 per cent). A small number of Argentines also live on the islands.
I love your content so much! It combines 2 things i love! History and countryballs! Ive been subscribed ever since i discovered your channel (which was about a month ago).
@@randomanon8631 Scientific studies indicate otherwise. (And this also helps clarify the mystery of the warrah as that "fox" was unlikely to have found its own way there...) To quote, "Findings from a new study suggest that Europeans were not the first people to ever set foot on the Falkland Islands. Most of the evidence from the investigation indicates that Indigenous South Americans likely traveled to the Falkland Islands between 1275 C.E. and 1420 C.E., although earlier dates cannot be ruled out."
@@ReddwarfIVYes. The Falkland/malvinas islands should belong to Argentina as Gibraltar and Akrotiri and Dhekhelia should belong to Spain and Cyprus respectively
As an argentinian i always questioned our claim to the islands, in my perspective a literal drunken dictator who we now remember as a murderer started that war as a way to rally the population and stay in power, he sent thousands of ill equiped conscripts to their death, and now almost 50 years later our politicians still use the falklands/malvinas issue to rally nationalism, i guess its too useful for them to just admit it was a mistake in any way you see it, even thought everything else about the military dictatorship days has been declared cruel and wrong.
@@concept5631 I don't think our politicians are that noble, I think it's mostly for the votes, the points of this video on the "argentinian claim" are thaught on primary school, every argentinian hears those points as "truth" so for a politician to denounce our past mistakes would be career suicide, sorry if I'm not being clear my English is not the best
@@agustincuello493 I was referring to the people who willing let themselves be decieved by the Maldives bs Politicians are using it to get votes by manipulating the emotions of the populous as you said.
Bueno, the Argentinians should ask themselves if they really need these islands. By that I mean the ordinary Argentinian population. Don´t listen to the politicans, they brought you into this mess in the first place. Having Uruguayan citizenship and watching this from Europe, I still can´t make up my mind about whether these islands would truly be useful for Argentina. But I do feel one thing very strongly: The Falkland issue distracts from more serious issues that Argentina is facing. Economy, infrastructure, currency stability and employment are the areas that the country should be focused on. I always have a hard time when Argentinian politicans bring on the islands as a topic to rile up the population. It´s such a cheap cheat code just so that they can deflect from the serious matters that they can´t fix in the first place (or don´t want to). Abrazo grande para todos los Argentinos, sea como sea su opinión acerca de este tema!
It makes sense if you allow for right-wing politicians with slipping popularity, looking for an excuse to distract the people from how badly the politicians are running things, and look to nationalism to rally the populace.
It crops up every time Argentina starts going through a rough patch as a distraction tactic. Make demands about the Falklands, the British wearily repeat the same line as they have for decades which is "It's up to the Falklanders" and the Falklanders always say "British", and Argentinas politicos act like something out of a Mexican soap and try and say the islanders should be ignored without stating that outright as they know how bad it sounds. Here in the UK it always used to be picking a fight with the EU when things were going wrong, which Brexit rather pulled the pants down on, so we're left with a government with no similar distraction!
@@scoliosis9478 UK navy and airforce are better with 2 super carriers in the navy and 5th gen fighters in the airforce. Also a UK officer always holds the NATO deputy commander position so it's effectively officially recognised.
@@scoliosis9478 France has a weaker navy and relies on the UK for capabilities it doesn't have, e.g. for heavy lift in Mali. UK is stonger militarily than France.
The Falkland Islanders don’t want to belong to Argentina, it’s that simple. Seeing as they have inhabited the islands since the 1700s it’s theirs more than it is Argentina. But the Argies can try if they want….
Speaking on behalf of the British I have a message for any Argentinian who thinks the Falklands should be theirs….you can take the islands from our cold dead hands
'unresolved' in the sense that although they are British by international law and the will of the people, Argentina will always bitch and whine about The Falklands and demand re-negotiation
It's also worth noting that Falkland's pretty much consist of rocky hills, wet ground, marsh land and has similar weather and temperature to several parts of the UK. The Royal Marines were not only used to such temperatures because of well... living in the UK, but they also trained for such conditions. i.e marsh land, rocky hills and constant wet terrain etc in places like Wales and Scotland. They were pretty much ready to fight in such conditions. Meanwhile, the Argentine forces weren't used to such temperatures and terrain in the slightest.
The islands are British not Argentine!!! They were uninhabited then settled by the British and claimed by the British so therefore they are British. If they were settled by the Argentine instead of the British first then they would be Argentine but they’re not so they’re British
The dictators made it all up to stay in power thatcher attacked to stay in power both sides played a game of lies argentina was built by the British the olklands are owned by the British the mass murdering dictators of 8s argentina did this argentinas underclass working class are lied to with thos to distract from the truth argentina is a socialist shithole and a footballing God
At the closest point Argentina is 300 miles away from the Falkland's and a further 800 or so from South Georgia, France is only 20 miles from England but doesn't mean that France belongs to us
I like the way you think, I was thinking something similiar.... doesn't mean the Caribbean Islands belong to the USA because they are closer to the US than Mexico or any South American country's...but we respect self determination. Though Haiti does seem like it needs some Peace keeping forces to keep the innocent people safe from the gangs there. But that won't mean the USA or any other nation takes control.
The Argentinian claim is so convoluted and legalistic it's laughable. By their logic Ireland should still be part of Britain but you would never hear them make that argument
No, that would be British logic. No Argentine would make that mistake, because they know the Irish were a nation ever before there was an England, while the Malvinas/Falklands were uninhabited.
@@taintabird23 it was Britain that first unified Ireland. Before any Anglo-Norman presence there was no unified Irish nation. The idea of an independent unified Irish nation is about as old as the British settlement of the Falklands. At least in Ireland there are many people with British heritage. On the Falkland Islands there are no Argentinians
@@will9444555 Britain never unified Ireland, it did everything it could to cause division - a division which subsequently ruined Brexit, by all accounts. This is the source of the people of British heritage in Ireland. The recognition of an Irish nation by the people of Ireland dates to back to the early medieval period, and is well documented in the oldest vernacular literature in western Europe - the Irish language. The Irish saw Ireland as their homeland, and acknowledged a shared language, culture, customs, and understanding of Kingship. You, on the other hand, cannot tell the difference between a nation and a nation state. There is no logic that Ireland should ever have been 'part of Britain'. It was its own Island - Ireland - with its own culture and civilisation.
The Argentinians lost any claim to the islands when they tried to invade and take them by force. If they want to try a second time they are most welcome to try.
Rest of the world; Why do you think the Falklands are Argentinian ??? Argentina; Because The Pope gave Spain half of the world 300 years ago ! Britain; we're pissing ourselves laughing 😂😂😂😂😂
The sinking of the general Belgrano was fully justified as it was a hostile warship which could have posed a problem to the British fleet. Even the captain of the ship believed it was a justified attack. The exclusion zone was only used to warn other nations vessels to steer clear of the conflict.
Argentina haven't the power to invade the islands. The British have advanced radar, navy, air force and army presence there to defend the islands in the event of an invasion until further assistance arrives from nearby UK territories. While the islands were once claimed by Spain then they abandoned the islands, and later by the British no Argentinians ever lived there. The current inhabitants have been there for almost 200 years, its safe to say they are the rightful owners.
@@michaelmccomb2594Being the only nation in the Southern Americas to not support Argentina. Kept many Argentinian troops occupied during the conflict on their own borders.
@@michaelmccomb2594 @Olliebobalong Most of the Intelligence gathering, recon and radar happened through Chile. Thatcher later said without Chile's crucial help the war would of gone differently: "President Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands... Chile provided enormously valuable assistance. During the Falklands War, the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of Senator Evelyn Matthei.... He gave us early warning of Argentinian air attacks... One day, near the end of the conflict, the Chilean long-range radar had to be switched off for overdue maintenance. That same day - Tuesday 8th June, Argentinian planes attacked and destroyed the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram landing ships, with heavy casualties. We all owe him (Pinochet) - and Chile - a great debt" - Thatcher (6TH OCTOBER 1999) Someone above also mentioned that Chile intentionally concentrated their forces on the Argentine border to pin down Argentine troops to defend. Peru, in secret, violating Bolivian airspace sent aircraft fighters to Argentina along with missiles and some pilots. The peruvian fighter planes were landed and were repainted with Argentina colors and insignias to avoid drawing Peru into the conflict Why this is never talked about, I couldn't tell you but this omission of information distorts how the events took place.
If the British Falklanders are not native to the Falklands, then the Argentinians are not native to Argentina.They are descended from Europeans of course too. By the Argentinian's own logic they themselves would need to return to Europe before they can consider asking the British Falklanders to do so.
@@TheSwedishHistorian Not only a colony according to the ONU(definition voted by the vast mayorty of countries) but also a colony by simple checking the map. The Malvinas are thouthands of km away from Uk, in a different continent and serves no pourpose than to be a militar base in South Atlantic. That's how that colony started and that's what it is right now. As we speak there are more british soldiers than falklander there.
Good summary vid, +thx. : ) Map of "inherited" Argentine territories at 3:47 and, especially, 5:07 is "optimistic" of course, since Argentina did not actually expand South anywhere near Falklands latitudes until the conquests of the late 1870s/80s. Also, aside, Thatcher actually wanted to go to the UN to seek a diplomatic solution, but opposition leader Michael Foot's speech shamed her into taking direct action.
Indeed, the story behind the war is much more complicated, but I decided to cut all the internal politics in both the UK and Argentina for the sake of simplicity, so that people who are not that versed in those issues can follow.
@@PoliticswithPaint Hey, I personally wouldn't object to a one-hour version! ; ) Your presentation style is *way* better at stimulating an interest in history and geopolitics than trawling through "dry" history books, Wikipedia articles, etc. ^^
@@randomanon8631 it did not settle the island it basically kicked them off and said I claim this but wont settle it similarly to what they done in North America
This is one of the fairest videos on this subject. Some corrections though. 1:14 The oldest recorded charting of the islands was by Portuguese explorers. The first recorded landing was the Captain John Strong in 1690 an Englishman. 2:25 There was a war between Great Britain and Spain in 1770 and the Spanish did take control of the islands by force, but the subsequent treaty is not under dispute, the documentation exists. The Spanish and British had a co-claim, neither could co-opt the other. Both abandoned their colonies, but the British did return within 50 years (the international timeline for abandonment of territory), the Spanish did not. 4:04 The colony of the Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina) was led by Louis Vernet. Because the territory had a co claim Vernet sought permission for an economic colony from London and received permission so long as there was no military presence and importantly : it did not challenge the British claim. Yes that documentation also exists. As a Spanish successor colony no requirement of agreement from Spain was necessary. 4:20 The US Navy (USS Lexington) was dispatched to deal with piracy caused by Vernets colony.. 4:48 The Royal Navy (HMS Clio) was dispatched to deal with breach of contract and illegal militarisation of the islands. 4:57 The Argentinian commander was kicked out as correctly stated, so was the illegal garrison, but Vernet's colonists were not. The new settlers from the UK which came afterwards settled alongside the "Argentine" colonists. Incidentally Vernet had not paid them and the British government settled their wages. This is crucially important as the only rational land claim that Argentina has is via Vernet's colony, which was set up with permission. This colony still exists, their descendants are Falkland Islanders and their express opinion is not to be Argentine. 5:10 Argentina did not protest the 'Malvinas question' until the eastly twentieth century, by which time several generations of the current peoples of the islanders had lived on the Falklands. 5:58 It is true that a number of short sighted politicians and civil servants in the UK were considering abandoning the population in the 1970's. 13:50 This video does include the threat of China, most don't. If there is an invasion it will be a thinly disguised Chinese one, with an Argentinian flag on islands which will be a colony of China in all but name. This is the true threat.
Exactly. Orkney wants to join Norway. If tthe islanders thought they’d get a good deal they’d side with the Argentinians but rhetoric about expelling the colonisers isn’t very persuasive.
There is nothing to resolve or debate about the Falkland Islands. A lion doesn't have a need to listen to a rabbit. Having been to the Falklands I can categorically state, that there is not a cat in hells chance of Argentina retaking them with the current state of their military
Not this guy again 💀 The "conflict" ended 41 years ago. After that, one side has owned the Falklands whilst the other side has done nothing but whinge. The first British settlement on the islands literally predates every single sovereign state in the Americas, including Argentina.
Speaking as neither a Briton or Argentine, I find the claims of Argentina on those Island rather dubious and I think historical or geographic claims are irrelevant compared to the will of the people who actually live there: to go against their will is old-fashioned imperialism. I think it was absolutely right for Britain to reclaim those Islands, not only for the sake of the inhabitants but to show Argentina, and indeed the rest of the world, that military conquests these days are not being tolerated anymore. Had Britain submitted it may very well have started other wars as the world saw that they could get away with it. Same thing is true for all the political and military support for Ukraine: if we hadn't done that other wars would follow right up.
You make a fair point: the Argentine invasion was outrageous, and honestly pitiful, coming from an illegitimate, oppressive dictatorship run by sadistic buffoons. However, the British claim is not immensely stronger simply due to 'the will of the people who live there'. Western European nations - and to some degree, the United States - will always stay on top of everyone else until they are justly penalized for their imperial and colonial crimes against humanity. Just look at what they did with South Africa... moving a bunch of people somewhere and calling it their new home, even if generations goes by, does not wash away colonial legacy.
@@joklit what they did to south africa? you mean embargo and diplomatically isolate them until they ended apartheid? but by all means, punish people for things they've never done
@@joklit Thanks for your reaction, but I cannot agree with your second point. One: Argentina is a Latin country that is a product of colonialism itself. Two: as the Islands did not have a native population when the Europeans showed up there was no violent conquest, the Kelpers are in fact the native population. Third: I cannot agree with the notion that colonialism was inherently bad. It also produced good things, for example: it ended slavery among the Africans and Arabs in the British and French colonies; it ended the habit of ritual wars and headtaking among the Naga in East Asia; missionaries often did improve the lives of native people with education and modern technology. We cannot look at history with a simplistic black and white umbrella view: things are good when they are good and bad when they are bad and most often they are a shade of grey, and colonialism is no exception.
The Argentines have seriously reduced their military since the military junta ended. They simply don’t have the marines, ships, or aircraft to take the islands
British victories in Falklands War: Battle of San Carlos Battle of Mount Tumbledown Battle of Goose Green Battle of Mount Harriet Battle of Two Sisters Battle of Mount Longdon Battle of Mount Kent Battle of Wireless Ridge 💪🇬🇧
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory ........ .... .
@@yaqui4994Excellent argument, we didn't win when invading the mainland, but this is about the Falklands, which we absolutely won for comparatively low casualties.
@@thecoolestofthe834s2 My brother in Christ. We didn't use rocket artillery in the Falklands war, at all, we didn't bloody have any, and if you care to show actual evidence of British war crimes, instead of just saying they did, then please do, it would substantiate your point instead of bringing to mind the Argentine war crimes. (False surrender among them.)
The same outcome, the British army would chase them back to the mainland after too many deaths. The people who live there should be the only ones asked who they would rather be governed or protected by
@@leon-jj9dvArgentina as a state only colonise part of Chaco and nearly all east of the Patagonia. The rest of the colonization was made by Spain but Argentina have resposability because part of it population are descended of the Spanish settlers and because it is a post colonial sucesor state. But Argentina have already take care of this problem by giving constitional rights to native peoples, however this right implemented better in some parts of the country than others. The case of the island however is different. First of all the United Kingdom never have a right claim. The settlement of 1965 was illegal considering that the french reclaim all the islands and that they settled first, in fact the United Kingdom know what and as a consequence they make the expedition a secret, the British crew don't know where they are going until they abandoned the Rio the Janeiro port to go to the islands. Second by 1811 the island were abandoned and they don't have any population, making them terranulis, an as a consequence Argentina can colonised it, and the previous claim became insignificant because there is not population to claim the territory. After that the United Kingdom make a ilegal occupation of the territory because they are the most powerful great power and so they do that. Finally self-determination right can not be applied to settlers because if not you can literally conquest a determined territory and flood it with your people to make sure you win the referendum.
@@firstname3343yeah lots of them are mestizos, however because of racism in society some say they ar white when they have at least some native American ancestry.
In 1977 in Brazil, I met an Argentine student who had fled from his country in fear of being murdered in the street by Government forces. Sad, bad times.
French fun-facts about the Falklands : 1- The Spanish name, Malvinas, comes from the French name "Malouines" (Ma-Lu-Win) which means from the town of Saint-Malo. At the time of the visit of French explorer Bougainville in 1764, Saint-Malo was a very important French sea-port in the Britanny region of France. It's fishermen were already fishing around these waters. The spanish called it contraband. 2- During the Falkland war of the 1980s, the Argentinians sank a Brittish ship with a French missile bought earlier, when everybody used to be friends. It caused quite a diplomatic strain between France and the UK and their friendly relationship stayed a bit cold for a time. The name of the missile was "Exocet" : that's how every French people learned that exocet was the real name of the flying-fish.
There's nothing to resolve or debate about. The islands have never been Argentinian; they were settled by Britain before Argentina was even a concept in someone's mind. We've trounced them in a war, and the inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British subjects.
Well, we argentines disagree. They were settled by Spain way before the british even consider going there like the rest of Argentina. Then we gained independence just like the 12 colonies did from the UK. The UK would never claim Virginia would they?
@@rodrigocastillo110 Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816. Britain settled the Falklands in 1765 (prior to which there were no native inhabitants). Damn Argies making stuff up yet again.
@@DaBIONICLEFan you see, this is why argentines don't take any of what the brits claim seriously. You choose the dates that suit you. But France settled them before and Spain bought them from France. The UK was never in the picture. The islands declared Independence from Spain in 1816 as the rest of Argentina.
This is probably the most unbiased video about the conflict there is. The video doesn't favor britain nor argentina, it just states the facts in chronological order, leaving it to the viewer to take a stance. Good work.
@@SuperClappy1984 "it has never been called las malvinas" The first recorded name of the islands is "Malouines", by the french, who were the first to settle there too. Even if all of this were not true (it is) it doesn't change the fact that today, in all spanish speaking countries, they are called Malvinas, and not falklands. It may surprise you to know that we also don't say england, we say Inglaterra, and that we don't say London, we say londres, because we speak a different language, and we sometimes name things differently. Shocker, i know. "The dispute was settled in 1982 end of" no, it was not. The falklands are still on the UN decolonization committe, and every year they make a point to remind Argentina and the UK to talk about it. Besides, Argentina never renounced its claims. That was not on the peace deal. When a dispute is settled, these things are written in such documents. Ignoring the opposing side claim is not settling it. The war didn't settle the british claim, as argentina never formally renounced it.
@@SuperClappy1984 I know you brits hold your last few rocks with zeal, I know you don't want to admit your glory days are over, but don't be obtuse for god's sake. It is an active dispute, and malvinas is still the name of the islands in spanish. Even if argentina disappeared tomorrow they would still be called that way in spanish. That much can't be denied.
@@SuperClappy1984 Look mate If you want to plug your ears and act like nothing happens, more power to you I guess, but the claim exists, it's an ongoing dispute, and Argentina has some international backing so it's not a child's rant.
In 1982 war was never declared. It was just a skirmish and Argentina lost. As long as the public in the Falklands want to remain British so it will remain.
Who should own them?) Generational inhabitants opinion is all that truly matters, they say British. Could it happen again?) 4 Typhoons w/ Meteors guard the islands. They alone are enough to wipe out Argentinas entire current air force, which still uses the same planes from the 1980s. Even with some old chinese fighters the Typhoons would probably win. Plus UK has F35s now.
@@tetraxis3011did you seriously just say the most modern aircraft in the world in terms of stealth, flight capability, and whatever else we don't know about it isn't a large advantage over an air force fleet of mostly relics from the cold war?
@@federicofernandez1842 voluntarily hahaha, and what about all the people Argentina expelled from the territory? You guys are hilarious… cognitive dissonance. It’s incredible 70 years of propaganda has turned you all in to morons.
@@zigongosaurus5274 they did not. Just because Argentina didn't specifically claimed the sovereignty of the islands in the treaty, doesn't mean they gave up on them. It was just a peace treaty between UK and Argentina unrelated to the subject.
@federicofernandez1842 The Treaty explicitly stated that all disputed territories were to be formally in the hands of the conqueror/occupier. Which included the Falklands. Which means Argentina signed away its claim to the Falklands, further evidenced by the fact that you went 96 years not claiming them whatsoever.
Just a tip. You don’t have to keep saying “Falklands or Malvinas “to make out your unbiased. When I speak English I use the English word for the islands ,Falklands, and when I speak Spanish I say Malvinas.
No. Why would Argentina want to risk it? They have an even weaker military than last time, the UK has actively beefed up the defences of the islands etc. It wouldn't do much to fixr the economic problems Argentina is facing either especially if NATO allies decide to slap sanctions on them (Argentina doesn't have the economic base to try and resist said sanctions like Russia has tried to). It'd be nice if Britain and Argentina could have a compromise argument of "Well we disagree on the islands but let's try and not let that get in the way of having better relations".
no because you dont cater to un terrorist's who would under any circumstance invade your small country to steal all your shit you do exactly what the argies do see a british ship call the navy and send them back over dont care how much your engines broken dont care whos on board either leave or finish us off and if you send an destroyer to run the shoals of our shores you sink it with mines and send no help because the brits would and have done the same
I genuinely don’t understand why the sinking of the general belgrano is so controversial. The exclusion zone was a warning to civilian vessels and aircraft. If you have an active combat vessel, unless it is in the national waters of a neutral country, it is a justified target.
13:28 A distinction I think needs to be clarified here, are these countries supporting the stance (i.e. negotions or no negotiations) or claims of each country? The fact that Chile was included on Agentina's side makes me believe it's the former, but with highlighted countries mostly being in the Americas or current global powers makes me believe the latter Edit: typo
Evaluating every country's position in this issue is a mess. Most countries are somewhat neutral and tend to support negotiations, but it's kind of a spectrum. Some countries like Russia are officially neutral, but government officials have made fairly pro-Argentinian statements. There are many such unclear cases like Chile, which has supported the UK in the past (especially during the war) but also has its own dispute with the UK about Antarctica. And also Pakistan and India, which have a complicated relationship with the UK to say the least. The map I show should be taken as a vague idea of where some countries lean towards. Its yet to be seen if Argentina's renewed diplomatic efforts to gain open support will be successful, like in the case of China.
The region as a whole and people who have family or originate from it do support Argentina but most Westerners and Easterners do not care and just support status quo
@@PoliticswithPaintThank you As a Brit myself I'm not surprised by India's and China's stance on the issue; it's perfectly in line with a realist approach to geopolitics (whether one believes in that theory or not). Plus, as you mentioned with India and Pakistan, I do think both countries as well as China were influenced somewhat by resentment of the empire. I knew Argentina had widespread support in Latin America, save for Chile (but then as you said, the overlapping Antarctic claims), that's why I originally posted. Was surprised by France's stance at first, but since you mentioned the Antarctic situation, I actually think I makes sence; Britain, France, Norway, Australia and New Zealand all mutually recognise each others Antarctic claims (none of them overlap), thus maybe France in supporting Britain here is bolstering it's Antarctic claims (especially when the treaty comes up for revision in the 2040's). Pretty far speculation, but interesting to think about. Great video as always Mr Paint! Edit: typo... again
In 2013 the Falklanders voted overwhelmingly NO to become Argentinians. But then, who would want to part of a country with a tendency to make people vanish into dark torture cellars, have an economy for which the word "tanked" is a compliment and chuck rocks at people over a license plate? The Argies were taught that lesson once. If they need to be taught that lesson again, they should be taught in a way they'll never forget.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
(Advertisement/Werbung/El Alnuncio)
Play War Thunder now for free and receive a cool bonus pack with boosters and vehicles by using my link: playwt.link/Politicswithpaint
Ok
@@hungariancountryball2928Ok
Dude, you got a spelling mistake
that is a good pack
Hi!! This Channel is So Cool , I have Been Following u In 2 Days I Suggest to Make a Video about Iran-Saudi Proxy War
While the British Army is weaker today than it was in 1982, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are both considerably stronger than they were during the first war. Both services have stealthy Lightning IIs in service, the RAF has the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the RN has two full-size aircraft carriers instead of the "through-deck cruisers" they had in the 1980s. The Argentine navy and air force, meanwhile, have never actually recovered from the 1982 war, and certainly couldn't prosecute a war in the Falklands even against the local garrison forces, let alone an expeditionary task force.
Not sure about the Royal Navy, the UK now has two large fleet carriers (one needing repairs to it's propulsion). Unfortunately the RN has less destroyers & frigates now to escort the carriers & landing force. A number of the RN destroyers/frigates were about to be decommissioned in 1982. but stayed on for the Falklands conflict. If the Argentines had waited a few months, the RN probably couldn't have done it.
A lot of the RN fleet is old, & all 3 services are saying that they cannot really be expected to do the job they were designed to do.
Thankfully for the Falklands/UK, the Argentine navy & economy is in even worse shape.
@@eze8970 Yes, the RN has fewer ships, but those it has are much, much more versatile. Old? No, not really. The oldest front-line warship in the RN is the _Hunt_ -class minesweeper HMS _Ledbury,_ which was launched in 1979. Old? Yes, but not bad by warship standards. Everything else is younger than her.
The _Daring_ -class are genuinely world-class warships, the _Duke_ -class are aging but solid, and of course there is the Silent Service with their brand-new _Astute_ -class. The RN at the time of the Falklands War was a NATO navy, designed almost entirely for anti-submarine warfare, fighting Soviet submarines in the north Atlantic. The mistake in this fleet composition was glaringly obvious after the Falklands, so the RN has spent the last forty years restoring their capability.
And yes, of course they're going to say that they can barely do the job they're expected to do - that's how you get funding. That's why the Army leaked the idea of scrapping all their tanks - nobody intended to do it, but they wanted public outcry to protect their budget.
Yeah add in the submarine fleet Britain has as well. It would be over before it started
@@Werrf1 Thank you for your reply. I appreciate what you say, but more versatile still can't have a ship in two places at the same time, that's the biggest issue, & when a ship has a systems failure, you have less redundancy.
Anything from the last century is old. We are already 23 years into this century.
During the first Gulf war, the UK had about 8-900 main battle tanks, it's now got about 250, the loss in capability is real.
What hasn't helped is having to rebuild a lot of the barracks & infrastructure in the early 2000's, economic crashes & since 9/11, surveillance & cyber warfare take up far more of the budget from the same pot.
The British Army is now done to around 80,000?, the lowest it's been for decades. It now also struggles for recruits, after various UK Governments have broken the covenant with it's armed forces.
Yes, like you say, the UK armed forces have far more capability in some areas, like unmanned drones etc, but the old adage of 'boots on the ground' always rings true.
@@eze8970 It's true that 'more versatile' doesn't allow a ship to be in more places at once, but it _does_ allow you to perform the same mission with fewer ships. One Type 45 destroyer can track 2,000 targets at once, and engage 48 with a single salvo. That's more than all eight Type 42 ships in the Falklands task force _combined._
It's incorrect to assert that "anything from the last century is old" - the _hulls_ may be old, but warship systems are continuously upgraded and updated. Warships can and do serve for a _long_ time - they're too expensive to do otherwise. That said, all of the Type 45 _Daring_ -class are from the 21st century - the first was commissioned in 2009 - three of the Type 23 _Duke_ -class are from post-2000, and they're all scheduled to be replaced with the new Type 26 design starting in five years.
That said, I agree with you that the British Army is in a poor state. In the post-2001 era it overspecialised in counter-insurgency, and has lost a lot of its heavy hitting power. That said, take a look at the last couple of decades - there was a huge, expensive project to replace the RAF's old Tornadoes with Typhoons, then a huge, expensive project to replace the _Invincible_ -class with the _Queen Elizabeth_ -class. Now everyone's talking about tanks; it makes sense that it's the army's 'turn', and sure enough the war in Ukraine has turned attention to fixing up the army's outdated equipment.
Ironic how Argentinians who are overwhelmingly of colonial and European decent (Argentine is even more white than the US), dismiss Falklanders' right to self-determination by calling them "none-native". Even though the Falklands had no native inhabitants while what is now Argentina did.
Patagonia: *exists*
Edit: Patagonia was a region that prior to Argentine annexation had its own government and country that got colonized by Argentina not by Spain despite having its own native inhabitants while the first inhabitants of Falklands were not Argentinian but instead French and British
@@GwainSagaFanChannel pentagonia
Yeah lol. The implanted population living on previously native land yelling at the native population living on previously uninhabited land.
@@GwainSagaFanChannel I don't get you point.
@@zigongosaurus5274you can't have natives in non inhabited lands lol
Because the UK has garisoned the Islands since the war, taking them again would be very difficult. For Argentina it it is a distraction from solving their own problems.
You can tell how bad things are domestically in Argentina by how loud they start whining about the Falklands.
not a bad assessment, seems like the whole of South America doesn't want to pay attention to the real problems. The people need help and the government just wants to spend money on war or themselves. Military being in charge is never a good thing
They have always had a garrison, it's located at Moody Brook. The only reason why Argentina attack was because of Thatcher, she wanted a war so she could win her second election, so she egged the junta on by reducing the royal Marines down to 1/4 of the number, and it worked, only thing is Thatcher wanted it to happen the following year, so she would get a full term in office before calling a General Election, but because the attack came early she had to call a general election early
@@southerneruk That has to be one of the most entertainingly delusional comments I've ever seen. Thatcher "egged on the junta"?
The election was almost a full year after Argentina surrendered. It wasn't called until almost 11 months after the surrender.
Either you're trolling, in which case, bravo, or you're an amazing idiot.
Also there is radar on the Falkland's that will warn of an attack.
I think one thing should have been pointed out and that is that despite how much Argentina may WANT to reconquer the islands, they functionally can't. The Argentine military is less capable now then they were in 1982.
the argentine military's decline is due to british opposition to any aquisition of modern equipment by the argentine army/air force etc, argentina had several projects to modernize and aquire new fleets of air craft and equipment but every time the british either struck a deal behind their backs and changed the sellers mind or just straight up threw a tantrum and didnt allow for argentina to buy those weapons, combine that with a strong opposition from our population to anything "military"(mostly trauma from the days of the dictatorship and results of only like 0.2% of our money going towards the military and defence industry) and you get an army that is understrenght, under equipped and not properly modernized, not to mention our basically non-existant air force.
that and chile and brazil like to have an argentina without an useful miltary around since during the 1970's we were always at the brink of war lol.(specially chile, argentina and chile do NOT like eachother)
@@somefurryguy1811 Go on believing that if you want. It boils down to your government spending a very long time being really bad with money. Hell, they defaulted on a $500 million debt payment less than 3 years ago.
Doing business with the Argentine government is risky.
Sign a devil deal with China get all they need
@@somefurryguy1811 Of course the British will oppose you getting any modern equipment if the last time you had any they were used to invade British territory. Seems quite sensible of them to me. If the roles were reversed, am sure Argentina would do much the same.
@@somefurryguy1811 if Argentina stopped acting so aggressively towards the Islands, the UK might lift the embargo. Also, it isnt doing things behind closed doors, they just produce various parts for most modern equipment, giving them a VETO to who it is sent to
It’s worth noting that the captain of the Belgrano (Hector Bonzo) said that they were ordered to head INTO the exclusion zone and even said that he would’ve done the same thing as the British did
^ this.
It doesn’t matter where he was heading, the exclusion zone was simply a place where any ship would get shot at no matter what banner it flew. However obviously an Argentinian ship would get shot at anywhere since they were at war.
Did he say that, or did he just say they weren't moving away from the TEZ? Subtle difference I know and either way, he did "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal".
The General Belgrano was heading away from the Exclusion Zone, however the ship was already at war and her heading was temporary. It was trying to make a pincer move with the Vincente De Mayo and was preparing to attack. Her captain morally exonerated the British decision, and it was legal due to the invasion itself having already opened hostilities.
Furthermore and something that was not known at the time, prior to the sinking of the General Belgrano the Vincente De Mayo had sailed into strike range of the Task Force and had a fix on the British positions. She was green lit for air operations and would have made the first strike with her air group of Skyhawk bombers. However something very unusual occurred, there was exceptionally clam conditions and even at maximum speed there was not enough wind speed to conduct air operations.
Thus the Argentinians had already actioned the first naval engagement, but freak weather had prevented it from being carried out.
The sinking of the General Belgrano was legal, morally acceptable within the conduct of war, and tactically necessary.
@@owensquelch449We weren't officially at war
"The dispute over these islands remains unresolved"
No, it was resolved, quite emphatically.
I don’t think you understand.
If it was resolved emphatically then why do Argentina still claim the islands? It’s not resolved until both sides come to an agreement.
@theassasinboy13 Then it will never be resolved. Both sides have a vested interest in keeping it a dispute, especially Argentina.
@theassasinboy13 it is resolved. its accepted world wide that they are British.Argantina has never had any claims.
@@theassasinboy13 Because they're sore losers?
@@theassasinboy13 Argentinian here. Govt's claim the islands for several reasons that have nothing to do with patriotic ones:
1) They are shitty at governing. They indeed gave lots of land away for foreign people and govt's. Soy they need a rethoric to make masses think they fight for "la patria". I bet they prefer never reaching the desired scenario, because that way they woudln't be able to be milking the subject in their favor.
2) War was declared by a dictatorial right-leaning gov't. So because most of the govt's are left-leaning, they need to invalidate any decision made by opposition, no matter they sent soldiers to die there.
3) There's a chance that there's oil in the continental platform that now is in British hands, so as usual, there are economic motivations behind.
4) Related with prior, we had two generations of indoctrination that claim the sovereignty of the islands for historical reasons, so it's hard to be objective here.
The Treaty of Tordesillas only establishes that Portugal makes no claim on the islands.
Nobody else waived their rights to make any claims on the other side of the line.
Plus that treaty has been voided for more then 250 years with both Spain and Portugal abandoning it.
Argentina wasn't even a country when the British colonised the island.
Their claims are illegitimate.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
.
@@yaqui4994 Falklands - UK 1 Argentina 0!?!
That's not at all how the Treaty works, idk why this has so many upvotes lol
What is controversial about sinking an enemy cruiser in war? To me it wouldnt be controversial if it was sunk in port.
The sinking occurred outside of the Total Exclusion Zone. According to the Argentinians, the ship was not a threat at the time since it was heading away from the British Task force, while the British argue that the ship was a legitimate military target no matter its position. I had to cut that story to keep it somewhat short.
It's 'controversial' because Argentina wants it to be. The cruiser's captain even sided with the british that it was justified and he would've done the same.
@@PoliticswithPaint "The sinking occurred outside of the Total Exclusion Zone." And?
"According to the Argentinians, the ship was not a threat at the time since it was heading away from the British Task force" Literal lies, tomorrow it would have headed to attack the british force in a pincer movement with the other force that was right outside of the northern side of the exclusion zone.
"while the British argue that the ship was a legitimate military target no matter its position." Im not british, and thats literally just the truth.
The whole point of the exclusion zone was to keep civilian and neutral countries ships out with a simple warning that if they were to enter they’d likely be shot at without warning, lot of people have misconceptions of it, it never applied to the argies because we’d target their vessels anywhere.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Yea, even crew members, i think it was the captian of the ship have said publicly that they where going to flank round and try do that, i think i remember somthing about an Argy carrier was ament to take part in that pincer attempt but it got detrected and hunted first, but the battleship was still going to carry out its part, it was basicly the argies getting mad that their plan got stoped and for some unknown reason they naively thought that just cause the ship is outside the combat zone that it was immune from attack, they played dumb games got dumb prizes.
The island has no native populations that were there before colonialism. It was abandoned and then resettled, so for any intents and purposes the British people now living there can be considered native, and I think that alone settles the dispute.
Sorry to tell you, But that is lie. Argentine colinized before the british came. We have tried 3 Times and the third was succesfull, until the british came and expelled the islanders. Search about Luis Vernet If You don't trust me
@@jereferreira5086 sorry to tell you but it were the French then the Spanish (the French sell it to the Spanish) then the British but never the Argentina
The British permit one person from Argentina to do whatever he is doing there but when he is gained the title of governors from Argentina then we come back to kick him out because we never permit him to own that island or even Argentina
@@jereferreira5086 British arrival on the falklands - 1690. Argentine arrival on the Islands - 1829
@@jereferreira5086 oh, also the settlers that came under Vernet (a year before Argentina claimed them), were allowed to remain
@@G.A.C_Preservebut the people of today are British, so it doesn’t matter who lived there before for short times
The sinking of Belgrano was not controversial. The exclusion zone was designated that ANY ship or aircraft in this area may be attacked. Nobody said anything about Argentine forces being safe outside it. If they genuinely believed that this was the case, they were very naive.
It was controversial because the public didn't know what the exclusion zone meant. When asked about it in an interview, Thatcher chose to make a different argument rather than clear up the confusion.
As a result, a lot of people in Britain assumed we'd done something _unfair._
@@ReddwarfIV
Doing something unfair?
In a war??
I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.
@@concept5631 It's just not cricket, I tell you.
It's because Argentina is weak. They are crybabies who tried to justify a fascist government's failed propaganda campaign. Don't engage with their bad faith.
Its just brought up by the Argentinian state in propaganda to prove the cruelties the British done to the Argentinians since it resulted in around a thousand deaths most deaths in one battle during the war and a national tragedy and to paint the British as brutes/savages
1513 votes for staying with U.K, 3 for going with Argentina. 92% turnout. I think that sums up where the people of the Falklands want to be.
It’s crazy to say the right to self determination does not apply to these islands. 12:09 by saying “they are not native to this land” then give it to the penguins.
@@IAmWarden.The UK says the same for the Crimean referendum. Hypocrites.
@@tetraxis3011crimea has historically been Ukrainian while the Falkland were never Argentine
@@tetraxis3011 Russians rigged referendum with a less than 37% turnout
@@suburbanCyclist6 Crimea has been more Russian than Ukrainian throughout history. However even that was built on genocide of the preceding tatars, before them Goths and other steppe folk. If genocide is okay then it is legitimate Russian territory. However they did cede ther territory, but ceding territory is illegal in many nations, so the legitimacy of that can be questioned.
Btw i'm absolutely racist towards russians, but the idea that ukraine has some long historical claim is nonsense, it has been russian longer than ukrainian.
The Belgrano wasn't a "cruise vessel", as you claim, but a cruiser: a warship.
Pretty sure he called it a cruiser
After Argentina's logic Spain should own this islands lmao.
Or the penguins... ; )
I mean Spain have a far more legitimate claim than the argies ever did
By your logic, Spain should own Argentina then.
I mean, if I remember correctly, Spain made a treaty with Uruguay when it got independent that gave it the Falklands, so if they aren't British, they are technically Uruguayan
doesn't matter who, if its not bri'ish ex-slavers
In 1833, Ireland was part of the UK, California was part of Mexico and Alaska was part of Russia. The world has changed, accept it and move on! The people living there want to remain British. It is not like the argentinians were native to the islands either.
Well if there were to be any peace id suggest the English give them part of Port Louis as a lease with the United States. Not for the reason you might think. See the US has the descendants of the French Acadians that were the first inhabitants of the colony whom had to leave for the Spanish.
@@velnz5475 no. They want something from us and even if they only get 1/300 of it then it's still a win for them cause they're getting something that aren't even their
And I won't ever let that happen
They want to remain British because they came from Britain. Well, send them back to Britain then.
@@velnz5475 And bacteria beat us all to the entire planet by over a billion years. of course that's a totally silly argument, but that's why it has to be the people who live somewhere now who must decide who rules them. Historical arguments can rapidly get very, very silly.
@@velnz5475 The British would be happy to hand over the islands if there was a legitimate claims or if the islanders themselves wanted indepenance. They've done it many times with the rest of the Empire, such as India and Hong Kong and the entire commonwealth.
But the Argentinians have no claim since the islands have always been a British colony for 400 years and the British are the native population. The Argentinians will have to convince the native population if they want the islands.
Just something I noticed you got wrong; The exclusion zone set up around the islands did not make everything in it a military target. It was specifically for civilian vessels to let them know that they MAY be fired apon, should they enter the exclusion zone.
This did not apply for Argentine Navy vessels, which were rightly viewed as viable militart targets regardless of their positioning.
Involving Beijing in this kind of topic can be dangerous in the long run, it is ironic because the Argentine coast guard often finds Chinese vessels illegally fishing within their waters, as a Latino i would never understand why a lot of Latin American countries are seeking aid from China but is not like our governments cares about the people they just want power and we citizens are the ones' who paid the consequences of them aligning with such a corrupt and inhumane regime.
Very dangerous - it’s essentially because Beijing sees similarities to its claim to Taiwan.
@@MJG2012 indeed
On the other hand you have the history of USA involvement in Argentina and they do resent the Brits and USA and that's why they opted to get back up from China since it's a nuclear superpower now, all around a messed up situation.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
@@PeacePetalsaid the frog to the honey badger 😕
China just wants legitimacy for it's adventure in the South China Sea. Research' Nine Dash Line'. And who knows remove the British from the Falklands and what a wonderful wonderful base China could have in the South Atlantic 😢
"It used to belong to Spain" when you aren't Spain and "it is closer to us" are not valid arguments.
Also when you consider the fact that not many on the island want to be part of Argentina. Most are completely fine being under UK rule.
@@actually-will1606 If you kick out the natives...
@@Leck400 The natives were the french who soon abandoned the island and the brits settled a year later
@@baguette2117 Irrelevant. The Brits and the French left.
@Leck400 the natives...so you mean the penguins..because the island was completely uninhabited by any humans before the French...so yeah its "natives" are actually the English since they've been there the longest with claims to the island.
Argentina saying the referendum isnt legitimate because the people on the island aren't native has to bw one of the dumbest arguments ever. I guess most of the population of Argentina shouldn't be able to have a say either considering they aren't native to south America.
The People Who lives in the Island before the arrived of british were Argentinians and they were expelled of they land
Like they did whit all other nations, cause its what the british are along all the history f**ck pirates
@bmj4659 The first English arrival in 1592, with the first landing being in 1690 and the first settlement being in 1765. Argentina wasn't a thing in any of these dates.
@bmj4659 The only reason there was a settlement in the 1820s is because British permission had been secured for it. This settlement was not expelled in 1833, only the illegal Argentine garrison was that Britain had warned against at least twice.
you the british always justify the colonialism, is so disgustin as israel do in palistine
@bmj4659 Not even gonna address the facts just gonna continue whining about muh colonialism 🙄
There is no middle ground solution here Argentina just need to realise their claim is fictitious and focus on other things.
Joint sovereignty agreements are never long lasting and always end up coming to conflict in one form or another. (Not that there is any argument for this anyway)
An British officer from the falklands war put it perfectly when interviewed after the conflict. He said ‘the Argentinians were fighting for the islands, we were fighting for the islanders’
I do not see Falklanders willingly accept a joint rule with a foreign imperialist power that a few decades ago killed several locals to conquer the islands
Listen here boss, anywhere the British have gone they have left nothing but trouble in their wake. Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, Israel, Las Malvinas, etc. Look at them (the British) now, they can barely keep their own country together. These sparsely populated islands are a remnant outpost of the past, a crumb of the former Empire. The British need to accept they are in the third division now and they don't like it one little bit. See how Brexit went for them. I have zero sympathy for this post-empire nationalist nostalgic spittle.
we cant
There's an easy way to do that: accept a mediation, let both sides expose their claims and fundaments, and give a verdict compliant with international law. But the British government rejected every attempt. So until then, it's an unresolved dispute.
@@moteroargentino7944 well yes? If Argentina claimed sovereignty over the Shetland islands and wanted to bring a case to the UN Britain would also refuse to partake as there is no basis for the discussion. You don't cater to fictitious claims !
China: "Malvinas are Argentinian!"
Britain: "Shut it West Taiwan!"
Britain (to add more controversy): STFU North Tibet
*South Mongolia gotta support historical claims afterall.
So true, Taiwan has a legitimate claim to the mainland, not the other way round.
@@stevetaylor8298Taiwan also has the largest claim of any country that includes parts of over 15 countries. So i wouldnt say legitimate unless they can actually take all that land back
West Korea is more precise, judging from how it’s ruled nowadays
The uk held a referendum on the islands in 2013, all but 3 people voted to stay as an overseas territory of the uk
Yep 90% also voted to become Russians in Crimea
Yea but way before that the British had kicked out the Argentine Settlers.
And if the UK claims the Crimean referendum is invalid, the same can be said of the Falklands referendum.
@@tetraxis3011 they didn’t, according to the video, the Americans kicked them out after they attacked American fishermen, and this was 200 years ago.
@@tetraxis3011 Cope harder. 1513 votes for staying with U.K, 3 for going with Argentina. 92% turnout. I think that sums up where the people of the Falklands want to be.
@@tetraxis3011Your analogy only makes sense if Argentina not the UK held the referendum in the falklands and just decided to annex it regardless of the outcome.
If it did Argentina would simply lose again.
Wait until Argentina bought DF missiles it will sink UK aircraft carrier
Exactly
And considering that Argentina has being for years in a horrible economic death spiral, it would also push for another regime change.
Falkland islands could go to Chile it is economically more stable and there are actual Chileans on the island (and Falklanders and British on good terms with Chile) xd
@@GwainSagaFanChannel They could... But why? The island already voted and the vast majority wanted to stay a part of the UK. Giving the island to Chile would only assure conflict. Chile has border disputes with it's neighbors already. Giving them another neighbor that has a claim would absolutely lead to a war that would distabalize the entire region.
No the Falkland staying with the UK is the best option.
"not native to this land" *laughs in spanish*
Well... they kinda do. The French were the first natives, and right after them, the British.
But the French left completely.
Laughs in English, when the British were there before the Spanish 😂
Just wait until science brings back the warrah! *laughs in "fox"*
Technically speaking all settlements prior to the British were temporary seasonal settlements the British did the first permenant self sustaining settlements
@@GwainSagaFanChannel there were Argentines living on the islands before the Brits came and kicked them off
How is sinking an enemy cruiser in the middle of a war 'controversial'.
Exclusion zone only means any ship no matter which country risks getting sunk. This doesnt mean war ships of the enemy get a free pass if they dont go in it.
The trouble was it was outside the exclusion zone when it happened - even though it was headed towards it. My friend was on the submarine that sank it and I fully agree with him saying it was justified
Mate! Great Britain runs the whole world. The Universe is ours! (There but for the grace of God). Anything else is a disease!
@@flyingscotsman9657 As someone put it, ships can change direction
At this point with ever so declining economic situation in Argentina and with the Falkland islands having close ties with Chile and important trade partner its more likely it would seek to join Chile if it had to choose to join another power on top of that there are also some Chileans living on the island and the locals(Falklanders) and British themselves are on good terms with Chile since Chile is the only country in the region which did not condemn British presence on the islands
That's the perfect solution. If you can't satisfy both parties, make them both unhappy!
That would definitely cause a war between Chile and Argentina.
@J.o.s.h.u.a. or the brits keep them since nobody can take them and they want to stay british
@@מ.מ-ה9דand we brits would back the Chileans up
Actually that would be pretty cool
having been there myself, the locals will always be British and are vastly more patriotic then your average Brit. they never forget what happened to them and don't appreciate that many foreigners dont care what the falklanders wish. they also contributed a high number of people to fight in both world wars. you'll never convince them to join Argentina without brute force.
Sorry but there is nothing controversial about sinking the Belgrano. Even the captain - captain Bonzo-has publicly said it was a legitimate naval action. It was only people who objected to Thatcher who made it a controversy which the Argentinians then seized upon.
I love watching these videos about where I live, we learn a lot here about the war but it’s always interesting revisiting it and then going to sites where battles took place
For isolated islands, The Falklands has a variety of nationalities living there. In the 2012 census, a majority of residents listed their nationality as Falkland Islander (59 per cent), followed by British (29 per cent), Saint Helenian (9.8 per cent), and Chilean (5.4 per cent). A small number of Argentines also live on the islands.
Falklander are British
@@G.A.C_Preserve I think that 29% means mainland British, as in UK.
@@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs. colonial British are also British
@@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs. but ok
Saint Helenian? Napoleons ancestors?
I love your content so much! It combines 2 things i love! History and countryballs! Ive been subscribed ever since i discovered your channel (which was about a month ago).
Unless the Argentinians are penguins, their claim of 'but you aren't native to the island' is invalid, because neither are they lmao
Settlers from el Rio de la Plata where the first people to live in the islands
@@randomanon8631 Scientific studies indicate otherwise. (And this also helps clarify the mystery of the warrah as that "fox" was unlikely to have found its own way there...)
To quote, "Findings from a new study suggest that Europeans were not the first people to ever set foot on the Falkland Islands. Most of the evidence from the investigation indicates that Indigenous South Americans likely traveled to the Falkland Islands between 1275 C.E. and 1420 C.E., although earlier dates cannot be ruled out."
@@randomanon8631And that makes them natives?
@@randomanon8631 And Argentinians aren't the first people to live in Argentina. Does that mean they should be deported from their own country?
@@ReddwarfIVYes. The Falkland/malvinas islands should belong to Argentina as Gibraltar and Akrotiri and Dhekhelia should belong to Spain and Cyprus respectively
Love the video🎉. This is a subject I can always watch
An Argentine cruiser, a warship equipped with missiles and six-inch guns. Not a cruise vessel.
That's an incredibly important distinction.
Argentina: Economics collapse. Awaken nationalism, claims nearby land. (Falklands/Malvinas)
UK: Enough of this sheet!
40 yeras later
Venezuela: Economics collapse. Awaken nationalism, claims nearby land. (Guyana)
UK: Ah, sheet, here we go agian!
Uk = Now country poor economy in crisis failes
“The British on the islands need for self determination doesn’t count because they aren’t nativeee!!!”
The Native American in Argentina: “ *bruh* ”
and how many Argentineans are native to Argentina?
@@allanmurphy8183Not that many, especially after WWII and the influx of German speaking Argentinians.
@@allanmurphy8183they are about 1.5% of the Argentine population
@@SuperCatacata senor hilter
As an argentinian i always questioned our claim to the islands, in my perspective a literal drunken dictator who we now remember as a murderer started that war as a way to rally the population and stay in power, he sent thousands of ill equiped conscripts to their death, and now almost 50 years later our politicians still use the falklands/malvinas issue to rally nationalism, i guess its too useful for them to just admit it was a mistake in any way you see it, even thought everything else about the military dictatorship days has been declared cruel and wrong.
They want to think their people didn't die for nothing.
@@concept5631 I don't think our politicians are that noble, I think it's mostly for the votes, the points of this video on the "argentinian claim" are thaught on primary school, every argentinian hears those points as "truth" so for a politician to denounce our past mistakes would be career suicide, sorry if I'm not being clear my English is not the best
@@agustincuello493 I was referring to the people who willing let themselves be decieved by the Maldives bs
Politicians are using it to get votes by manipulating the emotions of the populous as you said.
@@agustincuello493 If we ever meet, I am buying you SO many beers, mate.
Bueno, the Argentinians should ask themselves if they really need these islands. By that I mean the ordinary Argentinian population. Don´t listen to the politicans, they brought you into this mess in the first place. Having Uruguayan citizenship and watching this from Europe, I still can´t make up my mind about whether these islands would truly be useful for Argentina. But I do feel one thing very strongly: The Falkland issue distracts from more serious issues that Argentina is facing. Economy, infrastructure, currency stability and employment are the areas that the country should be focused on. I always have a hard time when Argentinian politicans bring on the islands as a topic to rile up the population. It´s such a cheap cheat code just so that they can deflect from the serious matters that they can´t fix in the first place (or don´t want to). Abrazo grande para todos los Argentinos, sea como sea su opinión acerca de este tema!
I never understood the animosity. It's much better to actually cooperate with islanders and resume trade with them.
They were, until they decided to invade.................
It makes sense if you allow for right-wing politicians with slipping popularity, looking for an excuse to distract the people from how badly the politicians are running things, and look to nationalism to rally the populace.
It crops up every time Argentina starts going through a rough patch as a distraction tactic. Make demands about the Falklands, the British wearily repeat the same line as they have for decades which is "It's up to the Falklanders" and the Falklanders always say "British", and Argentinas politicos act like something out of a Mexican soap and try and say the islanders should be ignored without stating that outright as they know how bad it sounds.
Here in the UK it always used to be picking a fight with the EU when things were going wrong, which Brexit rather pulled the pants down on, so we're left with a government with no similar distraction!
for the war, and they make fon of the argentinians who died and hate us, so it doesn't matter
@@Beedo_Sookcool what right wing? argentina the last 20 years, 16 were ruled bi center left
I can already tell you what the partnership between Argentina and China means: China will have a go at the Falklands and Argentina will take on Taiwan
China cant get enough forces to the falklands to hold onto them
Do you by any chance work in logistics in the Russian army...?
@@Mcsqwif not, they're probably hiring...
As an Argentine. We have basically 0 military capabilities even for a small war
Fun fact:
Top gear almost restarted the war during the Patagonia special
Yes, I remember the controversy. It was because of the inscription in the car was H982 FKL
bad part is it wasn't clarksons fault
The car came with that number plate, those numbers actually represent the factory in Stuttgart where it was built
It was a Porsche 928 for god sake 😂
It's clear the penguins have the best case of ownership under international law
Henry VIII as head of the church gave everywhere to the English so who cares what the Pope said.
Argentina effectively has no navy or airforce whereas Britain is the No2 NATO military and a true global power with a cutting edge navy and airforce.
agree with the sentiment but arguably no.3 in NATO I think the French might beat the UK out
@@scoliosis9478 UK navy and airforce are better with 2 super carriers in the navy and 5th gen fighters in the airforce. Also a UK officer always holds the NATO deputy commander position so it's effectively officially recognised.
@@scoliosis9478 French has a better army but not navy. The royal navy is where all the money goes.
@@scoliosis9478 France has a weaker navy and relies on the UK for capabilities it doesn't have, e.g. for heavy lift in Mali. UK is stonger militarily than France.
@@mikelovesbaconFrance has more atomic bombs
Of course Argentina would look to China for support, both countries want an island they can't have.
Good one.
Good one
Good one
Good one
It's just lip service anyway china has no intention of doing anything it's just an empty political stance.
I can just hear Eddie Izzard saying "Yes, but do you have a plaque?"
"No plaque, no islands. You can't have one."
The Falkland Islanders don’t want to belong to Argentina, it’s that simple. Seeing as they have inhabited the islands since the 1700s it’s theirs more than it is Argentina. But the Argies can try if they want….
It seems like the matter has been settled.
Speaking on behalf of the British I have a message for any Argentinian who thinks the Falklands should be theirs….you can take the islands from our cold dead hands
I really like how far you've come. Don't forget us when you're at 1 mill subs :)
How is it unresolved as the falkland islander voted to remain part of Britain?
They are illegal settlers. It's as if some hobbos take your home while you are on vocation and claim that it's now theirs.
It’s „unresolved“ in the sense that Argentina still wants to play colonizer and keeps their demands.
'unresolved' in the sense that although they are British by international law and the will of the people, Argentina will always bitch and whine about The Falklands and demand re-negotiation
Because Argentina argue that since it is 'illegel' setttlement all along, any referandam of the islanders isn't count as legitimated.
It's unresolved because one side is a white European nation and they are always the bad guys on the internet.
Imagine if the penguins take it from both Argentina and Britain
emu war 2
Then finally the USA can reclaim what’s rightfully ours.
Reclaim the Franklin Islands!
@@Cpt_Boony_HatYou've had enough land, fatty
It's also worth noting that Falkland's pretty much consist of rocky hills, wet ground, marsh land and has similar weather and temperature to several parts of the UK. The Royal Marines were not only used to such temperatures because of well... living in the UK, but they also trained for such conditions. i.e marsh land, rocky hills and constant wet terrain etc in places like Wales and Scotland. They were pretty much ready to fight in such conditions. Meanwhile, the Argentine forces weren't used to such temperatures and terrain in the slightest.
The islands are British not Argentine!!! They were uninhabited then settled by the British and claimed by the British so therefore they are British. If they were settled by the Argentine instead of the British first then they would be Argentine but they’re not so they’re British
The dictators made it all up to stay in power thatcher attacked to stay in power both sides played a game of lies argentina was built by the British the olklands are owned by the British the mass murdering dictators of 8s argentina did this argentinas underclass working class are lied to with thos to distract from the truth argentina is a socialist shithole and a footballing God
Malvinas are in argentinian territory AND that make em of them
@@terrorbilly306 it's 300 miles away from Argentina and not in thee territory that's like saying the channel islands are in Frances terrortory
@@audie-cashstack-uk4881 the malvinas are in the sea of argentina bruh
@@terrorbilly306 the channel islands are on the French coast your point is lol Falklands were brittish owned before argetina EXISTED
At the closest point Argentina is 300 miles away from the Falkland's and a further 800 or so from South Georgia, France is only 20 miles from England but doesn't mean that France belongs to us
I like the way you think, I was thinking something similiar....
doesn't mean the Caribbean Islands belong to the USA because they are closer to the US than Mexico or any South American country's...but we respect self determination. Though Haiti does seem like it needs some Peace keeping forces to keep the innocent people safe from the gangs there. But that won't mean the USA or any other nation takes control.
*Cough* Jersey...
It's like saying Alaska should belong to Canada
@@Brans-zy8dxit does
@@jujuUK68 I think you will find that jersey has a whole different story behind it
The Argentinian claim is so convoluted and legalistic it's laughable. By their logic Ireland should still be part of Britain but you would never hear them make that argument
No, that would be British logic. No Argentine would make that mistake, because they know the Irish were a nation ever before there was an England, while the Malvinas/Falklands were uninhabited.
@@taintabird23 it was Britain that first unified Ireland. Before any Anglo-Norman presence there was no unified Irish nation. The idea of an independent unified Irish nation is about as old as the British settlement of the Falklands. At least in Ireland there are many people with British heritage. On the Falkland Islands there are no Argentinians
@@will9444555 Britain never unified Ireland, it did everything it could to cause division - a division which subsequently ruined Brexit, by all accounts. This is the source of the people of British heritage in Ireland.
The recognition of an Irish nation by the people of Ireland dates to back to the early medieval period, and is well documented in the oldest vernacular literature in western Europe - the Irish language. The Irish saw Ireland as their homeland, and acknowledged a shared language, culture, customs, and understanding of Kingship.
You, on the other hand, cannot tell the difference between a nation and a nation state.
There is no logic that Ireland should ever have been 'part of Britain'. It was its own Island - Ireland - with its own culture and civilisation.
Wow 4 paragraphs of pure cope. History is what it is. The Garlic system was a fragmented one. You're just gonna have to cope with that reality buddy
@@will9444555 Yes, I 'cope' very well.
Tell me of this 'fragmented' 'Garlic' system? I have never heard anything so asparagus.
Challenge me.
The Argentinians lost any claim to the islands when they tried to invade and take them by force. If they want to try a second time they are most welcome to try.
as it happens in China in some opium wars.
Sounds entertaining
Islas Malvinas is Argentina
Rest of the world; Why do you think the Falklands are Argentinian ???
Argentina; Because The Pope gave Spain half of the world 300 years ago !
Britain; we're pissing ourselves laughing 😂😂😂😂😂
The sinking of the general Belgrano was fully justified as it was a hostile warship which could have posed a problem to the British fleet. Even the captain of the ship believed it was a justified attack. The exclusion zone was only used to warn other nations vessels to steer clear of the conflict.
Argentina haven't the power to invade the islands. The British have advanced radar, navy, air force and army presence there to defend the islands in the event of an invasion until further assistance arrives from nearby UK territories.
While the islands were once claimed by Spain then they abandoned the islands, and later by the British no Argentinians ever lived there. The current inhabitants have been there for almost 200 years, its safe to say they are the rightful owners.
The massive role of Chile and to a lesser extent Peru is also interesting in this conflict.
What role did Chile play?
@@michaelmccomb2594Being the only nation in the Southern Americas to not support Argentina. Kept many Argentinian troops occupied during the conflict on their own borders.
Peru? What?
@@michaelmccomb2594 @Olliebobalong Most of the Intelligence gathering, recon and radar happened through Chile.
Thatcher later said without Chile's crucial help the war would of gone differently:
"President Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands... Chile provided enormously valuable assistance.
During the Falklands War, the Chilean airforce was commanded by the father of Senator Evelyn Matthei.... He gave us early warning of Argentinian air attacks... One day, near the end of the conflict, the Chilean long-range radar had to be switched off for overdue maintenance. That same day - Tuesday 8th June, Argentinian planes attacked and destroyed the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram landing ships, with heavy casualties.
We all owe him (Pinochet) - and Chile - a great debt"
- Thatcher (6TH OCTOBER 1999)
Someone above also mentioned that Chile intentionally concentrated their forces on the Argentine border to pin down Argentine troops to defend.
Peru, in secret, violating Bolivian airspace sent aircraft fighters to Argentina along with missiles and some pilots. The peruvian fighter planes were landed and were repainted with Argentina colors and insignias to avoid drawing Peru into the conflict
Why this is never talked about, I couldn't tell you but this omission of information distorts how the events took place.
"The Argies decided to make the Falklands a military question, and we have shown them the answer"
By Argentina’s logic. Every one in Argentina who isn’t a Native American should leave as they are colonisers 😂😂😂
If the British Falklanders are not native to the Falklands, then the Argentinians are not native to Argentina.They are descended from Europeans of course too.
By the Argentinian's own logic they themselves would need to return to Europe before they can consider asking the British Falklanders to do so.
Malvinas are a colony. Argentina is not, it's an independent nation.
@@percelomalsdaits not a colony though. its a territory. its a self ruling and cultually british island
@@TheSwedishHistorian Not only a colony according to the ONU(definition voted by the vast mayorty of countries) but also a colony by simple checking the map. The Malvinas are thouthands of km away from Uk, in a different continent and serves no pourpose than to be a militar base in South Atlantic.
That's how that colony started and that's what it is right now.
As we speak there are more british soldiers than falklander there.
@@percelomalsda how do you think Argentina started...
There weren't many Spaniards in South America before Columbus sailed
@@ThePurplePassage Does it matter?
Argentina is not a colony now. It's an independent nation.
"so we'll stock our ships full of British beer and bullets mobilize the navy and call up the marines..."
I’ve been waiting for a new video on this channel!! Finally lol. I can only rewatch the older videos for so long! Woot! Woot! :)
Good summary vid, +thx. : )
Map of "inherited" Argentine territories at 3:47 and, especially, 5:07 is "optimistic" of course, since Argentina did not actually expand South anywhere near Falklands latitudes until the conquests of the late 1870s/80s.
Also, aside, Thatcher actually wanted to go to the UN to seek a diplomatic solution, but opposition leader Michael Foot's speech shamed her into taking direct action.
Indeed, the story behind the war is much more complicated, but I decided to cut all the internal politics in both the UK and Argentina for the sake of simplicity, so that people who are not that versed in those issues can follow.
@@PoliticswithPaint Hey, I personally wouldn't object to a one-hour version! ; )
Your presentation style is *way* better at stimulating an interest in history and geopolitics than trawling through "dry" history books, Wikipedia articles, etc. ^^
Thank you! I fear that if I did that, I would produce 2 videos a year perhaps at my pace :' )
There were settlers of families in the flaklands before independence. Spain actually fought for the islands to the Bri'ish and French
@@randomanon8631 it did not settle the island it basically kicked them off and said I claim this but wont settle it similarly to what they done in North America
They are called the Falkland Islands. End of story. It’s offensive to use that Spanish nonsense. They’re British.
This is one of the fairest videos on this subject.
Some corrections though.
1:14 The oldest recorded charting of the islands was by Portuguese explorers. The first recorded landing was the Captain John Strong in 1690 an Englishman.
2:25 There was a war between Great Britain and Spain in 1770 and the Spanish did take control of the islands by force, but the subsequent treaty is not under dispute, the documentation exists. The Spanish and British had a co-claim, neither could co-opt the other. Both abandoned their colonies, but the British did return within 50 years (the international timeline for abandonment of territory), the Spanish did not.
4:04 The colony of the Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina) was led by Louis Vernet. Because the territory had a co claim Vernet sought permission for an economic colony from London and received permission so long as there was no military presence and importantly : it did not challenge the British claim. Yes that documentation also exists. As a Spanish successor colony no requirement of agreement from Spain was necessary.
4:20 The US Navy (USS Lexington) was dispatched to deal with piracy caused by Vernets colony..
4:48 The Royal Navy (HMS Clio) was dispatched to deal with breach of contract and illegal militarisation of the islands.
4:57 The Argentinian commander was kicked out as correctly stated, so was the illegal garrison, but Vernet's colonists were not. The new settlers from the UK which came afterwards settled alongside the "Argentine" colonists. Incidentally Vernet had not paid them and the British government settled their wages. This is crucially important as the only rational land claim that Argentina has is via Vernet's colony, which was set up with permission. This colony still exists, their descendants are Falkland Islanders and their express opinion is not to be Argentine.
5:10 Argentina did not protest the 'Malvinas question' until the eastly twentieth century, by which time several generations of the current peoples of the islanders had lived on the Falklands.
5:58 It is true that a number of short sighted politicians and civil servants in the UK were considering abandoning the population in the 1970's.
13:50 This video does include the threat of China, most don't. If there is an invasion it will be a thinly disguised Chinese one, with an Argentinian flag on islands which will be a colony of China in all but name. This is the true threat.
Argentina could have gotten them in a few ways. But the path they took guaranteed that they wont.
Exactly. Orkney wants to join Norway. If tthe islanders thought they’d get a good deal they’d side with the Argentinians but rhetoric about expelling the colonisers isn’t very persuasive.
Here's a peaceful solution: Argentina screws off and realises the islands are and always will be British
There is nothing to resolve or debate about the Falkland Islands. A lion doesn't have a need to listen to a rabbit.
Having been to the Falklands I can categorically state, that there is not a cat in hells chance of Argentina retaking them with the current state of their military
It's quite amazing how the Brishits talk too much without knowing almost nothing about this conflict. Pretty ignorants
Not this guy again 💀
The "conflict" ended 41 years ago. After that, one side has owned the Falklands whilst the other side has done nothing but whinge. The first British settlement on the islands literally predates every single sovereign state in the Americas, including Argentina.
Speaking as neither a Briton or Argentine, I find the claims of Argentina on those Island rather dubious and I think historical or geographic claims are irrelevant compared to the will of the people who actually live there: to go against their will is old-fashioned imperialism. I think it was absolutely right for Britain to reclaim those Islands, not only for the sake of the inhabitants but to show Argentina, and indeed the rest of the world, that military conquests these days are not being tolerated anymore. Had Britain submitted it may very well have started other wars as the world saw that they could get away with it. Same thing is true for all the political and military support for Ukraine: if we hadn't done that other wars would follow right up.
You make a fair point: the Argentine invasion was outrageous, and honestly pitiful, coming from an illegitimate, oppressive dictatorship run by sadistic buffoons. However, the British claim is not immensely stronger simply due to 'the will of the people who live there'. Western European nations - and to some degree, the United States - will always stay on top of everyone else until they are justly penalized for their imperial and colonial crimes against humanity. Just look at what they did with South Africa... moving a bunch of people somewhere and calling it their new home, even if generations goes by, does not wash away colonial legacy.
@@joklit what they did to south africa? you mean embargo and diplomatically isolate them until they ended apartheid? but by all means, punish people for things they've never done
@@joklit Thanks for your reaction, but I cannot agree with your second point. One: Argentina is a Latin country that is a product of colonialism itself. Two: as the Islands did not have a native population when the Europeans showed up there was no violent conquest, the Kelpers are in fact the native population. Third: I cannot agree with the notion that colonialism was inherently bad. It also produced good things, for example: it ended slavery among the Africans and Arabs in the British and French colonies; it ended the habit of ritual wars and headtaking among the Naga in East Asia; missionaries often did improve the lives of native people with education and modern technology. We cannot look at history with a simplistic black and white umbrella view: things are good when they are good and bad when they are bad and most often they are a shade of grey, and colonialism is no exception.
@@joklitThats true but agrentina also did the same thing to it's native so I realy can't take there sides.
what about the will of those who were expelled in the past?(Argentinians) why would present day people will be more relevant than pasts ones were?
The Argentines have seriously reduced their military since the military junta ended.
They simply don’t have the marines, ships, or aircraft to take the islands
Only to keep the army for taking over again
Governments change and a new one may rebuild
British victories in Falklands War:
Battle of San Carlos
Battle of Mount Tumbledown
Battle of Goose Green
Battle of Mount Harriet
Battle of Two Sisters
Battle of Mount Longdon
Battle of Mount Kent
Battle of Wireless Ridge
💪🇬🇧
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory
........
....
.
@@yaqui4994Excellent argument, we didn't win when invading the mainland, but this is about the Falklands, which we absolutely won for comparatively low casualties.
@@yaqui4994oh no! It seems like your point is irrelevant here!
@@amhuman5138 well yeah firing rocker barrages at houses and mag dumping argies in streets dosent help much
@@thecoolestofthe834s2 My brother in Christ. We didn't use rocket artillery in the Falklands war, at all, we didn't bloody have any, and if you care to show actual evidence of British war crimes, instead of just saying they did, then please do, it would substantiate your point instead of bringing to mind the Argentine war crimes. (False surrender among them.)
Congrats on 100K subs! You really deserve it. I love these videos. ❤
Even in her fading years, Britannia can still rule the waves
Can rule only a puddle 😂
The same outcome, the British army would chase them back to the mainland after too many deaths. The people who live there should be the only ones asked who they would rather be governed or protected by
The ownership of the Falkland 🇫🇰 Islands is not "Disputed" they are British.🇬🇧🇬🇧
how could somebody claim a territory when 99.8% of the population voted to stay with the UK? there is no moral claim to be made after that
I kick you out of your house and my family and I vote that we should stay and you should leave. 100% moral.
@@firstname3343 Oh, so should the Argentines be deported from Argentina to give the land back to the natives? The Argentines did the exact same thing.
@@leon-jj9dv Most Argentines have an indigenous ancestor and outside of Buenos Aires visibly look like they are descended from indigenous people.
@@leon-jj9dvArgentina as a state only colonise part of Chaco and nearly all east of the Patagonia. The rest of the colonization was made by Spain but Argentina have resposability because part of it population are descended of the Spanish settlers and because it is a post colonial sucesor state. But Argentina have already take care of this problem by giving constitional rights to native peoples, however this right implemented better in some parts of the country than others.
The case of the island however is different. First of all the United Kingdom never have a right claim. The settlement of 1965 was illegal considering that the french reclaim all the islands and that they settled first, in fact the United Kingdom know what and as a consequence they make the expedition a secret, the British crew don't know where they are going until they abandoned the Rio the Janeiro port to go to the islands. Second by 1811 the island were abandoned and they don't have any population, making them terranulis, an as a consequence Argentina can colonised it, and the previous claim became insignificant because there is not population to claim the territory. After that the United Kingdom make a ilegal occupation of the territory because they are the most powerful great power and so they do that. Finally self-determination right can not be applied to settlers because if not you can literally conquest a determined territory and flood it with your people to make sure you win the referendum.
@@firstname3343yeah lots of them are mestizos, however because of racism in society some say they ar white when they have at least some native American ancestry.
In 1977 in Brazil, I met an Argentine student who had fled from his country in fear of being murdered in the street by Government forces. Sad, bad times.
French fun-facts about the Falklands :
1- The Spanish name, Malvinas, comes from the French name "Malouines" (Ma-Lu-Win) which means from the town of Saint-Malo. At the time of the visit of French explorer Bougainville in 1764, Saint-Malo was a very important French sea-port in the Britanny region of France. It's fishermen were already fishing around these waters. The spanish called it contraband.
2- During the Falkland war of the 1980s, the Argentinians sank a Brittish ship with a French missile bought earlier, when everybody used to be friends. It caused quite a diplomatic strain between France and the UK and their friendly relationship stayed a bit cold for a time. The name of the missile was "Exocet" : that's how every French people learned that exocet was the real name of the flying-fish.
There's nothing to resolve or debate about. The islands have never been Argentinian; they were settled by Britain before Argentina was even a concept in someone's mind. We've trounced them in a war, and the inhabitants overwhelmingly want to remain British subjects.
According to the results of their referendums, "overwhelmingly" might be an understatement
Well, we argentines disagree. They were settled by Spain way before the british even consider going there like the rest of Argentina. Then we gained independence just like the 12 colonies did from the UK. The UK would never claim Virginia would they?
@morganwheeleryear1123 they were. Before the UK stole them.
@@rodrigocastillo110 Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816. Britain settled the Falklands in 1765 (prior to which there were no native inhabitants). Damn Argies making stuff up yet again.
@@DaBIONICLEFan you see, this is why argentines don't take any of what the brits claim seriously. You choose the dates that suit you. But France settled them before and Spain bought them from France. The UK was never in the picture. The islands declared Independence from Spain in 1816 as the rest of Argentina.
As a Brit, I've never been to the Falkland Islands but it's on my bucket list and I really want to visit it some day
@@duffelbagdrag I know
"not native to the islands" theyre more native than the majority of argentine people are to argentina lmao
That sponsor transition was insane
Future video about PMCs? Such as Executive Outcomes,Blackwater & Wagner Group.
Congrats on 100K subscribers
This is probably the most unbiased video about the conflict there is. The video doesn't favor britain nor argentina, it just states the facts in chronological order, leaving it to the viewer to take a stance. Good work.
@@SuperClappy1984 "it has never been called las malvinas" The first recorded name of the islands is "Malouines", by the french, who were the first to settle there too. Even if all of this were not true (it is) it doesn't change the fact that today, in all spanish speaking countries, they are called Malvinas, and not falklands. It may surprise you to know that we also don't say england, we say Inglaterra, and that we don't say London, we say londres, because we speak a different language, and we sometimes name things differently. Shocker, i know.
"The dispute was settled in 1982 end of" no, it was not. The falklands are still on the UN decolonization committe, and every year they make a point to remind Argentina and the UK to talk about it. Besides, Argentina never renounced its claims. That was not on the peace deal. When a dispute is settled, these things are written in such documents. Ignoring the opposing side claim is not settling it. The war didn't settle the british claim, as argentina never formally renounced it.
@@SuperClappy1984 I know you brits hold your last few rocks with zeal, I know you don't want to admit your glory days are over, but don't be obtuse for god's sake. It is an active dispute, and malvinas is still the name of the islands in spanish. Even if argentina disappeared tomorrow they would still be called that way in spanish. That much can't be denied.
@@SuperClappy1984 whether you like it or not it is still disputed territory, although it is clearly administered by the uk
@@SuperClappy1984 por algo persiste el reclamo y hay paises que nos apoyan diplomaticamente (no digo que las vayamos a conseguir).
@@SuperClappy1984 Look mate If you want to plug your ears and act like nothing happens, more power to you I guess, but the claim exists, it's an ongoing dispute, and Argentina has some international backing so it's not a child's rant.
In 1982 war was never declared. It was just a skirmish and Argentina lost.
As long as the public in the Falklands want to remain British so it will remain.
Concisely explained with a good use of humour. Thanks for your work.
Who should own them?) Generational inhabitants opinion is all that truly matters, they say British.
Could it happen again?) 4 Typhoons w/ Meteors guard the islands. They alone are enough to wipe out Argentinas entire current air force, which still uses the same planes from the 1980s. Even with some old chinese fighters the Typhoons would probably win. Plus UK has F35s now.
F35 has Poor operational capability and its weapons bay is too small. So not as big of an at vantage as it seems.
@@tetraxis3011did you seriously just say the most modern aircraft in the world in terms of stealth, flight capability, and whatever else we don't know about it isn't a large advantage over an air force fleet of mostly relics from the cold war?
And an aircraft carrier. Much larger than before.
Argentina steals patagonia from Chile, then claims the falklands because they are near Patagonia. 😅
Chile seaded the eastern part of patagonia to Argentina voluntarly as part of negociations to avoid war.
@@federicofernandez1842 voluntarily hahaha, and what about all the people Argentina expelled from the territory? You guys are hilarious… cognitive dissonance. It’s incredible 70 years of propaganda has turned you all in to morons.
@@federicofernandez1842Argentina also ceded its claim to the Falklands in the Arana Southern Treaty of 1850.
@@zigongosaurus5274 they did not. Just because Argentina didn't specifically claimed the sovereignty of the islands in the treaty, doesn't mean they gave up on them. It was just a peace treaty between UK and Argentina unrelated to the subject.
@federicofernandez1842 The Treaty explicitly stated that all disputed territories were to be formally in the hands of the conqueror/occupier. Which included the Falklands. Which means Argentina signed away its claim to the Falklands, further evidenced by the fact that you went 96 years not claiming them whatsoever.
Just a tip. You don’t have to keep saying “Falklands or Malvinas “to make out your unbiased. When I speak English I use the English word for the islands ,Falklands, and when I speak Spanish I say Malvinas.
No. Why would Argentina want to risk it? They have an even weaker military than last time, the UK has actively beefed up the defences of the islands etc. It wouldn't do much to fixr the economic problems Argentina is facing either especially if NATO allies decide to slap sanctions on them (Argentina doesn't have the economic base to try and resist said sanctions like Russia has tried to).
It'd be nice if Britain and Argentina could have a compromise argument of "Well we disagree on the islands but let's try and not let that get in the way of having better relations".
all the shit of good relations only serves the british to continue maintaining the current status quo, so fuck it
no because you dont cater to un terrorist's who would under any circumstance invade your small country to steal all your shit you do exactly what the argies do see a british ship call the navy and send them back over dont care how much your engines broken dont care whos on board either leave or finish us off and if you send an destroyer to run the shoals of our shores you sink it with mines and send no help because the brits would and have done the same
I genuinely don’t understand why the sinking of the general belgrano is so controversial. The exclusion zone was a warning to civilian vessels and aircraft. If you have an active combat vessel, unless it is in the national waters of a neutral country, it is a justified target.
13:28
A distinction I think needs to be clarified here, are these countries supporting the stance (i.e. negotions or no negotiations) or claims of each country?
The fact that Chile was included on Agentina's side makes me believe it's the former, but with highlighted countries mostly being in the Americas or current global powers makes me believe the latter
Edit: typo
Evaluating every country's position in this issue is a mess. Most countries are somewhat neutral and tend to support negotiations, but it's kind of a spectrum. Some countries like Russia are officially neutral, but government officials have made fairly pro-Argentinian statements. There are many such unclear cases like Chile, which has supported the UK in the past (especially during the war) but also has its own dispute with the UK about Antarctica. And also Pakistan and India, which have a complicated relationship with the UK to say the least. The map I show should be taken as a vague idea of where some countries lean towards. Its yet to be seen if Argentina's renewed diplomatic efforts to gain open support will be successful, like in the case of China.
The region as a whole and people who have family or originate from it do support Argentina but most Westerners and Easterners do not care and just support status quo
@@PoliticswithPaintThank you
As a Brit myself I'm not surprised by India's and China's stance on the issue; it's perfectly in line with a realist approach to geopolitics (whether one believes in that theory or not). Plus, as you mentioned with India and Pakistan, I do think both countries as well as China were influenced somewhat by resentment of the empire.
I knew Argentina had widespread support in Latin America, save for Chile (but then as you said, the overlapping Antarctic claims), that's why I originally posted.
Was surprised by France's stance at first, but since you mentioned the Antarctic situation, I actually think I makes sence; Britain, France, Norway, Australia and New Zealand all mutually recognise each others Antarctic claims (none of them overlap), thus maybe France in supporting Britain here is bolstering it's Antarctic claims (especially when the treaty comes up for revision in the 2040's).
Pretty far speculation, but interesting to think about.
Great video as always Mr Paint!
Edit: typo... again
@@GwainSagaFanChannel Argentinians aren't native to the island. The UK has had defacto control since the 1830s.
@@cueball6969france also has reason to not want to give up its overseas territories, or be bullied into it by someone else, thats why they support us
In 2013 the Falklanders voted overwhelmingly NO to become Argentinians. But then, who would want to part of a country with a tendency to make people vanish into dark torture cellars, have an economy for which the word "tanked" is a compliment and chuck rocks at people over a license plate? The Argies were taught that lesson once. If they need to be taught that lesson again, they should be taught in a way they'll never forget.
The way he does his picture Drawings, Just BLOWS MY MIND 🧠🤯
I’m American all I care about is one things did America offer support to help our fellow English friend
Reagan sold the UK some weapons I think, but that was about it.
@@leon-jj9dv the USA kept the fuel tanks at Ascension Island topped up with fuel.
@@AverageWagie2024And provided modern AIM-9L missiles and HAARM missiles.
@@tetraxis3011Those are weapons and there weren't really anymore useful than the aim9-ds