Quite.

it was 1938 all over again

Isn’t everything? I’m surprised Preston North End don’t win the FA Cup.

You also cannot retrospectively make this war into a defeat of the junta: that was never the goal of the war. It may have shortened the live of the regime, but that was incidental. British victory was a close run thing: if the Argentines had had better luck attacking the invasion fleet it may have ended in disaster. Had that happened would you say the Falklands War lenghtened the live of the regime?

Harry: I’d read Foot’s book Debts of Honour which was a collection of essays honourng his heroes/friends and while I liked the picture of Foot that appeared it was clear that he was totally unsuited for leadership as you say with a history of political irresponsibility. The civil war within the labour party would probably have been worse had Denis Healy been elected leader in 1979 but in the long run would it have made any difference?

On the Falklands/Malvinas I pretty certain Debts of Honour came out before the war sorry “conflict” so his attitude was not a surprise – he was a strong anti-Munichite so it was 1938 all over again. I think that more than the Suez experience underpinned his reaction.

Once the Argentines were on what they firmly believed to be their sovereign territory why on earth would you think they would ever withdraw unless made to by force? I can see an argument as to why the response to a fascist invasion is to pay to remove the cause of the dispute (although it’s not one I agree with) but the idea that the Argentines would voluntarily leave under any circumstances seems is unlikely as to be impossible.

Incidentally, why do you attach so little importance to self detemination? My general view on these matters is that you should ask the inhabitants and respect their decision.

This would definitely be my thesis, yes. I would certainly sign a document to this effect.

Thanks!

So your thesis is: it is not worth going to war to prevent 2 000 Brits from falling under the rule of a military dictatorship for a period of, probably, about five years.

I don’t mind admitting that I don’t know a hell of a lot about this. But I think the alternatives to going to war would have included: (1) a show of force followed by a negotiated Argentine withdrawal (2) re-settling the Falklanders (possibly with large financial sweeteners). So I don’t see why anyone had to fall under a military dictatorship, apart from the penguins.

would we be OK going to war to protect the entire population of Britain from that?

Yes.

That’s very witty. Almost good enough for “Punch”. You could have said “grass”, which was probably there earlier even than the penguins, but then penguins are funny.

So your thesis is: it is not worth going to war to prevent 2 000 Brits from falling under the rule of a military dictatorship for a period of, probably, about five years.

Just out of interest, what is your minimum level? I mean, would we be OK going to war to protect the entire population of Britain from that?

GALTIERI: I want the Falkland Islands.
BRITAIN: You can have them, and we’ll pay to have all the original inhabitants deported and resettled.

In a nutshell: yeah. Except I’m rather doubtful that many people would have to be forced to accept the offer of up to million pounds (in 1982 money) to give up sheep farming and retire to Bermuda.

As so many people are determined to resolve this issue through analogies with the playground, let me offer this one:

A man visits his son’s primary school for a meeting with the headmaster. While his back is turned a 7-year-old kid runs off with his biro. Does he:
a) take the rest of the afternoon off work and spend it tracking down the kid, teaching him a lesson and retrieving the lost pen, finally, rejoicing that justice has been done
b) briefly mention it at the end of his meeting before returning to work as planned
c) say ‘fuck it, it’s a just pen’ and never think about it again

If he does (b) or© does he become a coward and a wimp who is doomed to suffer from ever more serious attacks on his person and property or just a sensible guy who has more important things to do then settle scores with little kids, whom he will never see again, and who, it turns out, are going to be expelled from school in two weeks time anyway?

PS. They are not the “original inhabitants”. The original inhabitants of the Falklands Islands were penguins.

Yes, I think so. It happened across the continent.

And if you allow that the war may have ended the regime earlier (and thus the sufferings of the Argentine people), that makes for an entirely difficult calculation than if you just reckon 1000 dead versus 400 inhabitants protected.

Perhaps, but it was also possible that Britain might have fought and lost – which was entirely possible and maybe even a likelier outcome than what actually happened – which complicates the counterfactual a little. (Might have shortened some suffering in the UK if Thatcher had fallen, too. If you want to add it to the mix.)

Would Argentina have been restored to democracy a few years later if they hadn’t been defeated in the Falklands? How much was Galtieri’s regime undermined by the military’s failure there? That’s the key question for me. And if you allow that the war may have ended the regime earlier (and thus the sufferings of the Argentine people), that makes for an entirely difficult calculation than if you just reckon 1000 dead versus 400 inhabitants protected.

It’s not obvious to me that an opinion on the conflict is of less value because it is expressed by an Argentinian.

What should have been done? A protest at the United Nations. Would this have got the islands back? No. Do I care? Not as much as I care about the lives lost regaining them. What would have happened when democracy was restored to Argentina, as it was a few years later? The inhabitants of the Malvinas would have enjoyed much the same rights as they do now. Would that have been a more satisfactory result than what occurred? Yes, I think so. By a long way.

Bert at #23: Set aside if you can the Sun headlines of the period

I could, but my memory won’t. One of my clearest recollections of the time was a Sun headline DARE CALL IT TREASON calling for opponents of the war to be tried. Wars tend to let loose that kind of sentiment, and it’s another reason among many for opposing them.

So your argument is… what? What do you think the correct response would have been to either an Argentinian demand for the islands, or an actual invasion? Because it sounds like you think this should have happened:

GALTIERI: I want the Falkland Islands.
BRITAIN: You can have them, and we’ll pay to have all the original inhabitants deported and resettled.

Incidentally, would the arrests and forcible deportations have been carried out by British police, or would you have been happy to leave that to the more experienced Argentinians?

Incidentally, you lose points by quoting the “bald men fighting over a comb” line, which was of course said by an Argentinian and has always struck me as a great example of sour grapes. “Oh, well, we didn’t want those useless islands anyway.”

Like I say, it’s a liberal hawk argument. As with more recent cases it’s not clear cut, to say the least. Quite apart from the domestic consequences of an electorate thrilled by biffing, the Thatcher government was a Pinochet sponsor.

In the end you pick a side. Just like Foot.

(I happened to be on the Guatemalan-Belize frontier when the Brits moved against the Argentinians in The Falklands. It was a peculiar feeling.)

I am not so sure about Hong Kong.