Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It's better to give islands to lepers.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
Giving Islands to Foreigners - Hong Kong and the Falklands
- Thread starter Arakhor
- Start date
Akka
Moody old mage.
Did you actually read and follow the discussion ?
Because the quote you answer to is not about Argentina being right or wrong, it's about someone claiming that the UK was wrong to defend its territory because it's some sort of warmongering.
To whom I just dutifullly remind that Argentina had started the warmongering already through invasion.
Solution: Give everyone in the South Atlantic islands leprosy, so that they become leper colonies and nobody wants them
I find the Falklands to be an odd topic in British politics. While I agree with the consensus opinion that the islands should remain a UK territory as that is what the population wants, I find the grandstanding on the issue rather grating. The UK has a poor track record when it comes to listening to the opinions of it territorial populations, and if there was significant diplomatic gains to be made from handing over the islands to the Argentinians I'm sure the government would do it in a heartbeat.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Once we have the technology, just pick up the Islas Malvinas and put them somewhere in the English Channel. That will make it easier to defend
Akka
Moody old mage.
I'm not even taking this point into account (even if it adds legitimacy). Unless there is historic link to a different country (including being independent), the current opinion of the local population should not be a defining factor in change in borders. If there had been 10000 Argentinians migrating to the Falklands and then wanting to join Argentina, it would still be legitimately part of the UK and the UK would still be legitimately able to defend them (though, by then, it would probably be politically easier to negotiate, but that's a different aspect).
Won't be of use:
I am still wondering what the one polandball is doing in the mp luxury flats building.
Lexicus
Deity
That's not a polanball, it's a Voltorb
It is one and the same.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This is basically what I'm arguing. The idea that the British government has ever exhibited the barest scrap of principle in disposing of is colonial territories simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
We gave six million British nationals to the People's Republic of China, an authoritarian one-party state, without even bothering to consult them. At what point did "kindness" enter into our thinking?
International diplomacy isn't a bar fight. The rules are different, and the costs higher.
Last edited:
Indeed. Look at the Chagos Islands for another example. A larger population than that of the Falklands were moved so that the US could build a military base.
SMcM
Emperor
That's true. But, even if Britain had resisted China, it would have been unable to stay off the Chinese if China decided to take military action. Such was not the case with Argentina.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Did China threaten military action over Hong Kong?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Won't be of use:
I am still wondering what the one polandball is doing in the mp luxury flats building.
Surely that's plumber.
Anyway, the Falklands. A war which should never have happened in my opinion.
Thatcher was warned about the Argentinians intentions long before they acted, if I recall correctly.
And for reasons best known to herself, chose to do nothing. When there was a contingent of Royal Marines exercising handily nearby who (allegedly), had they been instructed to do so, would (so I was informed) have put paid to the very minor invasion force before it had chance to draw breath after putting a putting a foot on the beach.
But that's rather by the by.
The reason, I think, that the UK (and in particular Thatcher) decided to launch a task force against the Argentine enlisted men stationed in the Falklands during a period of economic difficulty for an Argentine government anxious to deflect public opinion, was that it was simply militarily feasible that the Argentines would be defeated. (Unlike any similar campaign in Hong Kong. Ah yes. And oh thingy.. whatisname...Leon Brittan. edit: No, I don't mean him - nasty pedophile allegations and all - I mean Chris Patten.)
These UK leaders, you know, do like to have at least one military campaign to their "credit" before they shuffle off.
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I was curious on the historical differences between Hong Kong and the Falkland islands so I read about the history.
It seems that the difference is that Hong Kong was conquered, while the Falklands were settled while there was nobody else living there except maybe some French guys.
So it makes sense to me that Britain would return Hong Kong and not return the Falklands, since from their point of view there is nobody to return the Falklands to.
Spoiler :
It seems that the difference is that Hong Kong was conquered, while the Falklands were settled while there was nobody else living there except maybe some French guys.
So it makes sense to me that Britain would return Hong Kong and not return the Falklands, since from their point of view there is nobody to return the Falklands to.
SMcM
Emperor
Well it would certainly not be an unprecedented move. India invaded Goa and took it from the Portuguese, and obviously there's the Falklands War with Argentina. China has been very aggressive about its supposed historical claims in the South China Sea as well.
Thatcher had considered returning the 'New Territories' of Hong Kong to China but retaining the south of the Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong Island itself. But she gave up this as the boundary between the two was deemed indefensible; clearly the government felt that future Chinese military action was not out of the question.
Also, the transfer of sovereignty had terms in relation to the treatment of the people of Hong Kong which have been breached. This cannot be said to be the fault of the UK however.
Well for a time there was Britain and France both claiming it, and both with settlements, but the French left. The British then left also, but still claimed it (which is definitely not reasonable), and in this time the Argentinians colonised claiming this was a continuation of a previous Spanish claim (which I'd say makes no sense either, especially considering the meaninglessness of the Spanish claim). Then the British kicked out the Argentinians and Britain has since kept it (besides the occupation during the 82 war).
Last edited:
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ah yeah you're right about the British leaving
Looks like they left, the Argentina tried to start a colony, but then the American warship the USS Lexington kicked them out due to some sort of a fishing rights dispute. Then Argentina tried to reassert some sort of an influence over the islands but there was a mutiny. Then the British came back.
Sounds sketchy but it doesn't seem that Argentina really ever had a solid grip on it
Looks like they left, the Argentina tried to start a colony, but then the American warship the USS Lexington kicked them out due to some sort of a fishing rights dispute. Then Argentina tried to reassert some sort of an influence over the islands but there was a mutiny. Then the British came back.
Sounds sketchy but it doesn't seem that Argentina really ever had a solid grip on it
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,347
I do think that the Chinese would have demanded the New Territories back, and carried out whatever aggressive escalation might be necessary to for the the UK to be compelled to return them. But If the UK and volunteered the New Territories back they'd probably be allowed to keep Honk King proper. They were not like the Indians (Nehru "look at me, I'm so peaceful" except wherever I want to grab land because I think a war will be popular) back then, and they are still not acting that way, theirs is a long game. Doesn't rule out they will in the future. In the smaller territory of Macau during the same timeframe when Hong Kong's future was being negotiated they pushed merely for some kind of co-sovereignty and were surprised when the portuguese just decided to hand it over.
Sometime around 1979-80 her government offered the Argentine military junta a condominium. They said something to the effect that no, thanks, we can take them ourselves.
Similar threads
- Locked
