• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

The Falklands War

It was like the Great War - although it was regrettable and tragic, to have done anything else in the shoes of almost any of the powers involved would have been unthinkable. I felt it was somehow made better because it was conducted with humanity; many of the Argentine soldiers were little more than boys, so the British tried to treat them with almost kindness.
 
It was like the Great War - although it was regrettable and tragic, to have done anything else in the shoes of almost any of the powers involved would have been unthinkable.
This is not an accurate description of the decision making process that led to the First World War.
 
I disagree. Once events reached a point (IMO, when the Germans moved into Belgium) Britain and France were morally and politically foorced to react as they did. The USA was under threat of invasion for some of the war, so only the Central Powers could really have done anything differently.
 
You have the events mixed up. The British government made a decision to go to war before the German army set foot (or hoof) inside Belgium; the French did so long before even that. Neither of those facts gives the events preceding them any particular air of inevitability.
 
Oh. I was under the impression that the British acted according to the Treaty of London, protecting Beligan neutrality?
 
No, they deliberately ignored the Treaty of London, because the Treaty of London specifically prohibited unilateral military action by any of the signatories in defense of Belgian neutrality. The only circumstances in which the Treaty of London made provision for military action were contingent on concerted action by all signatories. What the German invasion of Belgium did in Britain was make a coalition between Asquith and Grey and the Conservatives unnecessary by unifying Liberal opinion in the Cabinet. Even before that, both Asquith and Grey had made the decision to enter the war on France's side.
 
The USA was under threat of invasion for some of the war,

lolwut? The powers didn't have enough forces to finish the war in Europe, do you think any of them would've been insane enough to invade the U.S.?

Wilson entered the war because he was a sociopath that wanted to have a say in European affairs, no matter how many Americans had to die for him. The Lusitania and Zimmerman Telegram were both excuses to prevent public backlash.
 
probably has a greater level of support for British rule than Scotland

Isn't Scotland actually part of Britain rather than just ruled by Britain... considering the word and entity Britain includes Scotland? You seem to have substituted Britain for England perhaps? (I am well aware that England do not rule the Falklands before anyone says.)
 
Isn't Scotland actually part of Britain rather than just ruled by Britain... considering the word and entity Britain includes Scotland? You seem to have substituted Britain for England perhaps? (I am well aware that England do not rule the Falklands before anyone says.)

OK, 'rule by Her Majesty The Queen's Government in Westminster'. Recently there has been talk of Scottish independance but about 70% of them have declared that they don't want for that to happen. If the same survey was undertaken in the Falklands it would be about 95%
 
Why didn't the commonwealth country's get involved? I know we aren't an empire any more obliged to go to war when Britain does but you would think Argentina invading a member would have got Australia, Canada and New Zealand willing to help out. The other Royal Navy's could have made the task force more powerful.

I know New Zealand sent a frigate to relieve British ships somewhere else

..... eeek sorry for bumping the old thread!
 
Why didn't the commonwealth country's get involved? I know we aren't an empire any more obliged to go to war when Britain does but you would think Argentina invading a member would have got Australia, Canada and New Zealand willing to help out. The other Royal Navy's could have made the task force more powerful.

I know New Zealand sent a frigate to relieve

..... eeek sorry for bumping the old thread!

The RNZN covered our patrols in the Gulf, but it wasn't their business really. They came to help during the World Wars, when our mutual existance was at stake, but we were fighting over two small islands in the middle of nowhere and the British had all the firepower we really needed. That said, the Ghurkas were sent in with 5 Brigade and we had a Kiwi in my platoon; we took the mick endlessly on the way down and asked if he'd got the ship to take him home yet.
 
One might equally think that the Commonwealth countries should have done something in reaction to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, which was arguably an act of war by France against New Zealand, but they did nothing. The fact is that the Commonwealth just doesn't work like that - it's basically an old boys' club of countries with cultural links of greater or lesser spuriousness and no real obligations.
 
One might equally think that the Commonwealth countries should have done something in reaction to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985, which was arguably an act of war by France against New Zealand, but they did nothing. The fact is that the Commonwealth just doesn't work like that - it's basically an old boys' club of countries with cultural links of greater or lesser spuriousness and no real obligations.

Pretty much. The Empire hasn't been the same in the traditional sense since before the Great War; it's been steadily re-naming itself since then to take account of that fact. It was only in 1997 or so that they changed the description 'British Subject' to 'Commonwealth Citizen', but the basic 'point' is the same as it always was - more the old EU than the United States.

it's called las malvinas.

Christ, I need a holdiay from all these Spanish-speakers. Maybe I should take one to Occupied French North America or the Cruelly Oppressed Land of the Cymraeg?
 
lolwut? The powers didn't have enough forces to finish the war in Europe, do you think any of them would've been insane enough to invade the U.S.?
The U.S. Army (or was it Navy) did a study shortly before the war to see the potential threat of European Invasion of America. They concluded that without being able to use Canada as a launching point, all of Europe working in coercion would be able to support a division in the United States.
 
The U.S. Army (or was it Navy) did a study shortly before the war to see the potential threat of European Invasion of America. They concluded that without being able to use Canada as a launching point, all of Europe working in coercion would be able to support a division in the United States.
Going back even further (1838):

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years."
 
I remember a Japanese HoI3 AAR where after taking over the entire Earth save for North America, Japan tried to invade the U.S. but failed twice (with total naval supremacy and something like 300 divisions on the second attempt).

but oh no what if the central powers do that
 
@ holy_king - I believe the islands are called whatever the local inhabitants want it to be called... given that most of them identify themselves as Falkland Islanders, I'd suggest that your opinion would be contested by the people actually living there.

Without getting into a slinging match about the wider issues on claim, the fact remains that the vast majority of citizens living on those islands identify them as Falkland Islanders as a distinct identity, and are more than happy to retain their current political status with their own Constitution ratified 2009 making explicit references to the right to self determination.

I have some very good friends that I work with who are originally from Argentina... and over many pints and debates we've agreed on one thing in regards to the islands - that being that it really doesn't matter in the end what Argentina says, or even to a point what Britain says in regards to claim or what the islands are called (or any other sovereignty related issue). The inhabitants are entrenched, with a legally ratified self-rule constitution and a legally recognised right to self-determination. You can say or think whatever you like in regards to support either Argentina's or the UK's claim. And the end of the day, the only opinions that mean much are the opinions of the people that live there, and have lived there for some time.
 
Going back even further (1838):

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years."
Well, yes, but this is especially relevant because it was post 1910. If only I could track down the citation.
 
Top Bottom