Which two countries fought in the Falklands War?
Falklands War also called Falkland Islands War , Malvinas War , or South Atlantic War a brief was an undeclared war fought between Argentina and Great Britain in 1982 over the control of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and associated island dependencies. Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had taken control of the islands in 1833, expelling the few remaining Argentine occupants, and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims. In early 1982 the Argentine military junta led by Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri launched an invasion of the islands. In response to the invasion, the British government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared a war zone for 200 miles (320 km) around the Falklands and assembled a naval task force with which to retake the islands. The large Argentine garrison there surrendered on June 14, effectively ending the conflict. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed—including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano—while Britain lost 256. Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983.
Could UK win the future Falkland War if they must fight against Latin American military bloc ( akin to Nato)
That article was written in 2008. Has any progress been made since then?According to Wikipedia “The South American Defense Council (CDS) was proposed by Venezuela and Brazil to serve as a mechanism for regional security, promoting military co-operation and regional defense. From the beginning Brazil, Argentina and Chile, the countries that took the leadership of the project, made clear that they did not intend to form a NATO-like alliance” [I have added emphasis]So if a future Falkland War should happen to occur, presumably initiated by another failing dictatorship in Argentina, the other Latin American countries would not be forced to assist Argentina. Because the CDS is a defence pact and would not assist Argentina in its aggression.So once again Argentina would have to act alone against an armed and alert Falklands Defence Force. It would be another disaster, just like last time.
Why do some countries fight over tiny islands?
I hear of this though my history text books and current events: China and Vietnam over the Paracel Islands, Japan and South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, and China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands. They seem they would have barely any inhabitable ability and barely any resources, what's the big deal?
Was the Falklands War Justifiable?
The answer is emphatically yes! The citizens of the Falkland Islands are British and hold full British citizenship. The only claim that Argentina has ever had to the "Malvinas" is that they share the same continental shelf, they never colonised or had much to do with them until 1982 when they invaded under the guise of scrap metal merchants at South Georgia. The fact is that Argentina at that time was ruled by a fascist military Junta who were facing protests about rising inflation and unemployment. They came up with a plan to invade the Falklands as a diversion to public unrest. This worked and the crowds that were on the street soon became one that cheered the Junta at the success of them reclaiming the Malvinas. They did not bank on the fact that Britain was governed by Margaret Thatcher's deeply unpopular Conservative government who was facing similar problems to the Junta at home. Britain launched a task force and beat the Argentinians. This in turn secured an election victory for the Tory Party, which is however a moot point. The crux of the matter is it was sovereign British Territory, the people there did not and do not want to be ruled from Buenos Aires, therefore Britain was fully justified in fighting what is considered her last colonial war.
Did the Falkland islands offer any real fight against the UK forces during the war?
99.8%It’s difficult to imagine 99.8% of people agreeing on anything, at all. You would probably be hard-pressed to get 99.8% of 1500(ish) people to agree on the colour of the sky.Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?In 2013, 99.8% of voters (with a turnout of 91.94%) on the Falkland Islands answered this referendum with a resounding Yes vote. Note carefully that no third party is named in this. A No vote would have given the option of independence along side that of becoming an Argentine territory.In addition to this, the Falkland Islands have their own constitution, and Chapter I asserts the rights of the islanders to self-determination, without limitation.I believe this understanding of who the islanders actually are, is important to understand the assumption in your question. The islanders are very much British. By choice. A choice they have made themselves, and can make themselves whenever they like (per their own constitution). A choice they have made repeatedly. A choice they have made so loudly, so strongly, that I would be surprised if you could match the same consensus within the UK itself. They’re almost more British, than Britain is.I realise that from the outside (and particularly from countries so proud of their own independence), that it must look like typical colonial subjugation carried on far past the empire’s relevance. But ask the islanders themselves. We have never been at odds with them, nor they with us.
Was there much opposition to the Falklands War in the UK?
There was a fair amount of opposition to the idea of a war before it started.Mostly from people who thought that every option for negotiations should be tried before resorting to force; but some from those who didn’t think the islands were worth fighting for.When the Belgrano was sunk, there was quite a lot of anger since it was seen as making war inevitable, even when the Americans were still trying to mediate peace talks. With hindsight we can see the two sides were irreconcilable, but it didn’t seem that way to everyone at the time. There was particular controversy over the fact that the cruiser was sunk outside the Total Exclusion zone, which caused an ongoing political scandal for several years afterwards.Once the fighting started, however, public opinion rallied behind the troops, and opposition to the war melted away, at least in public.Most of the newspapers were pro-war; the Sun came in for criticism for its over-the-top jingoism and bloodthirstiness, but few except the Daily Mirror and Guardian voiced any criticism of the war. The BBC came under much criticism from some Conservatives for attempting to be neutral and unbiased.
Why do the falkland islands belong to Britain?
Basically it comes down to: "Possession is 9/10's of the law" The British currently have Possesion and Military Assets there, so they 'Own' it until a future date when the Islanders themselves vote on a right of self-determination if they wish to be free of the Crown. Here is some history: The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) have been claimed by the French, Spaniards, British and Argentines at various points. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbor Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (a predecessor of modern-day Argentina) and claimed possession of the islands. On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one In May 1840, the British Government made the decision to colonize the Falkland Islands. July 1845 the new capital of the islands was officially named Port Stanley British authority was established over the islands and surrounding seas 1964, A light plane piloted by Miguel Fitzgerald touched down on the racecourse at Stanley. Leaping from the aircraft, he handed a letter claiming sovereignty to a bemused islander before flying off again. The stunt was timed to coincide with Argentine diplomatic efforts at the UN Decolonization Committee. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982 The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and, after fierce fighting, forced the Argentine garrison to surrender on 14 June 1982. UK also passed the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 which granted full British citizenship to the islanders
Could the Falklands conflict have been avoided?
Yes, it could have been avoided. The war was the result of miscalculations on both sides. Argentina miscalculated the British resolve to defend the islands, and the British underestimated the the Argentinian will to seize them. Because Mrs Thatcher believed the Argentinians would not dare, her Defense Secretary, John Nott ordered the withdrawal of Britain's only warship in the region (HMS Endurance). That was the British mistake. This mistake was compounded by the Foreign Office which failed to grasp that Argentina's worsening domestic economy would lead the Junta to a militaristic show of force to divert people's attention. All of the signs were there; the Foreign Office simply didn't read them. The Argentinians, of course, also failed to recognize the resolve of the British in general, and of Mrs Thatcher in particular. Perhaps we can put this down to Latin American "machismo" disregarding the leadership of a mere woman -- nevertheless, it was a serious miscalculation. So, yes, if more intelligent leaders were at work in Argentina, or if the Foreign Office had connected the dots, the war could have been avoided.