Ike

[steve w]

Box: Just a little historical context in relation to the Falklands -

1 Britain's "claim" on the islands is a little dubious at best. It's 7,000 miles from Britain, and was mainly used as a military stopping-off point. See also Tristan de Cunha, which is now a British island being used by Americans to avoid the Geneva convention when interrogating individuals from Iraq.

2 For years leading up to 1982, Britain acquiesced and sometimes positively encouraged Argentina to look at taking over the islands, which were seen as an irrelevant nuisance by the British Foreign Office. This was why the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, had to resign. Papers from the time showed the British weren't very interested in the islands in any way until the invasion

3 Many Argentinians and Brits died settling an argument that could have been avoided by diplomacy quite easily. Many of those Argentinians were frightened, teenage conscripts. Many Brits died on HMS Sheffield, burned to death in a fireball. Still think it's a "just war"?

4 Britain's current interest may have been heightened by the discovery of large oil deposits around the island, but that may be me being an old cynic....

I'd be interested if we have any Argentinian contributors who could shed some light.

BTW, for what it's worth, I agree with Green_Gem. Mugabe is an odious little prick, and the sort of dictator too many people have mollified and refused to confront early on, with disastrous results. I think the subsequent reference of "where's Zimbabwe?" suggests why he hasn't been removed before now.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Box: Just a little historical context in relation to the Falklands -

1 Britain's "claim" on the islands is a little dubious at best. It's 7,000 miles from Britain, and was mainly used as a military stopping-off point. See also Tristan de Cunha, which is now a British island being used by Americans to avoid the Geneva convention when interrogating individuals from Iraq.

2 For years leading up to 1982, Britain acquiesced and sometimes positively encouraged Argentina to look at taking over the islands, which were seen as an irrelevant nuisance by the British Foreign Office. This was why the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, had to resign. Papers from the time showed the British weren't very interested in the islands in any way until the invasion

3 Many Argentinians and Brits died settling an argument that could have been avoided by diplomacy quite easily. Many of those Argentinians were frightened, teenage conscripts. Many Brits died on HMS Sheffield, burned to death in a fireball. Still think it's a "just war"?

4 Britain's current interest may have been heightened by the discovery of large oil deposits around the island, but that may be me being an old cynic....

I'd be interested if we have any Argentinian contributors who could shed some light.

BTW, for what it's worth, I agree with Green_Gem. Mugabe is an odious little prick, and the sort of dictator too many people have mollified and refused to confront early on, with disastrous results. I think the subsequent reference of "where's Zimbabwe?" suggests why he hasn't been removed before now.

In presenting one side you should present the other.

1. The Junta in charge of Argentina at the time was facing massive internal problems. Nothing like a good nationalistic gesture, wrapped up with some military trappings to get people's minds off things like inflation, unemployment and rampant government corruption.

2. Argentina attacked and invaded. It was only after they had troops on the islands that they attempted diplomacy, expecting the British to give in easily as their occupation was already a fait accompli. Had they simply tried diplomacy first, they might well have gotten the islands, but diplomatic victories don't distract the population like a military victory.

3. No nation, which hopes to exercise influence on the world stage can accept loosing a posession that way. The Brits have given half the world back to people, they aren't difficult to deal with and have been, in my opinion at least, amazingly forthright as a people, going from island nation, to world's strongest power, and back to island nation.

4. Argentina's claims to the islands are not any stronger than the Brits. The islands served a vital strategic purpose during the period when Britian was queen of the seas. They were used as a coaling station. Early steam ships were coal hogs and all naval powers grabbed islands where they could, so they could move thier fleets from point A to point B, without being dependant on the good will of people who might be on the other side in any of the largely complicated colonial wars that came up.

It has been argued by many, that the Thatcher government was facing a lot of opposition at home and the British response was very much a mirror of the Argentinian excuse. A nice little war to divert the people's attention from troubles at home. Be that as it may, Box's point is still wholly valid. The British do own the islands, have for some time, and the Argentinians attacked and invaded.

It is without doubt a defensive war by the UK. You could easily argue that the islands were not worth defending, that the price paid by both sides was unreasonably high, that a diplomatic solution culd have been achieved, etc. You could just as easily argue that a long standing British possession was attacked by an agressor nation, who ignored a diplomatic solution in favor of the military option and the UK had no choice but to respond by defending herself.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Still wickedly hilarious though when two nations kill each other for a territory that on the whole neither really cared about all that strongly. Mankind is a twisted critter sometimes, ain't it?

 

[steve w]

Colly,

Thanks for your response. I would agree that the Argentinian Junta was an odious regime who clearly attempted to use the war to hide the massive deficiencies in their own regime. However, I maintain that diplomatic ties with Argentina were open and were positive even through the build-up to war. It was the British disinterest in the islands, their obvious lack of investment in it, and their reluctance to engage in basic discussions which led Galtieri to believe that the islands could be taken over without any problem from Britain. Naive? Almost certainly. Understandable? In my view, yes.

Thatcher certainly exploited the nationalism that resulted from the war and it quite possibly saved her in the 1983 election.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that Britain "giving half the world back to people" represents a monumental success on our part. We had, after all, taken them by force, largely stripped them of their resources, and often colluded or engaged in the slavery of their people, before we left. Giving them a good criminal justice system and a love of cricket would seem to be a poor trade.

I also don't take the view that any island that happens to be strategically or militarily important is therefore a reasonable target for occupation. If the Japanese had occupied Hawaii because it gave them a convenient foothold from which to attack California, would that be viewed as reasonable?

I also maintain my view that the war was unnecessary and that people of both sides died because of the basic failure of simple diplomatic processes.

Thanks

 

[oggbashan]

I also maintain my view that the war was unnecessary and that people of both sides died because of the basic failure of simple diplomatic processes.

Thanks

The war was unnecessary but diplomatic processes were explored to the full with considerable support from the USA. General Haig tried his best to avoid the war. He nearly succeeded and would have - if the then Argentinian government had been able to agree what their position was and stick to it. Mrs. Thatcher and the UK government went as far as they could to avoid war by diplomatic means and much further than public opinion would have approved.

The backing for the war in the UK was as strong as in the US after Pearl Harbor. The Falklands had been peopled by British citizens for a couple of hundreds of years. If Argentina's claim were allowed, the UK could demand that we have the USofA back(not that we want to) but our claim would be just as invalid.

The invasion of South Georgia had no shred of legitimacy. It was a naked land grab to give Argentina a share of Antarctica when and if the present 'frozen' territorial claims are thawed.

As usual, oil and resources were the reasons behind the war, not reclaiming the lost 'Malvinas'.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

Thanks for your response. I would agree that the Argentinian Junta was an odious regime who clearly attempted to use the war to hide the massive deficiencies in their own regime. However, I maintain that diplomatic ties with Argentina were open and were positive even through the build-up to war. It was the British disinterest in the islands, their obvious lack of investment in it, and their reluctance to engage in basic discussions which led Galtieri to believe that the islands could be taken over without any problem from Britain. Naive? Almost certainly. Understandable? In my view, yes.

Thatcher certainly exploited the nationalism that resulted from the war and it quite possibly saved her in the 1983 election.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that Britain "giving half the world back to people" represents a monumental success on our part. We had, after all, taken them by force, largely stripped them of their resources, and often colluded or engaged in the slavery of their people, before we left. Giving them a good criminal justice system and a love of cricket would seem to be a poor trade.

I also don't take the view that any island that happens to be strategically or militarily important is therefore a reasonable target for occupation. If the Japanese had occupied Hawaii because it gave them a convenient foothold from which to attack California, would that be viewed as reasonable?

I also maintain my view that the war was unnecessary and that people of both sides died because of the basic failure of simple diplomatic processes.

Thanks

I think most wars can, at heart be shown to be unneccessary. When viewed in retrospect and with the accounting of the human costs doubly so.

Applying the standards of today to past action is one of the major pitfalls for historians. In this case, at the time they were occupied, it was generally accepted practice. You mention Hawaii, but it was occupied by the U.S. for the anchorage at Pearl Harbor. Wake, Guam, Midway, many of the Atolls that would play such a strategic part of World War II in the pacific were occupied by the U.S. for the same reasons and in a time period when this was what naval powers did.

The Junta was naive, extrmely so, but an even deeper failing was the fact it was run by generals. Strongmen who are used to a less technological military and who have experience in mostly land based combat fail to appreciate the Mahnian principles of seapower. While British disinterest may have made it seem like they didn't care, the small number of troops there made it look like an easy target, and it was. But taking islands and holding islands are radically different military prospects in both tactical & strategic terms.

Great Britan may no longer be Queen of the seas, but her Navy is professional and efficient. The Junta discovered yet again why they have never been able to take these islands, even though they are so much closer to Argentina than England. You can't march troops across the water. If you don't control the sea, any troops you do have on the island are cut off.

Political naivety was combined with a Strategic and tactical failure to appreciate what seizing islands demands from a military stand point.

As a historian, Great Britan giving back half the world has always impressed me. There are relatively few Empires that have reached center stage on the world stage and left so gracefully. Colonial independance is usually won only through monumental struggle, upheaval & bloodshed. With few exceptions the U.K. returned soverinty to her possessions through diplomacy and with little bloodshed.

Applying todays standards to another time period you could say they shouldn't have been there in the first place. By the standards of the day, they were totally right and proper. Imperialism was the acepted MO of governments and colonialism was the backbone of several major power's economic influence.

Taking an unbaised look at the state of affairs in the ex-colonial possessions of other nations, Hatti, a host of african nations, French indo china, etc., where independence was gained through revolution, a love of cricket and a decent Criminal justice system are pretty good dividends.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

CT://As a historian, Great Britan giving back half the world has always impressed me. There are relatively few Empires that have reached center stage on the world stage and left so gracefully. Colonial independance is usually won only through monumental struggle, upheaval & bloodshed. With few exceptions the U.K. returned soverinty to her possessions through diplomacy and with little bloodshed.//

Well, let's see, for bloodshed

US revolutionary war
India/Pakistan
Rhodesia
South Africa (Dutch)
Iraq
Afghanistan
Kenya
Ireland

For no bloodshed, there's

Canada
Australia
New Zealand

My generalization would be {added: for significant areas of strategic location and/or rich resources}, with notable exceptions, that the Brits tenaciously kept the empire, but all means feasible (including military might, savagery, massacre), till exhausted by WWII, and with a number of similar, if shorter, efforts after that.

The notable exceptions are: Where it's WHITE, English speaking folks, who are going to be in charge; those folk constituting a vast majority (i.e., indigenous people killed or displaced).

Exception to the exception, the US 1776+ war.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

CT://As a historian, Great Britan giving back half the world has always impressed me. There are relatively few Empires that have reached center stage on the world stage and left so gracefully. Colonial independance is usually won only through monumental struggle, upheaval & bloodshed. With few exceptions the U.K. returned soverinty to her possessions through diplomacy and with little bloodshed.//

Well, let's see, for bloodshed

US revolutionary war
India/Pakistan
Rhodesia
South Africa (Dutch)
Iraq
Afghanistan
Kenya
Ireland

For no bloodshed, there's

Canada
Australia
New Zealand

My generalization would be, with notable exceptions, that the Brits tenaciously kept the empire, but all means feasible (including military might, savagery, massacre), till exhausted by WWII, and with a number of similar, if shorter, efforts after that.

The notable exceptions are: Where it's WHITE, English speaking folks, who are going to be in charge; those folk constituting a vast majority (i.e., indigenous people killed or displaced.).

Exception to the exception, the US 1776+ war.

Sorry Pure, the bloodshed in India was after they left. You may argue that it occured because they left in a hurry, but that was post colonial violence. They left India via diplomatic means, the last units to leave being the Sunderland guards I believe. While vilence may have been used in keeping any of their possessions, they left without india having to resoprt to armed revolution.

I don't include Ireland, simply because diving into the troubles is more than I care to bite off.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Just for reference:

http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/empire.html

[start excerpt]
1922 was the peak of the territorial spread of the British Empire when the League of Nations mandated territories, the former colonies of Germany and Turkey, were added. The first independences, Ireland and Egypt, were about to occur.

List

Aden (Yemen)
Ascension Island
Anguilla
Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Basutoland (Lesotho)
Bechuanaland (Botswana)
Bermuda
British Cameroon
British Guyana (Guyana)
British Honduras (Belize)
British Somaliland (Somalia)
British Solomon Islands
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Canada
Cayman Islands
Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
Cook Islands
Cyprus
Falkland Islands and dependencies
Egypt
Fiji
Gambia
Gibraltar
Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Kiribati & Tuvalu)
Gold Coast (Ghana)
Grenada
Hong Kong
India (included Pakistan & Bangladesh)
Iraq
Ireland
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait
Malaya (West Malaysia)
Maldive Islands
Malta
Mauritius
Montserrat
Newfoundland (Canada)
New Hebrides (with France) Vanuatu
New Zealand
North Borneo (Sabah)
Nyasaland (Malawi)
Oman
Papua New Guinea
Palestine (Falestin/Israel)
Pitcairn Island
Qatar
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia)
Sarawak (East Malaysia)
St Helena
St Kitts
St Lucia
St Vincent
Seychelles
South Africa
Swaziland
Tanganyika (Tanzania)
Tonga
Transjordan (Jordan)
Trinidad
Tristan Da Cunha
Trucial Oman (United Arab Emirates)
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Western Samoa
Zanzibar (Tanzania)
Most of these joined the Commonwealth on their independence.

Those which didn't are: Burma, Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Sudan. The Commonwealth is an organization of former British colonies. Its main institution is a regular meeting of heads of government. There is a Secretariat in London. They share the experience of having been colonized, the English language and English law. But they do not all share democracy or human rights. Most are or have been dictatorships in which the colonial style of government is continued with suspensions of habeas corpus and censorship.

Cameroon and Mozambique have since joined. Ireland may rejoin on settlement of the Northern Ireland problem (probably never).

The remaining territories have been renamed British Overseas Territories (like those of France). Although the people have no representation in the British Parliament they now have full citizenship rights (from 21 May 2002) and the right to visit Britain.
These are:


Anguilla
Ascension Island
Bermuda
British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn
St Helena
Tristan da Cunha
Turks and Caicos Islands

[end excerpt]

PS I do agree that the Brits handled Ascension island quite fairly.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,
Yes much killing after Brits left. The mischief caused by colonial boundaries, playing off factions, etc. is another topic, or course. Though it's still working itself out in Iraq.

http://www.forgottenhistory.org/exhibits/amritsar.html

[start]
Amritsar Massacre (1919)

What Happened?

Amritsar, India (April 13, 1919): British troops under the command of General Reginald Dyer fire on unarmed Indians in the thickly crowded plaza at Jallianwala Bagh, leaving (by some estimates) 379 dead and 1200 wounded. A peaceful crowd had assembled in the walled plaza to protest the enactment of the Rowlett Act, which the British administration had issued to secure "emergency" powers for itself. The site of the massacre is now a National Shrine.

In the Aftermath

The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, in essence, marks the beginning of the decline of British rule in India ("the end of the Raj," as Alfred Draper puts it). [end]

----
A comprehensive list of war stats. for the 20 century

[start excerpts]
Twentieth Century Atlas: Death Tolls.
Lesser unpleasantries of the 20th century.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm
-----


India, uprisings against UK (1919-38)

Amritsar Massacre (1919): Officially, 379 (Johnson, Gilbert) killed, but unofficially, it gets rounded upwards: 500 (Our Times) or 1,000 (Eckhardt)

Eckhardt:

Amritsar (1918-19): 1,000 civ.

(1921-22): 11,000 civ.

(1936-38): 11,000 civ.

TOTAL: 23,000
----

Eckhardt

William Eckhardt is one of the most quoted but elusive atrocity collectors around. I've seen his work mentioned by many authorities, but I couldn't find any of the cited journals in any of the 3 university libraries in my hometown. Finally, I found a 3-page table of his war statistics printed in World Military and Social Expenditures 1987-88 (12th ed., 1987) by Ruth Leger Sivard, which lists every war since 1700.
These war statistics include "civilian as well as military fatalities, massacres, political violence, and famines associated with the conflicts."

The main problem with Eckhart's data is that a lot seems to be based on guesswork, without being labelled as such. He often takes another person's estimate of battle dead (usually S&S's) and adjusts it inconsistently to account for civilian deaths. He might split it (see the Colombia or Biafra) or add to it (Spain, Philippines, or 6-Day War and after). Still other times, he'll take only one side's casualties and report these as the full total (Algeria or South Africa). This is not necessarily a problem if you're putting together estimates of widespread trends over time, but on a case by case basis, I'd suggest caution. [end excerpts]

---
by pure; there is a not bad capsule history of the 'british raj' (rulership) at

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/British_Raj

It lists some of the measures taken by the Brits to allow limited self rule and some democratic reforms in the 20 th century.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Pure,

I am not in the mood to argue anything, with anyone today. Since I am unprepared to defend my opinion you may consider it withdrawn.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

hope your mood improves, tovaritcha,

 

[Colleen Thomas]

hope your mood improves, tovaritcha,

LOL,

Thank you, but my mood is pretty good. I am pain free for the first time since hurting my back, the sun is shining, a cool breeze is blowing and I don't want to do anything to spoil the mood



-Colly

 

[Pure]

good to hear you're on the mend, Colly. we have an advantage up here. aspirin and tylenol with low doses of codeine are available OTC. (if you looking for a supplier, vee vill haf to vork somting out; spetzial discount for Mississippians!)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

good to hear you're on the mend, Colly. we have an advantage up here. aspirin and tylenol with low doses of codeine are available OTC. (if you looking for a supplier, vee vill haf to vork somting out; spetzial discount for Mississippians!)

thanks

The only drug I am on this morning is coffee, and have already had 2 heaping helping Have a great day and smile

-Colly