Since we have someone from Argentina on the site (Erwin Schätzer(argentina)) I thought I might get his opinion about the matter if you dont mind? I would like to know more because the only description that I have were all British views.
Well,here in argentina,there most part of the people thinks the war wasnt prepared,because we had a military government in that year,the military president was galtiery ( here is a photo = http://met.open.ac.uk/group/cpv/fi/images/galtieri.jpg ),most people hates british gobernment,but we havent got any problem with british people,the think that created more hate in argentina was when a british submarine destroyed the cruiser General Belgrano (our biggest ship) in safe zone (zone of exclution).
here,the veterans of war,want to reconquer the falklands (We call “Malvinas” to them.
some people thinks argentina could won with better strategies,cos argentinian pilots were much better than british,but england fighters had better technology (the british technology was the best,exept from TAM argentinian tank).
I dont know what happened if war was bigger,but there were more deaths.the people here hates the gurcas,cos theyre savage warriors with pay,hate them too.
but I don`t have problems with english people,I visited london!,I think bristish music is the most exiting in the world!.
falklands need to have they own goberment (NO ARGENTINE OR ENGLAND GOBERNMENT).
greetings and thanks for your question 
Interesting story…from a friend of a friend. This guys was becoming a member of the fire brigade or something in the british navy. This British Admiral was walking the line and congratulating the men on becoming members. So he says to one of them “Congratulations on becoming a member of the fire brigade, where you in the Falklands conflict?” Guy replys “Yes, sir” “Did you have any confirmed kills?” “1,sir” He continues on down the line asking the same questions. Untill he come to this one guy. Same questions: “Congratulations on becoming a member of the fire brigade, where you in the Falklands conflict?” Guy replys “Yes, sir” “Did you have any confirmed kills?” “YES, SIR … 964, SIR” This was the guy that launched the torpedo that sunk the Belgrano. Needless to say the Admiral didnt ask that question anymore.
I agree with you that the Falklands should have their own government dont really see what Britain wants it for anyhow. Guess they are trying to hang onto what little of the empire is left.
you are right,the british empire is a thing I dont like,but the people of both sides arent gilty,this problems are of both goverments,the think I only want is to no see more deaths.
good luck! 
I lived in Chicago during the war for the Malvinas, and some of the local radio personalities couldn’t figure out why the British would bother to fight for those cold, windy little islands. Then they hit upon the answer.
What’s the #1 export product of the Malvinas? That’s right - wool from
sheep! This wasn’t a war for ‘national honor’, it was a war for sweaters!
Either the Royal Marines were cold and/or were really into knitting; or prehaps they just wanted to cuddle up with a nice warm sheep…
Anyway, this was the theory of the radio DJ’s at the time.
yes!,I don`t know why british gobernment fighted for malvinas/falklands islands, lots of british soldiers died in a stupid cause,and argentinians too.
malvinas are in argentinian submarine plataform,historic and geographic and more!..
I cant explain them,cos my english is limited.
goodbye
I dont mind when war is unjustified. Argentina still wants to recover malvinas,I dont want another war there,because it will be a lost of lives (soldiers),without a just cause and cash (because argentina wants to buy weapons to russia,germany and more countries) and that will be bad for our economy.
another question,yo said I lived in chicago during the war for the malvinas, where are you from? or where do you live now?
thanks again and good luck
Well I would think that the main reason Britain would want to take those Islands is because every Island in this modern world is better than no islands. I dont know much about the history of the Falklands, but It was somehow still in British control when the war started. Also, the Island might not be worth much on the land, but with the island, you get a certain amount of sea zone surrounding the island. Thats why Japan wants the little rock that Korea claims, its mostly because they get more sea control. I think its a little more complicated than what Chicago djs think.
About both airforces, I think I heard that the British Harrier jump-jets didn’t have one loss against the Argentinas French Mirages which suffered high losses.
But I remain Nuetral.
War never changes - and can’t be war without reason. Sea control is a good reason, but I think only one of them. Why, for example, Soviet with such territory need a Cuba? Yep. Strategic positions. For Britain own the Maldivas is to be, not strategic, but hight politic positions. The ability to control political processes in that region.
Yess that is a good point, if a war happens, they have a post down there.
Ahhh chanting “You’ll never take the Falklands” when it’s England Vs. Argentina footy match is the best.
yes,maybe england wants more sea space,because the islands are rich in “nothing” exept penguins and animals.
but the point is: why here? why in south america? there are better islands in all the ocean,and contries wich don`t want to recover them.
but it could be for strategy reasons I suposse.
and about football match, the best is the classic Argentina-England
.
greetings
Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee.
I think you’ll find that the argentine pilots were not better than the Royal Navy pilots…
And one of the reasons we fought was for the people who live there who wanted to remain British same as Gibraltar. It wouldn’t have mattered who was in charge of the Argentine government as the British had a superior force even using the submarines alone would have stopped many more troops from Argentina getting there.
As for the Belgrano well it’s a war and people die.
Im glad to see we have to sides to this forum. And yes the best international football match is between the England and Argentina, did everyone see the game last world cup? They held that game in the city which I live, and my dad volontered to help out, and he actually saw alot of the game!
:o First,royal navy pilots are obviously worst than argentinians (remember hms sheffield???) argentinians use mirages with exocet misiles and hercules,british used harriers!,british technology was best,thats right,but pilots mmmmhh youre wrong.
People in malvinas want to remain england BECAUSE POPULATION IN MALVINAS ARE FROM ENGLAND!!!
the unique submarine of england who killed lots of people was the submarine who destroyed GRAL BELGRANO cruiser,THAT`S OUT OF RULES!,BECAUSE THAT SHIP WAS IN EXCLUTION ZONE (SAFE ZONE)!!! ,THE CRUISER WAS DESTROYED WHEN IT WAS RESTOCKING FUEL,AMMO,ETC. the person who destroyed our cruiser was a coward.
only touching a button they sent 3_ _(no more than 390)
The british soldiers sent gurkas to the battle line,that was coward (I want to say another word than coward)
Personally I think gurkas are a people of shit!,work in nepal,indian sites or another places of yout race!.
margaret tatcher did the war to stay in the power
England had support for other countries,we didnt!,british soldiers were worst because they hadnt got courage (but they had technology,suport,satellites,they were soldiers of more than 18 years)
The good soldiers fight with boys of 18 years old?
there lots of fonts saying how argentina could won the war,and theyhave the truth,you cant read them cos they`re on spanish (except for a british soldier who was against his country and deffended an argentinian soldier from laws against military gobernment,that was a soldier!)
If I see one of that fonts,I will translate them for u
If you think the royal marine pilots were better,maybe you`re british or from a british colony or you have british origins .
it`s better when the war is real and no with help of others versus an alone army.
I honestly cant see how anyone can compare which side had better fighter pilots? Neither has given any proof to comfirm it, but let me tell you one thing, Im not against or for, but the Harrier jet is one of the hardest mordern jets to fly. They have no fancy computer equipment that will fly it for you, you have to constantly adjust the plane with you controls in order to keep it in the air.
If the main population living in Malvinas were English, then Argentina should really leave it alone. And I dont know any war that is fair, so whats up with the sunken cruiser?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with different cultural backgrounds fighting in the same army. They are not forced to fight for anyone, It is their choice and in this world today different militaries are getting very mixed backgrounds. The U.K. and the U.S. are getting lots of immigrants and if immigrants that have citizenship wants to fight for that country they may! As I am from South Africa we have all different kinds of backgrounds, but we are all still from South Africa, and are all alowed to fight for our country!
As with “good soldiers fight with boys of 18 years old?” Well, if Argentina recruits and send 18 year old boys to the battlefield then what is the U.K. supposed to do about it?
And I do not say that the Royal marine were better pilots and I do not say that the Argentinians were better, but WTF are you making it more complicated by saying that whoever says the Royal marines were better, they therefore have to have to be from a Britain or a British colony. Cant we all think for ourselves so that your country will not matter?
I dont understand the last part of your post,Harriers are better than mirage,of course,I dont said harriers are the most technologic aircraft,but theyre better than an old aircraft of an army of south america,harries had help of satellites,we had help of old 30mm only (i dont remember id they were 30mm)
Argentina dont want to keep alone the islands,if theyre british go to england!,cos the british say them kelpers ,and the main population of the island is british because THEY STOLEN THE ISLANDS,and we cant go there,THAT ISLANDS ARE IN ARGENTINIAN TERRITORY;ENGLAND DON`T KNOW WATH MEANS TERRITORY??? THEY STOLE EVERY PLACE ALONE IN THE WORLD AND POPULATED TOO!.
fonts said the british sunken cruisers were better armed than argentinian,so It replyes to the previous post saying submarines were better than our aircrafts (???).
The gurkas fought with knives and they cut ears of the enemy soldiers,that savagE!!!,and when I said they fought whit 18 years boys I mean they used knives,beasts!,we sent that boys because we hadn`t got more soldiers,boys used the standart rifles of argentina (FALL) only.
ABOUT THIS;I DON`T UNDERSTAND=
And I do not say that the Royal marine were better pilots and I do not say that the Argentinians were better, but WTF are you making it more complicated by saying that whoever says the Royal marines were better, they therefore have to have to be from a Britain or a British colony. Cant we all think for ourselves so that your country will not matter? -I dont understand,speak easily please.
I CAN REPLY BETTER IF SOMEONE SPEAKS SPANISH AND NO THIS LANGUAGE.
if anybody speaks spanish,please contact me.
That last part I wrote is reffering to your post that said:
“If you think the royal marines pilots were better, maybe you’re british or from a british colony or you have brtiish origins.”
Im saying that i do not think that the royal marines are better pilots, but I do not think that the Argentinians were better pilots, I remain neutral. But I am saying that It doesnt matter where you from, you should be able to think whatever you like.
Oh, such a hard discuss.
Ervin, i understand all your emotions about this conflict.
For me this war was a something like just a few headlines in soviet press and few talks in TV. Something like a war in Afganistan for you, i guess.
Mine Peruwian frend Manuel sayd once: “It was a war of two completly bold men for a comb.”
But anyway fom me very interesting this historical fact, specially taled by citizen on one side of this war.
Soviet look at this war was a just “Imperialisticall way to make politic”, that all. Somewhere i hawe read about this war and autor of this text was at brittish side. But i need other side look too.
I will be on track of this topic.