I agree! Think this thread just stirs up more bad blood than anything.
Of course RS and I dont come from countries that were NOT directly involved in the conflict. Opinions may vary.
Panzerknacker, there is nothing banal about shooting people in the head.
Just this banal and irritating thread brought up by yourself repeatedly spouting nonsense that has proved be untrue.
The investigations undertaken by the British included the addition of Argentine witnesses.
All that comes out in this thread is poppycock about shootings that have been investigated ad infinitum by British Authorities. There were NO shootings of prisoners. There are NO hidden graves. NO Argentine dead, some whom were dug up, were found to have close proximity head wounds by any weapon.
And trust me, the British have some very good forensic police, that have worked the Balkans and NI for years.
As pointed out before, the Argentine stories of the shootings have more incommon with their OWN side. The 9mm isn’t the common side arm it is, in other armies.
In honesty, they are barely carried by soldiers. Even officers.
Gen.Sandworm, the Goose Green bit about tuning in was in relation ot the BBC releasing info about the attack on Goose Green BEFORE it began. No Argentines were, IIRC, punished for the treatment of the civies.
The people who have judged these actions officially, have deemed no further action is neccesary. ALL actions that were suspicious have been called up. If you look at most of them, they could easily have been buried by the British.
The problem is, you have a nation that is more than used to it’s own side conducting business in the way they accuse Britain of.
Not referring to just Panzerknacker or Eagle (or any other Argentine user of this site) but the WHOLE nation. It is difficult for them to understand that an Army isn’t neccesarily the same in two countries.
As for the “Crimes” that Panzerknacker keeps dredging up. They are not crimes, otherwise they would be investigated and prosecuted. END OF.
The acts by the Argentines have largely been forgotton in Britain. Even though many were a. True. b. Substantiated and c. a lot worse than most of the true and substantiated ones by teh British.
I am missing out the mindless drivel that you seem to be believe from the two books mentioned.
Have you heard the saying…
“A fool neigther forgives nor forgets, the naive forgives and forgets but the wise forgive but don’t forget”?
The war was a long time ago. Bad things happened to both sides, and the Argentines were the ones that started it. If they suffered more during war, and can’t cope with it, then they shouldn’t have started it.
This is not about warcrimes, it’s about throwing dirt. If one throws enough, some of it might stick. After all, this site can be accessed anywhere in the world by anybody. So, I would suggest taht the idea of accusing the Brits of warcimes is just a way of blackguarding their name. Put simply - sourgrapes.
I think there are ‘D Notices’ but they can only be used in times of war and the like. Certainly, the situation of investigating warcrimes int he Flaklands would not have justified one. Also, I could be wrong, but I think that although the might be a ‘D Notice’ inplace, it would not prevent the press reporting the status, if they so choose.
Since incidents in Ulster have resulted in soldiers being tried by civilian criminal courts, I think the same would have applied in this situation, if any evidence had been found. As it was, the police, accompanied by the press carried out extensive investigations, and no evidence was found. Ulster has very much been a proving ground for both the British government and the British Army. They both know that any untoward behaviour is going to be jumped on and headlined in every newspaper in the world, it is rare if it happens, and cover-up is a big No-No.
I previously asked how many Argentine soldiers were and remain MIA. The reason I asked is that if there was any credence at all to claims of up to fifty of them being executed and their bodies disposed of in a mass grave, then surely they must be unaccounted for. In all seriousness, can anyone expect a bunsch of Paras, in the middle of a battle, to take time out to dispose of bodies? Consider, of the twenty three Paras KIA’d, fifteen of them died as a result of artillery barrage, in the forty eight hours or so after they had taken the Argentine positions.
It was a brutal, hard fought battle. People died - the better soldiers won.
As man of stoat said earlier, it is better to lock this thread.
There is just dirt being thrown, by one side in particular, no facts are being brought up, just mindless drivel presented as facts.
The books held dear by Panzerknacker as factual, have been proven in the 11 plus years that they have both been out in UK as lies or at best mistaken in terms of actual events.
I don’t agree on this one,1000YDS.
The British have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. If anyone wants to accuse of war crimes, let them. In Britain we operate on the premiss of being innocent until proven guilty, it is for the accusers to prove the guilt, not the innocent to prove their innocence. So, let them prove it. As a good freind of mine might say - Piss, or get off the pot!
Guys, I’m locking this thread for now. It has become cyclic. Anyone has any problems with this please feel free to PM me.
I WILL be discussing it with ALL the Mods here.
Cheers
OK, it seems that some of the newer guys here may have some more input on this subject.
However, if it goes the way it did last time I will be shutting it down again.
What about the perception of some Argentinian soldiers that they were victims of crimes by their own NCOs and officers?
Twenty-five years later, the veterans are trying to take their tormentors to court. “Argentina has come to terms with the dictatorship’s human rights violations,” says Alonso, “but the crimes commited during the Malvinas War are still taboo. The country owes us.”
Only the top echelons of the ruling junta – General Leopoldo Galtieri and the high command of the navy and the air force – were convicted of war crimes. The recurits were locked inside a barracks in Buenos Aires for a few days following their return from the war, and they were sworn to secrecy. Many pressed charges against the officers who had abused them but the relevant documents are classified, buried deep in the military’s archives.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,475287,00.html
Hi guys, I served in the Falklands War as a member of 45 Commando Royal Marines. I just stumbled across this thread and I couldn’t pass without answering one or two points.
Felix Artuso:
I personally know the guy who shot the submariner. I’m not going to use his name for obvious reasons but any other readers who know him will believe I’m genuine if I say that the person in question knows how to pull a good pint.
***** was indeed a tough nut, even amongst other Marines he was universally feared and if he had shot Artuso for no other reason that he felt like it, no one would have been suprised. That said, only he knows what was in his mind when he shot Artuso. He said that he was preventing the scuttling of the vessel and nobody can argue with that as proof to the contrary simply does not exist.
3 Para - Longdon.
Ears - definitely true. McLoughlin would have got the VC had it not been for his collection. Most think that he was the man of the match on Longdon, even more so that Ian McKay VC.
Shooting of Prisoners
The way I heard it at the time was that Sturge (his name has been published and is mentioned in this thread) claimed he misunderstood what was said to him when he was told to put the prisoners with the others. The instruction was meant to put them with the other prisoners, he took it to mean with the dead Argies.
Yanks mercs on Longdon.
Simply Argentines who spoke English with an American accent.
Patricio Dowling
All returning Argentine veterans have to date recieved a respectful welcome. This is as long as they don’t start raising blue and white flags of course! Dowling on the other hand would last two minutes in the Falklands today before he was killed. That is the strength of feeling on the islands even now and I’ve been back there within the last couple of years.
As for Argies complaining about war crimes; forgive me if I don’t come over all apologetic. I know of at least two incidents where British soldiers were shot whilst administering first aid, I personally witnessed one of them. I also know of several instances of torture of civilians under Argie occupation.
I bear Argentina and its people no ill will in fact I was in BA a few years ago and met some Argentine veterans perfectly amicably. However, the country has a dark past which will not be forgotten no matter how many final laws are enacted. Some of the people who murdered their own citizens were let loose in the Falklands. Had it not been for honourable men such as Carlos Busser and Bloomer Reeve they would have re-created the BA naval school in Stanley.
The “dark past” is a bit subjetive, when the armed forces of any country had to fight terrorism and/or had the menace of a communist takeover there were always excesses.
Look at Spain, Russia, Peru, Colombia,etc, The same British army had to get its hand into the Northern Irish thing. USA in not going to happy in his fight agaist terrorism in Irak.
Compared with those examples the argentine “dark” is as bright as a christmas tree.
Your thinly veiled accusation of murders have no effect on me, we know that even with the dirty war incident ( always a classic) we are not such thing.
How is 30’000 murders subjective? Is your family name Videla? I’ve never heard an Argentine try to defend the dirty war. As for Ireland; the comparison is laughable. You defend the era by saying that other countries were bad too, thats like saying that Hitler wasn’t really a bad lad because Stalin has a higher body count.
In terms of the civilians, I make no accusations of murder I simply say that had Dowling and his cohorts have had their way there would have been. In general the war was relatively clean inasmuch as such a word can be applied to war. There were a few regrettable incidents on both sides but no real war crimes.
I find it ironic that the most rabid of the Malvinists were not there in the the mud.
This is not the first time someone tried to mix up the internal conflict in Argentina with the 1982 war.
I can see you are pretty missinformated, I suggest this topic.
Ah yes young man, the thread that had you so peeved.
It was started to show the effect of the attitude taken to civilians who exhibited views contrary to those of the Junta had on the Falkland Islanders individually and as a community.
The first page of the thread contained a number of posts which pointed out exactly why it was germane to the forum, and were it not for bleating to the echelons of higher beings would have remained in position rather than being relegated to another forum in the hope that it would go unnoticed and unconnected.
Perhaps it was because in your heart of hearts you realise that it is utterly indefensible and serves to undermine any argument in support the invasion of 19 Mar/02 Apr 82.
Internal political issues within Argentina relating to the survival of Galtieri & Co were directly related to the Dirty War and had everything to do with Argentina’s ill-advised and ill-conceived attack on the Falklands and nothing to do with its long dormant territorial claims to the Falklands per se. And the greatest consequences were also internal to Argentina.
The actual motivation for Argentina’s April 1982 invasion was a more immediate threat to General Leopoldo Galtieri’s ruling military junta: internal instability in Argentina threatened to topple his dictatorship. Galtieri needed a uniting diversion, an outside conflict to distract the public and maintain domestic control.
…
The contrast was stark, and both sides knew it. An Argentine soldier said: “If I had had real officers who were real men, maybe I would have stayed. No way! I’m Argentine and we aren’t made for killing people. We like to eat, go to the movies, drink, and dance. We aren’t like the English. They are professional soldiers–war is their business.”
The Falklands or Malvinas War raises a series of points regarding the causes of conflicts between nations. It also challenges some of the assumptions about conflict that have become axiomatic among political professionals. The first axiomatic assumption challenged by the Malvinas/Falklands War is the notion that “weaker” states will normally not assault “stronger,” especially nuclear, states. The second challenged assumption is that leaders seek war to distract their citizens from domestic difficulties. The Malvinas/Falklands War also points out the dangerous potential for miscalculating an opponent’s interests, the danger of misperceiving the character of a head of state, and the importance of cultural and historical perspectives.
Who would have thought that Argentina, an isolated nation, would go to war with its largest customer for agricultural exports, Great Britain? Who would have thought that this country, whose history included no real wars since the mid-nineteenth century, would challenge a nuclear-equipped nation? Who would have thought that Great Britain, a member of the UN Security Council and NATO, would fight over a desolate pile of rocks populated by a few sheepherders in the South Atlantic Ocean? Who would have thought that Great Britain would have gone to war to preserve remnants of its empire 37 years after World War II?
Serious economic problems, defeat by the U.K. in 1982 after an unsuccessful Argentine attempt to forcibly take control of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, public revulsion in the face of severe human rights abuses, and mounting charges of corruption combined to discredit and discourage the military regime. This prompted a period of gradual transition and led the country toward democratic rule. Acting under public pressure, the junta lifted bans on political parties and restored other basic political liberties. Argentina experienced a generally successful and peaceful return to democracy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/malvinas.htm
If Leopoldo Galtieri, who has died aged 76, had any sense of wonder, it must have come into play as he stood on the balcony of the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires on April 8 1982. A few days earlier, the Plaza de Mayo below had been full of citizens venting their rage against the military government that he headed. Now, in the wake of the Falkland Islands invasion of April 2, the square was full of cheering people.
His regime, vilified for human rights abuses in the “dirty war” and with failed economic policies, had been transformed into a government that had salvaged national honour by recovering the islands with their population of 1,200. Galtieri, an impulsive man with a liking for Scotch, acknowledged the cheers. He must have thought he had saved the military project and assured his place in history.On June 14, the crowds returned to jeer. The Pope was in the city on a visit that the junta were keen to interpret as a gesture of support. He had held a mass, attended by millions, in a park. Before the ceremonies were over, a news flash announced the Argentine surrender on the islands. The war, and Galtieri’s presidency, were over. Angry crowds threw coins at the Casa Rosada, taunting him to appear. He resigned three days later. Within a year Argentina had a civilian president and the battle to bring Galtieri and fellow junta members to justice had begun. His death has cheated campaigners of a key protagonist; last July he was arrested on human rights charges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/jan/13/guardianobituaries.argentina
Is there any comparison between what happened in the Spanish Civil War and anything that happened in Britain, or any English speaking nation, around the same time or since?
What does Russia have to do with British or Argentine political and social institutions in the 20th century?
Refer my comment above about Spain.
And this was equivalent, exactly how, to the abuses of human rights and the death toll in Argentina’s Dirty War, or the Civil War in Spain, or Peru or Colombia? Or etc?
Which has absolutely no basis for comparison with Britain in Northern Ireland which, whether I or anyone else likes it or not or is unhappy about Britain’s conduct there, was part of Britain at the time and where Britain in Britain behaved rather better in the face of an insurrection that Argentina in Argentina; Spain in Spain; Peru in Peru; and Colombia in Colombia. And etc in etc.
Really?
When was the last time the true Irish in Belfast had to deal with anything like The Disappeared in Argentina?
As for Spain, Peru, and Colombia: Yeah, well, that’s what those of us not there have come to expect of South America, and it never disappoints us.
I’m not talking about reading threads, I’m referring to first hand experiences of the fighting and subsequent conversations with Islanders who were there whilst Dowling was intimidating the Islanders. I know a girl who had a pistol put in her mouth by the bloke when she was five years old.
You know something, the only Spanish I learned was “Arriba los manos” and “manos arriba, Chupapija” Both came in very handy I have to say.
[quote=“Zulu_Zulu”]
I’m not talking about reading threads, I’m referring to first hand experiences of the fighting and subsequent conversations with Islanders who were there whilst Dowling was intimidating the Islanders. I know a girl who had a pistol put in her mouth by the bloke when she was five years old.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps that’s why Panzerknacker’s having such difficulty in replying to your posts, he’s unable to use the keyboard and view the screen simultaneously.
PK,
Why are we on this again?
You know as well as anyone that the years of the junta in Argentina involved some of the worst atroticities in the 1980s.
You have also seen evidence of dowlings behaviour on the Islands. Behaviour that even embarresed his fellows.
It is hardly a great leap of imaginationto suppose that Argentine policy for dealing with dissenters (including the Islanders) would have been… shall we say, extreme.