Operation Rosario. Background and aftermatch.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#81

Not necessarily how many cemeteries in France flew the Nazi flag over the graves of dead German soldiers after WWII?

It takes time for the wounds to heal, the invasion turned these peoples lives upside down, they had to endure the attentions of your military police intelligence and many of you military did not treat them particularly well. Its not surprising that they might have an adverse reaction to flag waving.

And I don’t suppose it helped when they did allow a visit by former soldiers that they took the opportunity to pull a stunt by raising the Argentine flag to a rousing chorus of the “Malvinas March”.

As 1000y said they have his flag, is not the Blutfahne of-course but a german one. In any case the comparative of the “nazi” soldiers with the argentine ones is completely vicious from your part.

But…Even the politically motivated SS soldiers had his tombstonse honored by a foreign President:

President Reagan in Bitburg honoring with a wreath ss soldiers 1985.

So , if there is no an skiblue-white flag over the Argentine sematary must be for some other dark reasons.

#82

It’s almost certainly just because the islanders aren’t ready to see the Argentinian flag over their land again yet - it would bring back a lot of dark memories for them.

#83

Your argument is a little weak, argentine veterans could say say the same about of the union Jack, but this ensign not forbidden in Argentina. :rolleyes:

#84

The last time the British flew teh Union Flag over Argentina was in the 2nd invasion of the River Plate… in 1807. No one in Argentina can remember that, being 200 years ago. It is probably 5 generations or more between that and today.

On the other hand many Islanders remember Argentinas invasion of 1982, being only 25 years ago, maybe one generation, two at a push.

Hence the feelings are still a bit raw.

At the end of the day, the Falklands are the Islanders. Thus what they say (in their parliment) goes. We can’t tell them to fly any flag we want.

I would think the vets would have more against the Junta and the powers that sent them, than the British. Although I would understand if they didn’t like the Union Flag.

#85

Any comparison is purely in your own mind, your over sensitivity is your problem not mine.

What a complete and utter load of dingo’s kidneys. Funny how you react with righteous indignation at some imagined slight, then turn around and accuse others of acting for “dark reason”.

Surprisingly there is no hatred in the Falklands for the Argentines, thats the one thing that shines out of Graham Bound’s book on the Islanders.

It might have something to do with the way your military police intelligence conducted itself during the war. Mock executions, arbitrary search and seizure, deportations and incarceration of civilians in blatant breach of the Geneva convention didn’t win you any friends. Thats without the consideration of the threat of a little light ethnic cleansing that the likes of Major Dowling openly talked about.

Then theres the matter that your Government takes every opportunity to exert pressure upon the islanders, its continued and overtly aggressive policy towards the islanders might have something to do with it.

Saying sorry, building a few bridges might help but if you continue along the path you’re going down then you can forget it. And I can’t say I blame them.

#86

That is funny, but you forgot to mention two important facts.

Fact A) The only civilian casualties in the islands were killed by the British.

Fact B) The only Force accused of war crimes were the british.

Sometimes when I browse others forums in wich the topic of Malvinas is allowed I see many times that a passionate defense of the argentine claim by part of a fellow countryman is quickly discalificated with phrases like " you are a child of the Argentine brainwashing propaganda"…:rolleyes:

Reading the post above by Lone Ranger seems that the “brainwashing propaganda” works well for both sides and perhaps the British one was by far more effective.:roll:

And just one more thing, I dont care what you said or watherever other member could said for justifing the baning over the Argentine sematary.
The fallen of the argentine Forces deserve to have his national flag over his burial site.

#87

I don’t know where you get fact B from, laying unmarked minefields is a war crime. using unmarked civilian vehicles for military purposes is a war crime. that’s two Argentine war crimes without even thinking about it.

Which British war crimes are you alleging anyway? not that nonsense Erwin and his silly little friends were spouting, I hope?

#88

Having better soldiers, winning wars, employing Gurkhas, loud shirt in a built up area - you know the drill by now.

Surely the treatment of the islanders by the invading Argentinian forces were fairly close to the mark too?

#89

Maybe Argentine defenders getting TLC’d (To Late Chummed) when attempting to surrender at bayonet length having had ample opportunity to do it previously somehow counts in the Argentine mind?

#90

My bold.

The winning wars part seems to me to be the heart of the current refusal by Argentina to accept its fate on the Falklands. Not unlike some Arab countries that have the same problem with Israel, regardless of all the other issues surrounding that conflict. The Arabs lost, consistently and magnificently, but they were never conquered. In several wars. So, like Argentina, they still think they have a part to play in determining what the winner does after the wars they lost with the territories that were lost in, and were the subject of, those wars. Applying this to simpler contests, the loser of the world heavyweight boxing championship would decide who gets the belt.

Wars that are won on distant shores but that don’t involve the winner pressing his boot and bayonet hard into the throat of the loser in his homeland tend to encourage the loser to think that he’ll do better the second or third time around. Germany and Japan felt the boot and bayonet on their throats at the end of WWII and sought a better way for the future. Argentina didn’t at the end of the Falklands War, so it thinks that its original territorial demands are still within the range of possibilities.

If instead of just pissing Argentina off by sinking the Belgrano Britain had nuked BA and a few other major centres there would be even greater resentment towards Britain. And considerably less desire to regain the Falklands.

Argentina’s problem isn’t that it doesn’t hold the Falklands.

It’s that it lost the Falklands War, and it wasn’t given sufficient reason with a boot and bayonet hard into its throat in its homeland to accept that it’d be a lot better off leaving the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.

#91

Every event I referred to was described by eyewitness testimony in the book Falkland Islanders at War by Graham Bound. Most of which I have seen confirmed independently, for example, in the recent History Channel documentary or on the web.

The comments were made as the result of independent research and an open mind.

And before you accuse me of being one sided, my research includes documentary evidence from the opposing side for example this book.

Further, if you read Graham Bound’s book, he goes out of his way to be even handed, acknowledging that many Argentines behaved with basic common decency. Fortunately they were able to put a break on men like Major Patricio Dowling, who were basically thugs who would have been happy to indulge in a spot of ethnic cleansing.

Now on the other hand, instead of providing any sort of counterpoint you simply dismiss what doesn’t conform to what you think you know. An open mind would consider it, verify or otherwise find conflicting evidence independently. The fact that you have made no attempt to do so, is because you are only prepared to accept a one-sided point of view - err isn’t that “brainwashing propaganda”.

Once again you’re accusing me of being in the wrong, once again you are the one in error.

Once again I make the point, that many of your countrymen treated the Islanders badly, your Government uses any excuse to bully and intimidate, your Government has made no attempt at rapprochement then it is no small wonder that the Islanders are hostile to the sight of the Argentine flag on their territory.

If you feel it is petty and vindictive, perhaps it is, but it is understandable. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that your countries’ behaviour is in any way responsible does not fill me with confidence that there is any hope for peaceful relations with the Islanders.

However, you cannot truly accuse the Islanders of being totally petty and vindictive. They have allowed the Argentine cemetry to be built, they’ve allowed the families to visit, they welcome them when they do and they’ve allowed a chapel to be built. It is plain that the Islanders have made a greater attempt at more cordial relations than the Argentine Government has ever done.

Finally, I can be accused of many things, having a closed mind is not one of them.

#92

Paint can often be used to camouflage various items to good effect, and I recall the ingenious use to which the Argentine forces used it on an ammo dump.
The problem being that using the Red Cross in such a manner was not a ‘ruse of war’ but deliberate misuse of the symbol to an extent that it becomes a war crime.

This was covered by the original Geneva Conventions and supported by the subsequent Protocols, see Articles 37, 38, and 39 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
Article 38 explicitly prohibits the “improper use of the distinctive emblems of the red cross, red crescent or red lion,” which, if used perfidiously, is a grave breach.

It cannot be argued that the use to which the Argentine forces put the Red Cross, (ie used of the emblem in time of conflict to protect combatants or military equipment,) was anything but perfidy, and by definition making perfidious use of the emblem is a war crime in both international and noninternational armed conflict.

Otto’s “Fact B)” is most Erwinesque in it’s inaccuracy.

#93

BDL I know that being in the military the crimes issue is reallly touchy for you, but those were narrated by a british paratrooper and not an argentine source, it have his topic in this section so I prefer not to continue here. And before you asking me I have no solid proofs to confirm or deny such allegations.

Once again you’re accusing me of being in the wrong, once again you are the one in error

Excume me Lone R but re-read my last message and you ll see that the word wrong in non-existant, perhaps you are influenced by a the war propaganda of those times, but I dont think you was wrong in that post.
And I preciate the gesture of the Falklanders, but is not enough.

Otto’s “Fact B)” is most Erwinesque in it’s inaccuracy.

My Dear Cuts, I am well aware that you hate me with all your heart… but I am asking you ( for the third time) that please did not use the word Otto when you are refering a post of mine. Lets not give SS Tiger a headache.

#94

I’ve just read that topic, I think most of those claims were well and truly rubbished there. Unlike the Argentinian war crimes claims that have been conclusively proven, such as using the red cross perfidiously, unmarked and unmapped minefields, the treatment of Islanders by some of your forces and so on.

As it happens, the guy who shot an Argentinian POW was interviewed on British TV last week. He was a WO2 (I think) in the Paras and due to the careless way that Argentinian field gun ammunition had just been dumped all around the arty position, he had to use POWs to tidy it away for their own safety. For some reason some of the shells went off and one of the POWs was extremely badly wounded. The WO2 shot him to put him out of his suffering, as he would have died anyway and the longer he was left the more he was suffering.

He was almost in tears when he was talking about what he had had to do.

#95

Now don’t let’s be silly.

To be honest I can’t think of anyone at all that I hate, neither here on the Internet nor in real life, it’s just not worth the effort.

Get a grip and come to terms with the fact that this is a virtual world.
IT’S NOT REAL.

If anything starts to wind you up, put your hands against the desk and push yourself away from the computer. The manufacturers have even provided an ‘off’ button you can use.
Nothing anyone can do or say on the net need have any effect on anyone else.

Take Tinwalt for example, he built himself a virtual identity in which he was an expert in everything, his problem was that he started to believe his own lies.
“Erwin Schatzer” is another clown that thinks his 'standing on a site gives him some sort of credence where the rest of us live - ie reality on Planet Earth. FFS Erwin believed the ‘rank’ and site gongs were of some sort of importance away from the pc !
Unfortunately psychiatrists and psychologists actually encourage many of their patients to re-invent themselves on the net, hence the plethora of trolls that post and re-post their drivel on so may sites.

Three pieces of genuinely well-meant advice:

  1. Always remember the Internet is not real life.
  2. Don’t bite.
  3. You can always walk away & chill out.
#96

Evidence?

I haven’t seen anything to support this inference.

I am disturbed that the debate in this thread about the Falklands War should suddenly be converted into unsupported, and as far as I can see unsupportable, claims about intense personal emotions of hatred by one member towards another member.

One of the problems with having one’s hand permanently on one’s tool is that one can forget that the rest of the world lacks the emotion to generate the motion to be strokin’ the love potion lotion on the …

#97

Fantastic Cuts, is good to know that you havent such emotion, if some of my post bother you, i suggest to follow your own advice and turn off your computer. In the meanwhile that does not mean that we cannot mantain a minimum level of respect with each other.

For some reason some of the shells went off and one of the POWs was extremely badly wounded. The WO2 shot him to put him out of his suffering, as he would have died anyway and the longer he was left the more he was suffering.

Is something that we call terapeutic execution ?, and those guys still have the courage to mention those crimes in public, that is just amazing.

#98

Mate, you seem to have no idea what happens in a real war.

Like against Japan in WWII

You should be bloody grateful that you were fighting Britain and not the Japanese.

Or British who had fought the Japanese and who applied the same standards to your lot.

Every nation does bad things in war.

Get over it!

#99

No, we generally call it euthenasia and it’s legal in a lot of countries.

The poor lad was suffering terribly, he was dying slowly with most of the flesh burned/blown from his body and the guy made a split second decision that he was better off dying quickly with a bullet in the head than he was taking hours to die from his injuries. The other Argentinian prisoners who witnessed it approved of what he had done.

It happens in war, it always has and it wouldn’t surprise me if it still does. If I was dying in agony like that I’d certainly expect one of my mates to do it for me.

Stop trying to find crimes where there are none.

#100

No you accused me of being influenced by propaganda, I’ve put you straight on that one and yet you repeat the accusation. I’ve an open mind, done my research and formed by my own opinions. Something you don’t seem prepared to do. One of us is clearly influenced by the “war propaganda” but it isn’t me.:roll::roll:

Once again you ignore the point that your own Government bears more than a little responsibility for the attitude of the Islanders.