Talk:1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

june 23, 2005

I´ve never read anything about that tree argentine commandos that are supposed to be the first POW´s of that war. It´s not mentioned in any book. Where does that information comes from?

This article should be moved to 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands to disambiguate from the previous invasion in 1833. Ejrrjs | What? 14:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I Agree -Mariano 12:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


As there was no objection to renaming the article for over 2 weeks, I will move the article from Invasion of the Falkland Islands to 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. -Mariano 11:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What's an amtrac? I tried to wikify it but amtrac is currently a redirect to the American rail network, Amtrak. --kingboyk 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a Amphibious Assault Vehicle - though the page it links to isn't the right model [1] shows them as LVTP-7's with .30 machine guns. Megapixie 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Improvements

This article would be immensely improved if it had a proper introduction and summary, perhaps one or two paragraphs. It should also have a battle box. The size and composition of forces and materiel are basic information that should be part of the standard introduction. One of the first questions I had was casualties, and that information wasn't easily found, so I took a comment from elsewhere on Wikipedia (Falklands War, I think), but that was reverted as unsourced. Well, somebody should find the correct information and put it in. If you don't like amateurs messing with your article, make it a decent article in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pov tiltle

this article titile seem to be pov from first look so pl change it's name.User talk:Yousaf465

There is serious and overwelming pro-British POV o ALL pages relating to the Falklands.--Vintagekits 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be named as an invation, since a country cannot invade itself. Argentina cannot invade the Falklands, because they are part of Argentina, as she claims. However, it can be named "reclaim by force" or "occupation" of the Falkland. --201.235.180.44 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are POV issues with user 201.235.180.44's comments...

Besides which: The word 'Invasion' does not necessarily invoke POV on the Island's status; the D-Day landings (which included Free French troops) are often described as the 'Normandy Invasion'. Did the Free French not invade themselves? The article on the 1883 occupation by UK forces is also described as an invasion, which would seem to balance the books, at least so far as it identifies the word 'invasion' with a military action rather than a political imperative. The two articles work together in this regard. Given his clear POV issues, doesn't he mean 'Malvinas', anyway? (86.142.115.155 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

The British invasion of 1833 is esentially the same things as the Argentine invasion of 1982, therefore both articles should have a similar title and not the current ones thats calls the Argentines for "invasors" and legitimates the British occupation calling it re-assertion. In my opinion both articles should be caller Bristish/Argentine occupation of the Falklands Islands. Dentren | Talk 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
And your sudden appearence has nothing to do with the anniversary? Blatent POV push Ryan4314 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you pop over to this section on the 1833 page, I think the discussion better fits there as that is the main bone of contention. Let's try to have a calm rational discussion. Narson (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious racist and name-calling remarks over edition

I was only trying to introduce a largely overdue infobox and other details according to old comments posted in the talk page. Some user, who considers the changes PoV, keeps editing, and, when I invited him to discuss the edition in this page, he responded with a racist slur (he called me "argie" and "ridiculous") instead of talking in a civil way. I only posted a pic in the infobox who shows an objective fact (i.e. the Marines surrendering during the Argentine invasion). Other Wikipedia battle boxes show defeated forces images (Battle of Singapore, Battle of Cape Spada and others) and nobody objects them as PoV. DagosNavy 00:07, 3 April 2007

Argie isnt racsist its standard shorthand for Argentinian. Pleasze [[WP:AGF|Assumen good faith. See here where you cvan confirm that Argie is not a rascist slur. You put your POV in then article and then accuse ediors who disagree with you of rascism. Styrikes me next you'll be saying the Falklands belong to Argentina. Ridiculouys described the pic not the editor, SqueakBox 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As for your bizarre claim that the Argentinians won, please source it, SqueakBox 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please slow down. This article was fine and you have distorted it with unsourced Pro-Argentina POV. I think we should revert back to the March 19th version. This is a disgrace and does nothing other than to promnote the erroneous Argentine claim to sovereignty, SqueakBox 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Argentina seized the Islands on April 2, 1982. This is a crystal-clear fact, not a claim. They lost the war at the end, nobody is discussing that, remember, the article is about the Invasion, not about the whole war. And nobody is claiming sovereignty, please tell me where in the text is something like that?. DagosNavy 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the "result" question to a third party, if you like;I think however that the infobox and the pic must stand. DagosNavy 01:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is fine but the pic isnt. And hey if you took Argie as an insult my apologies. It certainly wasnt meant that way, SqueakBox 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real numbers of FIDF was 32 and not just 25 and watch out for changes made by Betacommando

Hi it's El ORANGUTAN here, just writing to say I've reinstated the linke to the dramatisation of the fighting at Government House that was removed by a vandal (BETACOMMAND) for no reason at all really did he vandalise this page. Also I would like to point out in the following link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/02/wfalk02.xml) and listed below about the FIDF remembering it's role, it reveals that there were 32 FIDF (not including volunteers civilians armed with rifles) that fought alongside Naval Party 8901 and not just 25 as the info box claims



Hi. The Telegraph note is worth to mention, but there are some innaccuracies about the numbers. The Anderson book seems to be a more reliable source, so I included the 25 FIDF members he accounts.

Note, for example, they (the newspaper) say that the Argentine Commandos were 120. I was reading Argentine sources the last 15 years of more, and they always mention 60-70 men landing from the ARA Santísima Trinidad.

I'am thinking to post this figure (for the Comandos Anfibios) to the infobox, but I have to found the book's names to cite them appropriately. I agree with you that the copyvio claimed by User Betacommand doesn´t apply to the YouTube video.

DagosNavy 00:17 April 17 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain the copyright violation. the BBC owns the rights to all of their broadcasts, Documentaries and productions. The youtube posting was not made with consent of the BBC, without consent of the BBC the video cant be posted. If it is posted without permission/consent it is violating the BBC's copyrights. Per wikipedia we cant link to such sites web pages. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Not strictly true, we can link to YouTube the site but not to this particular video as broadcast by YouTube. try to find the original BBC article and link to that, SqueakBox 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Duncan Anderson book versus the book Graham Bound about real number of FIDF and militiamen

Graham Bound's book "Falkland Islanders At War" says there were 40 (yes forty) F.I.D.F personnel and armed volunteer civilians (including a Canadian) deployed at various points along Port Stanley on 2 April. I found that Anderson's book is full of errors (for example: he says the Argentineans at Wireless Ridge lost 100 dead when in fact the figure was around 30. He also had the audacity to claim an LVTP-7 amphibious armoured personnel carrier was destroyed and its crew killed by the Royal Marines outside Port Stanley when in fact Martin Middlebrook who originally believed this silly claim on part of the Royal Marines, established that the vehicle in question was only slightly damaged by machinegun fire. I can go on and on about the errors in Anderson's book... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.27.219.49 (talk • contribs).

[edit] It's okay for Wiki to have links to Youtube provided the material is relevant to the article

I have restored the link to An Ungentlemanly Act for I believe that the link to the BBC film should be preserved because it is relevant to the article. If you read Wikipedia:External links/YouTube you will see that the team that wrote it recognize that Youtube has plenty of material which may be valuable as an external link within a Wikipedia article. Example: It clear that the British claimed to have shot dead several Amphibious Commandos outside Government House and that Royal Marines reported to have destroyed an amphibious armoured personnel carrier on the eastern outskirst of Stanley town and sunk a landing craft in the harbour. Therefore this is a clear case where the video in question is the best way to illustrate to skeptics what really happened on 2 April 1982 in the first day of the war. In the video you will see the Argentinean Amphibious Commando detachment outside Government House that had been reduced to just a dozen men moving from spot to spot and firing single rounds to make the defending Royal Marines believe that they were really outnumbered. It seems MEGAPIXIE and BETACOMMAND and others are determined to see the link to the YouTube video permanently removed claiming that it may be infringing copyright, but in reality they are trying to prevent students of the Falklands War discovering the truth of what happened in the battle between the members of Naval Party 8901 and the Argentinean Marines. Both are being vandals and would be standing on more solid ground if they could prove that the link was irrelevant to the article in which it appears, or otherwise not useful to Wikipedia. Everybody should read what Wikipedia has to say about External links/YouTube at [2] and restore the link if it is removed again.

I have removed the link again. It is clearly a copyright violation. Per policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works we cannot link to copyright violations. If you were linking to a BBC website I would have no problem including the link. Megapixie 07:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OPERATION AZUL OR OPERATION ROSARIO???

I hope people like DAGOSNAVY can help here. According to military historian Isidoro J. Ruiz Moreno the invasion was code-named 'Rosary' at the urging of the CO of the 25th Infantry Regiment, an extreme Roman Catholic whose fantatical devotion to the Catholic faith had made an indelible mark on the elite marine units. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronpillao (talk • contribs) 01:09:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I've already made the change in the title section, including Ruiz Moreno's reference. Yes, the definitive code name for the Operation was Rosario, and the landing is known under this name by all Argentine historians and official assessments.

DagosNavy 01:43, August 23 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many marines?

The Royal Navy states that 85 marines were involved in the defense of South Georgia and the Falklands.
Another source (SmallWars) states that the Endurance carried 9 marines from NP9801 (in addition to its complement of 13, including one officer.), giving a total of 22 on South Georgia.
The same source gives the figure of 67 for the Falkland islands, but it is not clear if this includes Major Norman and Major Noott. Additionally, Jim Airfield (spelt quite differently in another source), an ex-Royal Marine Corporal, who had moved to the Falklands, appears to have joined them, been issued with weaponry, and fought along side them.
That source agrees with the figure of 2 officers and nine men from Endurance being in Stanley (i.e. 11) So the total strength of NP9801 would appear to have been 76 or 78 (depending whether the 67 listed as available to Governor Hunt included the two Majors or not (my own guess is that it would have).
This WP page on the invasion says there were 57 marines and 11 RN sailors on the Falklands, and an additional 22 sent to South Georgia. Presumably this would have been NP9801 plus the complement of 13 attached to the Endurance, implying that the "double strength" NP9801 would have had about 66 members.
Another User has repeatedly stated in the Talk section to another WP page that there were 80 marines.
The RAF, just to muddy the waters further, states on their website that 43 men from "new" NP8901, 25 from the "old" party, and 12 sailors were on the Falklands, with 9 further marines from the "old" party being sent to south Georgia.
So, take your pick - somewhere between 57 and 70 marines (including officers) plus 11 or 12 personnel from the Endurance on Stanley. Generally seems to be 22 going to South Georgia (9 from the Naval Party + 13 attached to Endurance), giving an overall figure of 77 to 92 marines in total. Perhaps the 85 figure from the Royal Navy has not counted some who were not involved in the fighting.
Oh, the fog of war !
Anybody got any views / sources on this ?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Another reference. Lady Thatcher, April 14th 1982, speech to Parliament, mentions 22 marines on South Georgia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually what I said was that the nominal strength of NP8901 was 40 Royal Marines, NCO and officers. Justin A Kuntz 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misunderstanding. Maybe (guesswork) there were 57 in Stanley, and more at other points on the island, plus the 22 on South Georgia. It bugs me a bit, because there should be a definitive answer to something this straightforward, and explanations for discrepencies. Does any one know if the (apparently) 13 marines attached to the Endurance count as part of NP8901, or are they extra?Mariya Oktyabrskaya 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Try Britains Small Wars http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/NP8901.html, usually a pretty reliable eyewitness source. Justin A Kuntz 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That was one of the sources I used. Still no clearer.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 00:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the 30 Argentine tradesmen taken hostage by the Brits?

I just finised about 1/2 an hour ago watching via YouTube the 12 parts of AN UNGENTLEMANLY ACT and it clearly shows Governor Rex Hunt ordering his men to round up all the Argentine civilian tradesmen once it became evident that the Argentines were going to seize the islands. What I most like about this B.B.C. production is that they consulted British military historian Martin Middlebrook and Argentine Rear-Admiral Carlos Busser to get the Argentine side of the story included and not have the movie tainted by British propaganda. It was awesome to see the Argentine Amphibios Commandoes portrayed as real professionals. I can now see that Military Governor Mario Menendez was put in the same ackward position like Rex Hunt when deciding whether to fight till the death in Stanley or surrender and save civilian and the life of many brave soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usedteabag (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't hostage taking, that is detaining enemy citizens and happens alot in war time. Hostage would be if Hunt took them and threatened to execute them if the Argentine force didn't stop their invasion. Narson (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'am Argentinian, but I agree with Narson. The members of government-sponsored airlines LADE were not "tradesmen"; most of them (under the supervision of Vice-Commodore Gilobert, of the Argentinian Air Force) were gathering intelligence about the British garrison and defences during the weeks preceding the landings. So I guess that Mr. Hunt's decision was right. An Ungentlemanly act is, indeed, a fair, unbiased and accurate description of the Invasion, unfortunately never seen here in Argentina. I only object the Chilean accent of the 'Argentinians' :). I think the incident with LADE and other Argentinian companies employees should be added to the section Defence.

DagosNavy 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last invasion of British territory?

I don't want to get into a debate over the word "territory", I was just trying to make a clear headline. I heard the speech Thatcher made to the cabinet after the invasion, the other day. In it she says this is first invasion of British territory in "many years" 9.05. Anyone know when the last was, or where I can find out? Ryan4314 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of the Channel Islands by Nazi Germany ? Any more recent ? Megapixie (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there has been invasions of British held territory since then (Suez for example) and quite a few uprisings in British territory (The Aden crisis etc). Oh and beating the occupation of the channel islands is probably that oddest and most unexplained fo invasions, the last flight of Rudolph Hess. One strange demented senior Nazi deliberatly crashing into the UK. Narson (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not to familiar with Suez, basically Egypt took over the Canal and there was British company there, that Britain "partly" owned, is that vaguely right? I don't think Aden and NI count as in "invasion" though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I say, Suez was territory held by the British but was not British territory (If you will accept the difference). Aden and NI were insurrections, yeah. I am sure some military somewhere buggered about with a British embassy (which is 'British soil') but in terms of major invasions, no, I can't think of any off the top of my head since the channel islands. Narson (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Several IRA attacks on British border outpost came from the Republic in a systematic way from 1971 until 1994, before and after the 1982 Invasion of the Falklands. DagosNavy 3:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See above comment, they were not an invasion. Justin talk 08:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, no invasion, but still an international border-crossing action

DagosNavy 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An intertational border-crossing action by freedom fighters/terrorists... Not by forces authorised by a foreign state. --Dumbo12 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)