Talk:Falklands War/Archive 1

message: From the War section, under Goose Green from A larger fight took place on 31 May... until ... what had been forty minutes of sharp action.
This seems to me to be far too detailed an account of one particular part of a wider battle; I really don't need to know exactly who fired which shot, jumped out of which window etc. It reads like an anecdote, though might be better housed in Battle_of_Goose_Green. I think this should be removed completely and replaced with something like  "On the 31st of May nineteen Royal Marine Commands successfully engaged Argentinian Commandos who had moved into Top Malo House. All thirteen Argentinian Commandos were killed or captured during the forty minute attack." I don't have the necessary topical knowledge to be happy doing this myself.
Chann94501 15:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor military anecdote?

message: On 26th April 2005, an anonymous user edited the last sentence of the introduction, clipping out "the memory of the war has begun to fade from both countries".  The edit summary contains a claim that this clause was false (with anecdotal evidence).  The only problem is, this leaves the edited sentence ungrammatical.  Could someone with some topic knowledge attend to this? jholman 04:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure if this was already done, but if so it's been redone :D Jamesgibbon 00:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And I concur from the British side.  We work closely with the Argentinian Armed Forces these days, but we haven't simply 'forgotten' about the conflict.  How utterly insulting to the memory of many brave soldiers - on both sides. Darth Doctrinus 08:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small wording problem

message: In note that Several English spellings have been changed to U.S. on this page. I particularly noted "centred" to "centered" and also "Argentinian" was changed to "Argentinean".  The Wikipedia guidelines state that although both versions are acceptable English is to be used for subjects of a British nature. The guidleines also state that spelling should be consistent throughout an article. JP Feb 04
:In any case, "Argentinean" isn't US, IMHO it's just wrong but the Google test says it's used about half as much as "Argentinian" (it still loses). "Argentine" is OK, so is "Argentinian". Feel free to copy edit the article to a consistent UK or US style and indicate here which way you've gone. Even though I'm a Yank, I'd be inclined toward UK spellings on an article far more likely to be read by a UK audience. -- Jmabel 01:54, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just edited the article to use "Argentinian" consistently. "Argentinean" looks wrong to me -- while Google shows a 2:1 preference for "i", Google.co.uk shows an even more pronounced preference for "i", nearer 5:2. -- Arwel 14:31, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: I don't think John Nott resigned did he? I think Thatcher shoved him to one-side sometime after the war. Carrington definitely resigned though. Who else?Mintguy (T) 21:31, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, the "here today and, may I say gone tomorrow defence secretary" interview with Robin Day was after the war. Arwel 21:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation

message: Hello, again.
Why does the article state the wishes of the locals in such a prominent place? Is that -perhaps- relevant to the outcome of the war, like, there wassome kelper partisan force instrumental to Argentina defeat? Or, perhaps, Margaret Thatcher send her troops -just- to answer the kelpers' cry for help?
If there is no good reason, perhaps that "fact" should be removed. Or, to keep a fair and balanced POV, some other (true but non relevant) "facts" should also be mentioned? Like,
* After the war, the islands were still 300 miles away from the Argentinian shores
* Notwithstanding the humilliating defeat, the wording of Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and the bull of pope Alexander VI (1493)  still granted the ownership of the islands to Spain.
*The Argentinian garrison was dismantled, just as in the English invasion of 1833.
Ejrrjs 20:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The partisan kelpers

message: Recent addition in Spanish-language wikipedia; translation follows.
:En contra del derecho internacional, Estados Unidos facilitó continuamente a Gran Bretaña las imágenes satelitales del posicionamiento de la flota argentina. De esta manera, Los Estados Unidos, de facto, incumplieron el Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca (TIAR), aplicable en casos de guerra, para favorecer a un miembro de la OTAN. Su unilateralidad, en vez de mantener neutralidad por pertenecer a dos tratados de defensa, le valió el descrédito internacional por flagrante incumplimiento de los tratados.
:In violation international law, the United States continually gave to Great Britain satellite images showing the position of the Argentine fleet. By this, the United States, de facto failed to fulfil the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Treaty) [on which we seem to lack an article], applicable in cases of war, favoring instead a member of NATO. Their unilaterality, in place of maintaining the neutrality that would have been required by two defense treaties, earned them international discredit for flagrant lack of compliance with treaties. 
Rather POV, and our article says only that there were rumors of such information being shared with the UK. I don't know the facts myself at all, I'm just trying to get some communication going. Either (1) the Spanish-language article has some POV material in its narrative that should either be deleted or attributed clearly to a source, (2) there is some proof that the U.S. provided satellite images to the UK and our article should change to reflect that or (3) some combination of the two, like they are right on the images being provided and the treaties being violated but le valió el descrédito internacional por flagrante incumplimiento de los tratados is still pretty excessive POV. Anyway, does anyone know more on citation for the satellite thing? -- Jmabel 06:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Mr Jmabel, please read a message for you in es.wikipedia. Also, please read the new 3 external links in the Spanish-language article. Best regards, Manuel González Olaechea. Aug 23
Here is Sr. González Olaechea's response, copied from my Spanish-language discussion page:
:He leido sus comentarios en la versión inglesa de este artículo. Lo que puse en la versión en español del mismo es exacto y cuidadosamente redactado. Por lo pronto, hoy he puesto un enlace externo al mismo que da luces sobre la materia y clarifica sus dudas. Buscaré más información.  Personalmente, como diplomático peruano, estuve destacado en Londres entre 1981 y principios de 1984, como Primer Secretario de la Embajada del Perú en Gran Bretaña y Cónsul del Perú en Londres con jurisdicción en todo ese país.  Se imaginará que tuve que trabajar directamente en este tema durante más de tres meses de lunes a domingo. Como usted comprenderá, manejé informaciones reservadas que hoy día son difícil de sustentar ya que los países involucrados no han desclasificado sus archivos sobre esta guerra y por eso es que no las consigno en el artículo. Atentamente, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 13:26 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)
:Espero que con los otros dos enlaces externos agregados al artículo Guerra de las Malvinas, se hayan esclarecido todas sus dudas. Atentamente, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 16:22 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)
Translating; if anyone can improve the translation, feel free, I'm pretty much dashing this off:
:I've read your remarks in the English-language version of this article. What I put in the Spanish-language version of the same is exactly and carefully edited. For now, I've put an external link there which sheds light on the material and clarifies what you've doubted. I will look for more information.  Personally, as a Peruvian diplomat, I was stationed in London from 1981 to the beginning of 1984, as First Secretary  to the Peruvian Embassy in Great Britain and Peruvian Consul in London with jurisdiction for the whole country. As you can imagine, I had to work directly on this matter for three months, seven days a week. As you will understnad, I handled classified information that today is difficult to get hold of and the countries involved have not desclassified their archives about this war and for this reason I could not place this in the article. Attentively, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 13:26 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)
:I hope that with the two other external links added to the artecle :es:Guerra de las Malvinas, I've cleared away all of your doubts. Attentively, Manuel González Olaechea y Franco 16:22 23 ago, 2004 (CEST)
Here is the main link he provided: http://www.ptb.be/doc/em47/malouines.htm
Is anyone here interested in challenging this? If not, I would say we should bring our article in line with the Spanish-language article (minus the POV) rather than vice versa. At the very least, we should add Sr. González Olaechea's link to our article and possibly quote Sr. González Olaechea himself to this effect, since he is certainly himself (as a Peruvian diplomat) a reasonably authoritative source. -- 
Jmabel 15:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
As far as the US being discredited internationally, I can only say that the "Yanquis Go Home!" spraypainted on every other wall in Buenos Aires first popped up around the time of the Malvinas War.  The English version article is incredibly biased.71.57.35.8 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition in Spanish-language wikipedia

message: I have no idea what the Medical section is trying to say.  What does blood 'curdling' mean?  Clotting?  Does anyone know if this idea -- lowering body temperature to inhibit blood loss, rather than transfusing blood -- is important enough to mention here? --Saforrest 16:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
:It looks like its something that's come out of the Google language translator. I think the substance of what the paragraph is trying to say is correct even if it doesn't actually make much sense at the moment. I do seem to remember an issue surrounding the fact that received wisdom at the time was that in normal circumstances a patient suffering great blood loss should be kept warm. But it was discovered that patients who endured the cold in the Falklands before receiving medical treatment actually fared better than those who has received immediate medical treatment and had been kept warm. I don't have any further information on this though. Mintguy (T) 17:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical 

message: A recent edit by User:210.50.96.33 has changed the numbers of dead in the Goose Green section to the following:
After a tough struggle which lasted all night and into the next day; seventeen British and 47 Argentine soldiers were killed and 1050 Argentinean troops were taken prisoner.
Previously this was 17 British, 200 Argentine (a rounded number?), and 1400 (again rounded?) prisoner.
The Spanish article says nothing but both the German and French articles mirrored the English one before this change:
Am 28. Mai eroberten britische Truppen Darwin und Goose Green nach hartem Kampf, 17 britische und 200 argentinische Soldaten wurden getötet und 1400 gefangengenommen.
Après une dure bataille où dix sept Britanniques et deux cent Argentins perdirent la vie, mille quatre cent de ces derniers furent prisonniers.
I suppose the question is apart from  which source is claiming these figures? -Wikibob | Talk 12:29, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
I just noticed the Battle of Goose Green article shows
Argentinians had lost fifty men killed -Wikibob | Talk 12:49, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
In regard to sources, this page lists the number of dead from the sinking of the General Belgrano as 321.  However the ARA General Belgrano page states that 323 were killed in the attack.  and
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_037100_generalbelgr.htm
states that 368 were killed, 
Also http://www.cibernautica.com.ar/gralbelgrano/
albeit in spanish states that again 323 were killed.  
Which is it?  any ideas?  Malo 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to [], an official homepage in Spanish, 323 lost their lives with ARA General Belgrano - 321 military and 2 civilian personnel. Necessary Evil 20:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of numbers dead?

message: Jonathunder reverted several of my edits, and I am puzzled as to why. Two were grammatical errors that I corrected; one was to note that Al Haig, as well as Caspar Weinberger, sided with the British; one was to clarify an ambiguous sentence ("Regardless, American non-interference was vital.") I'd like to know what was objectionable about these edits. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: my username -- I joined Wikipedia on a whim, not knowing that it is addictive. Friends at the office nicknamed me Herschel Krustofsky because of my large smile, and I really had no idea he was such a household word. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonathunder

message: Does it seem to anyone else that the present version is somewhat over-wikified? It seems a bit cluttered to have words like "beach" and "vehicle" linked. --H.K. 15:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Overwikification

message: I can't do it myself since the article is too long to edit with my browser but could someone correct the spelling of "possesion" to "possession" in the "war box"? Also, adding flags would be nice as would changing the colour to the yellow used in our other war templates (see Korean War for example). AndyL 16:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  War box 

message: Is there a source that confirms the historicity of the following passage recently added to the article? The weasle word "believed" makes me doubt if it is verifiable.
:However, it is believed that with the renewed confidence gained from the victory, Margaret Thatcher suggested in her 1983 China visit an extension of British rule in Hong Kong (which would legally end in 1997 when the 99-year lease of the territory expires, although Beijing never recognized the 1898 treaty). She was famously rebuffed during a meeting with then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping with comments such as "China is no Argentina" and "We can order troops into Hong Kong this afternoon". Formal discussions of British withdrawal from the territory started after this Beijing visit and Hong Kong was returned to China on July 1, 1997.
Cheers, Fawcett5 15:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: For everyone's enjoyment, I inserted some info from Sir Lawrence Freedman, care of the Times, that neither Thatcher or the Cabinet knew about the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was sunk. It's such a shame she got all that flak considering that it wasn't her fault after all. John Smith's 30 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, it seems that the direct link to timesonline.co.uk doesn't work; one needs to log in first.  Is this information mirrored anywhere else that can be linked directly? siafu 30 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)
::Erm, you shouldn't have to log on - I don't have an account with them. I guess you'll just have to read the book with them, if you can't read the article. Sorry John Smith's 1 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
I was reading the section on the sinking of the Belgrano with *no* background knowledge and I think it failed to explain the situation.  I am none the wiser. Eddwardo 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking of the Belgrano 

message: :"The government, headed by President General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-festering nationalistic sentiment by launching what it thought would be a quick and easy war to reclaim the Falkland Islands. They seriously misjudged the will of the British Government and people, who had never willingly lost territory in war."
Sounds like pro-British POV to me. — Matt Crypto 00:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Ejrrjs | What? 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A POV bit? 

message: Astro:
That image of the Belgrano sinking is a jewel, great addition!!
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: There's an article on Clarín (newspaper) today about the siucide of a ex, where it states that around 350 veterans commited suicide since the end of the war. El suicidio de un soldado distinguido con la medalla de honor en Malvinas. Mariano(t/c) 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath in Argentina 

message: Its not accurate,  the decision  to buy 36 A-4AR to the US was because the IAI Kfirs, A-7s and F-16s were vetoed and 36 new Mirage 2000 will not cost just u$s 250 m as the skyhawks. Peru, for example bought 26 and they must cut them to 13 later due the high costs.  Anyway,  after the war,   Chile got Mirage 50 (later transform to Panteras) and so Venezuela. Ecuador got Mirage F1 and Jaguars.    Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, for mention, got  Aerospatiale Super Pumas helicopters. Is to be noticed also that South American air forces didn't  renew their combat aircraft soon after the war.  And now, Brazil has just opted for surplus Mirage 2000 and Argentina is following. Jor70 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French involvement Effect 

message: We have a revert war going on between two users, one who keeps changing IPs, the other logged in. Both have used offensive edit summaries, and I invite them both to stop that right now and discuss, in civil language, the nature of the dispute here. Jonathunder 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stop reverting changes, but what would you call this? .
Well, my foul-mouthed friend, what I would call that is an adumbration of the reasons why the Falkland Islanders will never, ever agree to surrender their sovereignty to Argentine control. TharkunColl 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert battle 

message: The text currently says this:
: Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK as a member of NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact").  However, the North Atlantic Treaty only obliges the signatories to support if the attack occurs in Europe or North America above the Tropic of Cancer.  The Rio Pact only obliges the US to intervene if one of the adherants to the treaty is attacked - the UK never attacked Argentina, only Argentine forces on British territory. (emphasis mine)
Of course no one would dispite that the attack happened south of the Tropic of Cancer.  But isn't the second sort of begging the question, because it implicitly assumes the U.S. recognized the Falklands as exclusively British territory?  Certainly Argentina would not have accepted such a rationale for U.S. non-involvement. --Saforrest 15:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US treaty obligations 

message: I find it quite surprising that the article makes no mention of the lack of helicopters for transport and support during the War - given the terrain and geography of the theatre, airborne units would have been ideal for this action.
For those who don't know - most of the helicopters intended for the War were sunk as the one ship carrying them was lost in a storm en route to the islands - the loadmaster at Southampton should have spread the euqipment more evenly through the supply fleet. Horus Kol 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a storm ?  The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an Exocet, the Wessex and Chinooks (all but one) were lost with the ship. Jor70 14:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of Helicopters 

message: I've we-worded the use of the word 'nationalistic' as nationalism covers it and makes more sense with the reference to 'nationalism'.
ahpook 02:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalistic 

message: I would like to add a NPOV at the phrase :  but the Argentine Air Force (FAA) realized that the British were likewise capable of hitting targets on the mainland, and immediately moved back all jet fighters in order to protect against this possibility.  
Not only is not evidence about these, in fact official Argentine Air Force sources cited the chilean airctaft threat much more realistic than a British one against the mainland due political reasons.
Anyway, and most important, Grupo 8 Mirages were deployed  to Comodoro Rivadavia and Rio Gallegos on April before the raids and remain there until June and as it say later, the Mirage III due their lack of air refuelling capability and less fuel capacity than an IAI Dagger were used just as decoys because they couldn't stay over the islands.  Jor70 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Buck Raids usefulness 

message: The wording of the first two paragraphs in this section is confusing. In paragraph one it states that only one bomb hit the runway then describes the Argentinian response. In paragraph two it describes nine Harrier jets striking the same runways minutes later. 
Clearly both applications of ordinance on the runways influenced Argentinian strategy.
I would combine the air raids in one paragraph or reserve the conclusion statement until after the description of the Harrier sorty.
:Whilst I don't see how the Harrier attack on Stanley could mean a similar attack on Argentina (unlike with Black Buck), I've tried tidying it up as you suggested. How's that? --BadWolf42 12:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Black Buck Raids confusion

message: I've removed the following:
:The Guards movements were required to be done by helicopter or ship because the guardsmen had failed to yomp from Port San Carlos to the marshalling area at Port Stanley, due combat engineers of the Argentine Army blown up the Bluff Cove bridge. Elite troops from Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment made the yoump walking through another route (Source: The Battle For The Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins ).
As it doesn't make any sense. Why would you marshall at Port Stanley (occupied) for the Bluff Cove support mission? The Marines and Paras who marched to Stanley were going to assault Stanley, not support existing troops.
The shipborne route was taken as a military advance had not consulted with Naval planners and were dangerously exposed. The troops could not walk fast enough (1mph made good, [Sandy Woodward]) and with only one helicopter the airborne route was also out. There were many cockups and confusion in the sending of the landing ships, including the mistaking of Fitzroy for Port Fitzroy and vice-versa and the marine commander refusing to return the landing craft as scheduled as thought he'd been landed at the wrong point (this is probably the bit about the bridge, I'll dig this out later).
I suspect there's confusion over landing craft and landing ships here. I'll change this to a fuller account when I get home and can check Woodward and Clapp, but this is geographically illogical and causally suspect, so I've removed it for now.
--BadWolf42 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone through this and re-written almost the entire section with a far more detailed description of the build up to the disaster at Fitzroy. My references directly dispute the claim the Bluff Cove bridge being destroyed necessitated the landing as the landing would always be needed to get the heavy weapons there (there was a corresponding one in Teal Inlet), also the bridge is south of Bluff Cove and San Carlos is north. I've included it for completeness, nonetheless.--BadWolf42 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bluff Cove landings

message: The first part of this Wiki article (in the introduction) says that there were "1,000 deaths on both sides." This seems unclear as to whether each side lost 1,000 or if it was 1,000 total. Then, in the side bar, under the Argentinian flag, it says that there were "655 killed" (Argentines); and under the British flag it says there were "255 killed" (Brits). But under the "War ended" section of the article, it says there were "255 British and 635 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen" killed. So there's an inconsistency between whether it was 635 or 655 Argentines killed. Also, I'm not sure whether or not any civilian Brits, Argentinines, and/or Falkland residents were killed. I haven't been able to find an authoritative source for the correct numbers... I'll keep looking around and will correct the article if I find the right data, but in case I don't, I thought I'd better post this note so that someone else can look into it. --Lukecro 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the only civilians killed would have been Merchant Navy personnel on board the Atlantic Conveyor when it was sunk. Guinnog 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re: Civilians -  3 civilians - backed up by  and about halfway down  Megapixie 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies in the Number of Deaths/Casualties

message: Shoulnt there be somthing in this about the friget cantubury sent from new zealand to replace the british one in the indian ocean. (sry about my spelling) --219.88.47.203 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand Involvment

message: I recall a documentary about the British intelligence services' efforts to buy up any Exocets on the open market and spike them prior to their acquisition by the Argentinian Military, providing a faulty weapon to destroy the most dangerous offensive tactic used.  Citation and information needed - any takers? Bigpinkthing 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exocet spiking by British intel 

message: There is something of an ambiguous/unclear statement in the War Ended section. The last sentence of the first paragraph says "Brigadier-General Oscar Jofre, Commander of the 10th Argentine Mechanized Infantry Brigade, has admitted that the abrupt end of the ground fighting was hastened by fear of war crimes against the civilians." I am unsure of this statement for a couple of reasons. First, it is un-cited. Second, it doesn't say who he was afraid was going to commit said war crimes--the British or the Argentines? It appeared to me on first read that this was non NPOV and borderline libel on the British Army, since it comes from an Argentine Commander. It does seem on second read that he feared war crimes on the part of the Argentine Army, but it remains unclear and should be rectified and cited adequately. Aborrows 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I've always been uncomfortable with that line. Can whoever wrote it clarify, please? --BadWolf42 15:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any source neither. I checked the article history and the entry seems to be made on 20 September 2004 by 210.50.182.106. [ history & whois ]  so will be hard to clarify (Jor70 12:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly excised.--BadWolf42 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crimes Claim 

message: From the Section Task Force there is a paragraph begining; Her Majesty the Queen's son, Prince Andrew ... It seems a little odd to have the Queen given her ceremonial title but not her son, and for that matter why not 'His Excellency the Argentine Ambassador' etc. My feeling is that this gives the text a slightly non-NPOV feeling by seeming to have been written by one of HRH's loyal subject. Perhaps just 'The Queen's son, Prince Andrew' would do the job? Ekilfeather 16:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, agree. Not keen on that exact wording though, how about "Prince Andrew, then second in line to the British throne,..."  Megapixie 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with thanks to Megapixie for correct cross-reference --Ekilfeather 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of dignitaries 

message: A US Air Force engineer once told me that, even without the British invasion, the Argentine invasion would have been defeated by thirst. This was one of the few times in history that an occupying force was several times as large as the local population; by the end of the war, the supply of fresh water on the islands was nearly depleted. But I've checked a number of books without finding confirmation of this. Do you experts have any info?Dynzmoar 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water supply 

message: Minor edit to remove oversimplification: "Most European countries and the United States supported Britain; most Latin American countries supported Argentina.
I have changed to: Whilst remaining diplomatically neutral, most European countries and the United States supported Britain; many Latin American countries (with the notable exception of Chile) supported Argentina.
--Mig25 foxbat2003 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited 5/6/06 

message: 79kb long, clearly too big. We need to put the trivia into its own article, the Argentina impact, the UK impact and artistic treatments. Skinnyweed 19:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening article by putting trivia/cruft into separate article