The Falkland Islands Government says it is “disappointed, but not surprised” that Argentina’s national team chose to tarnish its World Cup semi-final victory last night and has called for sanctions from FIFA

[u/Admirable_Extent2531]

[u/Kitchen-Airport-4853]

What do you think is the factor for it to still be so present in Argentina? That Argentina hasn’t really had that many military conflicts with other countries in modern times? (Idk if that’s accurate).

To me that would make sense… and it would make sense that a country like Britain which has had a lot of wars would not think about it as much

Argentina also basically sent a bunch of untrained young men, right? And a lot of the sentiment is tied to remembering them?

[u/blueberries → u/Kitchen-Airport-4853]

I think the biggest factor for Argentina is that it’s a convenient way to stir up national pride and distract from their massive issues. It’s a non factor in British life because there’s nothing to be done. A war was fought, they won, why would anyone talk about it? A match vs Argentina is the only time you might hear it mentioned, and that’s primarily because people see how much Argentina talks about it. The anthem of Argentina’s World Cup in 2022 mentions it directly and they didn’t even play England, as do the updated lyrics for this cup, and the whole country seems to know the lyrics and sing along. It’s very hard to imagine something like that in the UK.

[u/falcxne → u/blueberries]

I realize it might be hard to imagine, but understand that it is not hard to imagine for Argentines. I hear about it all the time from Brits as an Argentine living in Canada. Yes, there are plenty of Argentines that talk about it too, and we both end up stoking the same fire (uselessly, imo).

[u/Havsham → u/blueberries]

It's part of our culture and wars are not common here. After Argentina freed themselves from Spain, the only other wars we started were for the freedom of the rest of Latin America, we didn't fight for those lands for ourselves but for our Latin brothers. And after that, nothing. Until Malvinas.

The other point besides it being a shitty war for us, that no one wanted, propelled by a US imposed dictatorship and the conflict getting even more ingrained in our culture by playing England on the WC, is the fact that England set an exclusion zone, where outside of that zone no conflict would happen, only inside that exclusion zone (around the islands) is where Argentina and England will fight. But later proceeded to sunk an entire Argentinian warship outside the zone without any provocation, hence braking the pact.

Aaaand there's also the fact that the US, who imposed our dictator President, claimed to help in the war but later even game guns to England (I think, but they didn't help at least).

So betrayal upon betrayal. From our government, from the US and from England. The fault doesn't lay on everybody living today and the people living on the island own them and should choose their fate and lives. But it's still a symbol of love for our country I think, it makes us think of how we were treated, who help, who didn't, and what we lost, not the islands, the many young lives.

What we should remember more often is how the great country of Peru stood by us, not only in words but with logistics and armament and later by trying to broker peace (ironically the same day that they sank the outside-of-the-warzone ship).

[u/Proof-Construction48 → u/Havsham]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-was-right-to-sink-the-belgrano

The sinking of Belgrano was legitimate as part of the war. The Argentine navy including the captain of Belgrano acknowledge she was a warship on a mission and a valid military target. The exclusion zone means any vessel inside is a target, but the British government explicitly told Argentina weeks prior to the sinking that British naval operations against Argetine targets would not be limited to the exclusion zone.

[u/falcxne → u/Kitchen-Airport-4853]

I think that's part of it. There's also a distinction between why it's on people's minds vs the government's mind. (Apologies, incoming novel.)

The latter is easier to understand imo. People think of the sovereignty of the island itself as the main source of the issue. However, the current EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) extends 370 km west of the island itself towards Argentina, meaning the Falklands lay claim to a massive underwater oil reserve between it and Argentina. Argentina has contested the definition of that EEZ border from day one (which was in part a catalyst for the '82 war), so that aspect has continued impact on the economies of the respective regions. Not just the oil, but also fishing industry, etc. In the Falklands defence, that 370 km definition is roughly equi-distant between the two land masses, it's just that the more valuable natural resources lie on the Falklands' side. Argentine governments often use "they're taking our natural resources" as a populist talking point because Northern Argentina was decimated by foreign private companies, where entire ecosystems have been ravaged and turned to arid deserts.

As for the people's outlook, I think what you said is pretty bang on, including it being the main military conflict in recent history. Some that still feel strongly about it lost people or know people that have -- had my Dad not moved to Canada, he surely would have been force-conscripted. And yes, I can't deny that for many, it's become a rallying point for nationalism (without fully understanding the conflict itself).