Obama Administration And the Falkland Islands Dispute

[ChaserGrey]

In fairness to the Argentine government, the British settlers were only transplanted there after the original handful of residents were booted off by force. A hundred and eighty-odd years is a long time to hold a grudge over a few marginally-habitable islands in the middle of nowhere, of course, but I reckon we owe them the opportunity to make their case. Perhaps some neutral third party like the UN should arbitrate?

Well, yes. But if you go back 180-odd years you could say that about nearly every territorial claim on Earth. Alsace-Lorraine, anyone? Finland was part of the Russian Empire much more recently than the Falklands were part of Argentina, and let's not even get started on the borders of Poland. For that matter, there's no reason you should stop at a mere 200 years...

I really think that at this point we have to acknowledge that there was a lot of pushing, shoving, and bad behavior in the past, and go with what the people who actually live there now want. Anything else is a recipe for a lot of shooting.

[Omega18]

As I stated on another forum where this question came up recently, compared to 1982 the military situation is dramatically different today.

The key for the stressful 1982 Argentine initial invasion was that there were only 57 British Marines and 11 Royal Navy sailors on the island at the time (with no heavy weapons either). Today you have 1,000+ British military personnel who are stationed on the island, who should all assist in the defense of the islands if it became necessary, plus a now better equipped Falkland Islands Self Defense Force which should definitely fight in a scenario where its not hopeless (they were actually ordered to surrender by the British military authorities historically). In the meantime, the Argentine military has basically declined in its general capabilities, this includes its Navy which is now basically limited to a Type 42 destroyed converted to have some amphibious capability instead of the dedicated LST supporting the rest of the naval force during the historical invasion. This makes it simply impossible for Argentina to land enough troops to possibly successfully pull off an invasion now with this existing naval force. (The Royal Navy can effectively cut any reinforcements by sea once its nuclear attack subs really reach the area.)

While Argentina could theoretically try to support the invasion with their C-130 aerial transports, that force is in poor shape and the reality is you need greater numbers of para-dropped troops to pull off an invasion against fores with assorted heavier weapons regardless. Of course right now Argentina utterly lacks anything close to the actual number of fully trained and equipped paratroops needed to successfully pull something like this off period. The UK also is in a much better position to reasonably quickly reinforce the Falklands compared to 1982 with its 7 C-17s among other transport assets, including through paratroopers if there are concerns about the islands airfields being usable when they arrive.

The Mount Pleasant Airfield on the Falklands is also now capable of supporting Eurofighters with 4 being ordinarily deployed there. Unless Argentina wants to put its transports under massive risk, they need to eliminate the Eurofighters prior to their invasion transports getting close to the Falklands, which takes away any possibility of the actual invasion retaining the advantage of surprise. If Argentina actually started procuring the necessary naval capability to possibly successfully pull off an invasion, the UK could fly in a greater number of eurofighters, which the base is perfectly capable of supporting. The Argentine Air Force is very weak today and actually consisting of the same aircraft types they had in 1982. The best part of this force consists of 30 A-4s that have been reasonably upgraded, while the rest consists of about 22 old Mirage Vs and 9 Mirage IIIs. (With only the A-4s having the range to reach Mount Pleasant.) This means it would not take that large a Eurofighter force to make a successful invasion impossible period. The UK could also simply fly in more troops if they become really concerned about the possibility of an imminent invasion.

Looking at a possible future scenario, as long as the UK carrier construction continues to go forward, their ability to respond to a possible invasion actually gets far stronger once they are commissioned. The only way an Argentine invasion become a plausible military threat anytime remotely soon is if the UK substantially reduces the number of personnel garrisoning the island.

[madd0ct0r]

hmmm, somebody in Argentina is determined not to repeat it, given that they've knowingly downgraded their naval capability so much. Even if a right-wing demagouge gets into power they can be quietly told it's impossible.

[atg]

hmmm, somebody in Argentina is determined not to repeat it, given that they've knowingly downgraded their naval capability so much. Even if a right-wing demagouge gets into power they can be quietly told it's impossible.

I doubt they've willingly made a conscious choice to downgrade their navy, more likely they don't have the money. IIRC what happened with their carrier was they literally couldn't afford to run it anymore.

[K. A. Pital]

I really think that at this point we have to acknowledge that there was a lot of pushing, shoving, and bad behavior in the past, and go with what the people who actually live there now want. Anything else is a recipe for a lot of shooting.

Acknowledging this would mean another thing. It would mean that if someone successfully ethnically cleanses a territory and colonizes it (Israel, USA with the Natives, etc.) he can then say "yeah, look, now there's a bunch of White Folks living here and they love our nation, while these darkies here lost any and all claims to these lands".

It encourages ethnic cleansing and colonization. Israel is pretty much understanding this; that's why they put civilians in territories they took over. It is a good protection. You can cleanse the fuck out of these territories, and any attempt at "returning" them would be met with "LOOK, these people HERE don't want that".

"What about those who lived here before you came?"

"Oh, we kicked their sorry ass out. They don't count now."

[Chirios]

I really think that at this point we have to acknowledge that there was a lot of pushing, shoving, and bad behavior in the past, and go with what the people who actually live there now want. Anything else is a recipe for a lot of shooting.

Acknowledging this would mean another thing. It would mean that if someone successfully ethnically cleanses a territory and colonizes it (Israel, USA with the Natives, etc.) he can then say "yeah, look, now there's a bunch of White Folks living here and they love our nation, while these darkies here lost any and all claims to these lands".

It encourages ethnic cleansing and colonization. Israel is pretty much understanding this; that's why they put civilians in territories they took over. It is a good protection. You can cleanse the fuck out of these territories, and any attempt at "returning" them would be met with "LOOK, these people HERE don't want that".

"What about those who lived here before you came?"

"Oh, we kicked their sorry ass out. They don't count now."

It's a blurry line, but you have to accept that after a certain period of time the concept of "the original owners" becomes meaningless.

180 years ago there were whole areas of America that were populated solely by natives. And while we can all agree that America's "manifest destiny" resulted in the Native's being royally screwed, we cannot legitimately demand that the descendants of those European-American's leave and return the land to those of Native descent.

180 years ago there were fewer white settlers in Africa. But 180 years have passed, and we cannot demand that the descendants of those original white settlers leave because those descendants are so far removed from the original crime that they cannot be blamed for it.

[streetad]

With respect, the islands were uninhabited when European settlers originally moved in. The British couldn't afford to continue supporting their initial settlement and when they later returned, they found a small Argentinian colony had recently been set up on the islands. The Argentinian garrison was politely but firmly turfed off the island, and the British colony was re-established. A large, militarily powerful colonial power exerting its will over a smaller, less militarily powerful colonial power is hardly unprecedented.

If the people living there now aren't 'natives' then no-one is - and they are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a British Overseas Dependency. As long as this remains the case, the UK Government do not recognise there is a dispute at all - hence any call for 'arbitration' or suggestion that the two governments should negotiate is always going to be seen as being supportive of the Argentinian position.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, how far back do we go in honoring ancestral claims to a tract of land? Do we also factor in cases where a province has changed hands between foreign overlords many times? Can Poland and Lithuania claim to own Belarus and the Ukraine?

And while we're at it, who rightfully owns Alsace-Lorraine? Or, for that matter, Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line?

[Zinegata]

People here do remember that the last Falklands War only happened because the Argentine military junta was desperate to get the public's mind off its abysmal economic record, yes?

So really, when people bring up the "wounded pride" argument, I can't help but think it's a stupid argument. Gaining back the Falklands isn't gonna help Argentina. It's just a red herring issue used by the Argentine government to distract the people from more pressing issues.

[weemadando]

Yeah, I read through about five or six histories of the Falklands/Malvinas (depending on which side the author was from) conflict last year.

All of them, even the Argentinian one's agreed that it was a desperation move by the junta to try and reclaim public support, while giving the public an alternate enemy.

And that they had genuinely expected the British to back down after their trip-wire forces surrendered. Turns out that an angry, dissatisfied British public was also in need of an outside enemy to unite support behind the government for a while.

[K. A. Pital]

It's a blurry line, but you have to accept that after a certain period of time the concept of "the original owners" becomes meaningless.

It doesn't become "meaningless", only idealistic. I.e. impossible to realize in practice. However, that's not the case with Argentine, it seems. Using international law and pressure from other nations, you could try to force Britain to give away this land. So everything becomes meaningful so as long as you can accomplish it.

180 years ago there were whole areas of America that were populated solely by natives. And while we can all agree that America's "manifest destiny" resulted in the Native's being royally screwed, we cannot legitimately demand that the descendants of those European-American's leave and return the land to those of Native descent. 180 years ago there were fewer white settlers in Africa. But 180 years have passed, and we cannot demand that the descendants of those original white settlers leave because those descendants are so far removed from the original crime that they cannot be blamed for it.

I just explained this in another thread. You can't "demand" it? Actually, you can. It would be impractical and often infeasible, because you're railing against someone who has more power than you - but since when did this automatically become wrong or unreasonable? Idealism stops being unrealistic once the goal is feasible. As for "descendants being removed from the crime", that is a dangerous line of thinking. Let me quote myself:

...

I was talking about nation-states, primarily, which are entities that survive over generations. A Kenyan or an Irishman can sue the current Britain (and by that the British government) for torture because it is the same continous government that ordered his torture. But if he wins, who is going to pay? The torturer, or the torturers' generation? Probably not. The British government will pay it out of the government's funds. But the British government only controls what the taxpayers - the citizenry - give it. So it would mean that if Kenya or Ireland or India win a court-of-law case against Britain, the children will pay for the sins of the fathers.

I never said I would like this to exist, but international law seems to work that way regardless of my wishes. Besides, if you never properly disclaimed any continuancy from the prior government, you can be held responsible for any actions of your nation in the past. Perhaps you could frame this in a "international law is racist" and "lawsuits for reparations should have a term of expiry" type of phrase... However, why should a crime of torture or murder have a term of expiry when we are talking about governments and nation-states, entities that survive over several generations?

... I merely pointed to the fact that as of now, international law has not invented any type of "forgiveness" for crimes that have no term of expirity. Murder and torture don't have a term when they expire, if they are commited by a nation-state. Any nation-state is a system, a society and a government. When someone "sues Britain", he does sue the British government. But since the government's funds are the people's funds, in the end he's suing modern-day Britons for what their ancestors did.

You may dislike that very idea. But is it racist? Or is the opposing idea - that you should forgive all crimes once those who commited them die, and never demand any reparations from the nation-state in question - not racist? This would open the door to horrific transgressions. Just wait until Bush, Cheney and most of the people in charge of the invasion die, use the international pressure of the USA, and Iraq would never be able to file a lawsuit against the US government. The concept of forgiving transgenerational entities like governments and nationstates is, in my view, much, much more dangerous than the currently existing principle of acceptable search for reparations for past misdeeds.

By the time Britain left India, a whole century has passed after Indians last rebelled in 1857. Could India seek reparations for the damage caused by that incident, the torture and the murders done at the behest of Britain? According to your principle, no, it lost this right because the generations have changed. But it was still opressed for a century and of course it could not challenge Britain during these 100 years at all. It could only do so after almost a hundred years expired!

A mesmerizing fact is revealed - it would be beneficial for the opressor to keep the opressed under his yoke for as long as possible, so that they lose all right to reparations or retribution merely due to "passage of time". It would be beneficial for Indonesia to keep East Timor subdued for a century, because then Sukharto generation which commited the genocide, dies, and there'll be no right to seek reparations from "current Indonesians" for "what their fathers did". It would be beneficial and rational for the USSR to never ever let Eastern European nations become de-facto independent, stop being satellites, because once they do, they could reasonably seek reparations for damages caused in 1956, 1968, etc. from current Russians! Thus it would only become acceptable for the USSR to release them from orbit around... 2056, 2068 or some such term, when it becomes unfeasible to sue.

I am not a big fan of "sue the son for the father". However, nation-states and governments are not individuals and should not be treated as such.

Stas, how far back do we go in honoring ancestral claims to a tract of land?

Honestly? I'm not sure there's a firm rule. However, as of now I'd tend to go with "anything you can make realistically happen". Germany can't realistically take land from Poland or France, Lithuania and Poland can't realistically take land from Belarus or Russia. However, let us assume someone gets a chance to roll back some historical conquest and get back his territory. Is he automatically "wrong" for doing that? Is Argentine wrong here, just because it managed to draw the US to accept its position? And, of course, utilitarianism. How much suffering would Argentine's possible peaceful takeover of the Falklands cause? You would have to relocate a few thousand people, yes. But this happens here and there when a volcano erupts. Is this too much to right a historical wrong? Maybe the Falklands will improve Argentine's economy - who knows? Then the relocation hardship would be offset by better conditions for the Argentine citizens. Mind you, these are just hypothetical examples.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, how far back do we go in honoring ancestral claims to a tract of land?

Honestly? I'm not sure there's a firm rule. However, as of now I'd tend to go with "anything you can make realistically happen". Germany can't realistically take land from Poland or France, Lithuania and Poland can't realistically take land from Belarus or Russia. However, let us assume someone gets a chance to roll back some historical conquest and get back his territory. Is he automatically "wrong" for doing that?

It depends on the conquest. Is it worth starting a war of aggression to right a historical wrong? That opens itself up to a lot of abuse- X attacks Y over the province (X+Y)/2 between them, potentially leading to a disaster far more significant than the value of the province in question.

It also raises issues of how much ethnic cleansing is permissible- can we justifiably relocate millions of people to secure this new territory for its new (old) overlords? Take the principle far enough, and you justify the Israelis' actions in Palestine, because their ancestors indisputably did live in that region and were indisputably dispossessed of it by a conquering outside power that got sick of having to fight Israelite guerillas over and over. Some people don't mind the idea of claiming that therefore, Israeli occupation of Israel/Greater Israel is a correction of a historical wrong, even if it means forcing many Palestinians out of that region... but you might have a problem with claiming such a thing.

And, of course, utilitarianism. How much suffering would Argentine's possible peaceful takeover of the Falklands cause? You would have to relocate a few thousand people, yes. But this happens here and there when a volcano erupts. Is this too much to right a historical wrong? Maybe the Falklands will improve Argentine's economy - who knows? Then the relocation hardship would be offset by better conditions for the Argentine citizens. Mind you, these are just hypothetical examples.

The Falklands are kind of useless rocks, so I doubt there would be benefit to the Argentines that justifies the cost to the current inhabitants of the Falklands. Moreover, the magnitude of the historical wrong is questionable- very few Argentines ever suffered from the British takeover of the islands, since the pre-British population was so small.

Logically, the magnitude of the price that can reasonably be extracted to right a historical wrong should scale with the size of the wrong. We can justify huge liabilities on Britain for what they did to India, from a certain point of view, but we can't justify equally huge liabilities on someone whose only 'crime' was having planted a flag on some desolate rock and relocated a few dozen shepherds.

It may well be that we can find lands which are now so heavily populated that the cost of dispossessing the current inhabitants exceeds any reasonable estimate of the value of righting the historical wrong.

[K. A. Pital]

Is it worth starting a war of aggression to right a historical wrong?

No, it's not. Unless, of course, a nation is starving because someone took their cropland. However, such examples are few, if any at all.

Some people don't mind the idea of claiming that therefore, Israeli occupation of Israel/Greater Israel is a correction of a historical wrong, even if it means forcing many Palestinians out of that region... but you might have a problem with claiming such a thing.

Obviously I would. Like I said, if this creates lots of suffering, it is crazy. Wealthy Israelis kicking poor Palestinians into ghettoes to take over "historical land" is definetely causing suffering to the latter. The former, at least as of now, aren't suffering. If Argentine would try to take over the Falklands in another war of conquest, I would be logically opposed to that. Just as Georgia's attempt to take over Ossetia was rationalized in a "Georgian kingdom was here... maybe" type of thing; but clearly not in a moral way.

Like I said, there should be some utilitarian justification there. War is clearly lots of suffering and even death. A patch of land is not worth dying for - unless the fact that someone is currently ruling it is causing deaths in your nation. See above.

We can justify huge liabilities on Britain for what they did to India, from a certain point of view, but we can't justify equally huge liabilities on someone whose only 'crime' was having planted a flag on some desolate rock and relocated a few dozen shepherds.

Indeed. Obviously, places like Mandatory Palestine, the former Raj (all of it), Ireland, Kenya, Egypt, Uganda maybe have a far greater right to demand of Britain a "right to wrongs" - far greater than Argentine. Like I said above, it depends on how justified is the act from a moral point of view. If it causes more suffering just to change flags on a desolate rock, like, say... a war over some iceberg, to make the example extremely stupid - it's not worth it.

[Simon_Jester]

Some people don't mind the idea of claiming that therefore, Israeli occupation of Israel/Greater Israel is a correction of a historical wrong, even if it means forcing many Palestinians out of that region... but you might have a problem with claiming such a thing.

Obviously I would. Like I said, if this creates lots of suffering, it is crazy. Wealthy Israelis kicking poor Palestinians into ghettoes to take over "historical land" is definetely causing suffering to the latter. The former, at least as of now, aren't suffering. If Argentine would try to take over the Falklands in another war of conquest, I would be logically opposed to that. Just as Georgia's attempt to take over Ossetia was rationalized in a "Georgian kingdom was here... maybe" type of thing; but clearly not in a moral way.

In the case of the Argentines, the Argentinian government seldom makes an issue of their claim to the Falklands when they have anything more important to do and the people don't need to be distracted. It's just a banner for Argentine nationalists to wave, because the islands are fundamentally rather worthless. The Argentine people cannot claim, in any broad sense, to have been harmed by the lack of the islands, since the islands aren't really very useful to Argentina. Argentina would be essentially the same country, in essentially the same economic condition, if the British had never taken the islands.

Now, Britain would not be much harmed by the loss of the islands, either... but the inhabitants of the islands would, and they're the ones who would pay the price for an Argentine takeover, even if the British themselves chose not to contest the takeover.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its no coincidence that the Argentinean invasion came at a time when oil deposits were being investigated on and around the islands that turned out to be almost nothing postwar.

[Simon_Jester]

What would people have to say about the British keeping the islands if oil had been discovered there, in significant quantity? Suddenly, the islands become far more valuable; does this enhance the Argentine claim to have been the rightful owner?

[K. A. Pital]

Its no coincidence that the Argentinean invasion came at a time when oil deposits were being investigated on and around the islands that turned out to be almost nothing postwar.

Naturally. I read about it long ago. Although this makes the 1980s invasion at least somewhat reasonable - Britain took Falklands from Argentine, then there could've been oil, which would've been an opportunity for Argentine; but the British squandered it through historical actions. Take back the oil! Heh. Right now a war would make no sense. Although I think Argentine presses the issue via diplomacy simply because its a matter of national pride. Not the best motivation, surely. On the other hand, the British shouldn't be too proud they managed to take over random places on Earth so far away from murky Albion that they routinely became hotspots and continue to be a cause of war and animosity until now, almost a century after the British Empire gave up its last foul breath.

[Sea Skimmer]

Its purely a national pride/stupidity issue. The Argentinean claim is worthless; France could just as well claim all of Argentina and the Falklands by the fact that it conquered Spain in the Napoleonic Wars before Argentina was independent. They went to war in 1982 because they thought the glory of conquest plus seizing the oil would solve the problem of the Junta needing to gun down unemployed rioting protesters every single day. One might recall Argentina had already tried to invade Chile for the same general purpose several years earlier, including some real oil in the Beagle channel, but was thwarted by an alert Chilean military being warned and fortifying the mountain passes. Argentina still claims Chilean territory today too, Chile also claims some bits of Argentina but is less vocal on the issue. All and all it was about on par with Saddam invading Kuwait.

In any case the Falklands possession was not random or pointless for the British to own if forgive me if I am wrong, some people seem to be making it out to be. The place was very useful as a base from which RN sailing warships could take on fresh water and fresh produce grown by the local colonists and later as a coaling station and radio station. Both world wars saw important early naval battles fought in proximity to the islands, and they didn’t loose this strategic value until after the end of WW2 by which time the British population was pretty damn well established. The next nearest RN bases are about 4000 miles to the north or east, or 5000 miles west, and even after Panama opened a very significant amount of shipping went around the Cape of Good Hope. For a considerable time most of the worlds explosive production depended on nitrates shipped out of Chile around the cape. It was only in WW1 that people began making synthetic substitutes. So anyway, very useful piece of land to own, all the more so when added together with all the other RN bases around the globe.

[ChaserGrey]

Acknowledging this would mean another thing. It would mean that if someone successfully ethnically cleanses a territory and colonizes it (Israel, USA with the Natives, etc.) he can then say "yeah, look, now there's a bunch of White Folks living here and they love our nation, while these darkies here lost any and all claims to these lands".

Simon already made a lot of these points upthread, but let me put my own spin on it. Let's assume for a moment that Argentina has a valid claim on the Falklands/Malvinas/those rocks over there because they owned them in 1840-ish and were thrown off by the British.

Here is a map of Europe at roughly the same time as Argentina was ejected from the Falklands. A few salient features. The Ottoman Empire, from which the modern Turkish state is descended, controls pretty much all of what we now call the Middle East, minus only the Saudi interior which at the time no one could imagine wanting. It also controls much of the Balkans, save for a bit of coastline owned by the Austrians. Do Austria and Turkey now have valid claims to any of that territory? Would they be justified in trying to assert those claims, by diplomacy or force? Bonus question: what happened to Europe the last time they did?

Moving northward, we see that Poland has been partitioned and dismembered between Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Who, if anyone, legitimately owns that territory? Much of the Prussian part of Poland was Prussian, and later German, until 1945. Does Germany have a claim on that territory?

That's not the end of the problems Germany gives us. There are a number of independent German states such as Bohemia, Bavaria, and a host of smaller ones that used to make up the Holy Roman Empire. Bavaria, for one example, was independent from the 8th Century A.D. until it was absorbed by Prussia in the formation of the German Empire. Should those states be independent?

If we go back further over the same territory, the borders change even more. Which are the "right" boundaries, and how do we know?

And if trying to reactivate any of those old 1840s-era claims now would be wrong, then what makes the case of Argentina and the Falklands special?

[Duckie]

A better example than the germans, who seem to be happy in their current position, might be the hungarian lands in the treaty of trianon, which only happened even more recently and many nationalist hungarians are sore over. It also has the similar problem of "many people in these claimed lands don't want to be part of hungary".

Also the Argentinians didn't claim these islands from nobody. Why is nobody advocating giving these lands back to the Mapuche, like they belong, by this logic? Most argentinian land in patagonia was as of yet unoccupied by the settlers until the 1870s.

[ChaserGrey]

Well, yes. But under the standard we're stipulating (the one being applied to Argentina's claims to the Falklands) what the people who live there now want isn't relevant. What matters is who the "original" owners are.

[K. A. Pital]

Its purely a national pride/stupidity issue. The Argentinean claim is worthless; France could just as well claim all of Argentina and the Falklands by the fact that it conquered Spain in the Napoleonic Wars before Argentina was independent.

I wasn't aware you could simply claim someone's colonies. The fact that Spain took over Argentina is itself an example of imperalism. The imperialism of France gives it no greater claim to anything.

Argentina still claims Chilean territory today too, Chile also claims some bits of Argentina but is less vocal on the issue. All and all it was about on par with Saddam invading Kuwait.

I wasn't aware Baghdad had a territorial claim to Kuwait. I thought Saddam had a debt issue and needed oil, plain and simple.

In any case the Falklands possession was not random or pointless for the British to own if forgive me if I am wrong, some people seem to be making it out to be. The place was very useful as a base from which RN sailing warships could take on fresh water and fresh produce grown by the local colonists and later as a coaling station and radio station.

Pardon me, where did I say the Falklands were pointless? Quite the contrary. They are a relic of British imperialism; they were a vital instrument in this imperialism as you now prove - a Royal Navy supply base. This only makes it worse. As of now, the British Empire is dead as Frankenstein without electricity. Relics such as the Falklands are a sad reminder that Britain once conquered and held under its yoke an enormously gigantic portion of the world, but that's what I'm pretty much talking about.

As of now, though, they are a useless piece of territory for Britain and Argentine alike; the whole conflict is a rather pointless thing.

So anyway, very useful piece of land to own, all the more so when added together with all the other RN bases around the globe.

What, now or in the past? The British Empire is dead. Britain deserves to have no bases for the Royal Navy anywhere. It might be "useful" from an imperialist viewpoint, but surely there's no business for the British to meddle anywhere in South America or South Africa. All these places are now long-standing sovereign nations.

Now the Falklands are a useless remnant. Unless Britain is wishing to restore the Empire - which it can't, or restore the Royal Navy to imperial might levels - which it also can't without going broke, and the Navy is withering anyway as it is now, Britain as a government has no use for the Falklands. Neither does Argentine, but it doesn't make Falklands useful.

I bet you'll cry a few tears over Pax Britannia, but not me.

A few salient features. The Ottoman Empire, from which the modern Turkish state is descended, controls pretty much all of what we now call the Middle East, minus only the Saudi interior which at the time no one could imagine wanting. It also controls much of the Balkans, save for a bit of coastline owned by the Austrians. Do Austria and Turkey now have valid claims to any of that territory? Would they be justified in trying to assert those claims, by diplomacy or force? Bonus question: what happened to Europe the last time they did?

No. The Ottoman Empire is an imperialistic nation which conquered other territories. Modern Turkey explicitly claimed discontinuty from the Ottoman government (hint - Revolution, something which never happened in Britain). Turkey has no right to anything. Austro-Hungary as an empire has likewise collapsed in a revolution; the end of the Habsburgs was not one of "constitutional monarchy", as I find out. So neither government claims continuancy, in fact, most have utterly repudiated their precursors and obviously precursor empires have no claim to anything. Imperialist nations in general do not have anything that could be described as a "rightful claim".

Moving northward, we see that Poland has been partitioned and dismembered between Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Who, if anyone, legitimately owns that territory? Much of the Prussian part of Poland was Prussian, and later German, until 1945. Does Germany have a claim on that territory?

As you might gather, this question is still raising a lot of tensions between Germany and Poland.

Bavaria, for one example, was independent from the 8th Century A.D. until it was absorbed by Prussia in the formation of the German Empire. Should those states be independent?

If Bavaria would so desire, why not? Because Germany doesn't want it to happen? Tough luck. However, Bavaria doesn't seem to object being a part of the "German empire". Also, there's no German empire. The German government exists from 1945 and it has utterly repudiated any imperial and imperialistic character it might have had. It repudiated the concept of territorial conquest, it is antifascist and anti-militarist from inception and it only claims continuancy from the government formed in 1945.

And if trying to reactivate any of those old 1840s-era claims now would be wrong, then what makes the case of Argentina and the Falklands special?

Nothing. I already mentioned it above. Nothing makes a case special. However, there clearly is a dispute. Each dispute deserves to be examined. Maybe Poland really has a right to the territories Germany took from it at some point in history. Maybe Germany has a right to territories it took from Poland. These issues aren't so simple as "okay, huh, let's forget about this, conquest never happened".

If you follow this maxim, then then conqueror is always right. Because he presents a fait accompli and then there's no way to change it.

[ChaserGrey]

Argentina still claims Chilean territory today too, Chile also claims some bits of Argentina but is less vocal on the issue. All and all it was about on par with Saddam invading Kuwait.

I wasn't aware Baghdad had a territorial claim to Kuwait. I thought Saddam had a debt issue and needed oil, plain and simple.

As a matter of fact, Iraq and Kuwait were both part of the Ottoman province of Basra from the time of Suleiman the Magnificent until after WWI when they were divided by...the British. And yes, that was part of Saddam's official causus belli- that Iraq and Kuwait should be one political unit anyway, and had only been divided by foreign imperial powers.

[Simon_Jester]

That's not the end of the problems Germany gives us. There are a number of independent German states such as Bohemia, Bavaria, and a host of smaller ones that used to make up the Holy Roman Empire. Bavaria, for one example, was independent from the 8th Century A.D. until it was absorbed by Prussia in the formation of the German Empire. Should those states be independent?

Here we have an issue of consent. The Bavarians chose to join Germany, were content in doing so, and remain so. Performing a Bavaria-ectomy on Germany is only justifiable if we are specifically trying to weaken Germany... which is how it was contemplated during the World Wars, and for exactly that reason, by victorious powers who had no interest in whether or not the Bavarians themselves consented to such a thing.

If we go back further over the same territory, the borders change even more. Which are the "right" boundaries, and how do we know?

And if trying to reactivate any of those old 1840s-era claims now would be wrong, then what makes the case of Argentina and the Falklands special?

The obvious differences:
-Lower cost. It would not actually hurt that many people to give the Falklands back to Argentina. Compared to, say, giving Silesia back to Germany, the number of people forcibly displaced would be fairly small. Thus, the harm done is small, though the corresponding benefit to Argentina is also small.
-Consent. See above; also consider that many of the European states which are now divided off from old empires were formed because of the desire of geographically distinct groups to be rid of rule from a collapsing imperial hegemony. The Falklands were taken from Argentina without the consent of the Argentines living there at the time... but Bulgaria was taken from Turkey with the consent of the Bulgars who lived there.
-Relative power. Stas has a consistent policy of supporting the weak against the strong. In this case, Bulgaria is weak whereas Britain is strong. In the Middle East, if the Turks were to reassert a claim to Bulgaria, the reverse would be true- Turkey is strong and Bulgaria is weak, relatively speaking. This affects the likelihood of the claim being addressed in a just manner, rather than becoming a simple rapacious land grab taken without regard to the effects on the people living there.

[Duckie]

Edit- Though I'm sure nobody cares, I mean the Yaghan, not the Mapuche. Wrong part of Argentina. While widespread, the Mapuche didn't live so south.