Search

The work devoted to the intellectual discussions that took place in Argentina in the context of the Falklands / Malvinas war of the 1982. The article argues that while the left parties supported the war, a minority of intellectuals on the left Ted Grant, Adolfo Gilli, Alan Woods, Alberto Bonnet and some other opposed it. According to the left parties the war between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falklands – Mal-vinas islands contained a progressive content on Argentina side. The attack on the Falklands – Malvinas islands was di-rected against British imperialism. The left parties presented the war as ending “one of the last refuges of colonialism” in Latin America. They argued that since Argentina was a semi-colonial country it should be supported in the war. Marxists have always given support to national struggle against imperi-alism. The struggle for national liberation. The intellectuals on the left censured the war. The war was reactionary on both sides. Their attitude to war between Britain and Argentina was determined by which class is wage the war. On both sides it was capitalist powers which were involved and therefore they were opposed the war on both Britain and Argentina. Argenti-na was not a poor exploited colony although there are some semi-colonial features, particularly dependence on foreign capital. It is, of course in no position to play an imperialist role on the world scale like USA and Great Britain, but the Argentina bourgeoisie had imperialist ambitions within South America. The claim of the Argentinean bourgeoisie to posses-sion of the Falkland – Malvinas on the ground of self-determination had no basis. If there had been a population on the islands composed of argentines, opposed by the British and fighting to unite with Argentina. In that case the Marxists would be duty bound to support them in their struggle against British imperialism but there was not a single Argentine living there. All of them English speaking. The conquest of the Falkland – Malvinas by the Argentine army was not an act of liberation but an act of violence against them. By invading the Falklands – Malvinas in 1982 the Argentina junta armed to disorient and deceive the masses at home.

Recent historiographical research has posed the question about the "productive dimension of power" and the construction of consensus among the population during the last Argentine civic-military dictatorship (1976-1983). This article extends that question to the Malvinas war, fought between Argentina and Great Britain in 1982. Based on the study of documents declassified in 2015 and kept in the Department of Naval Historical Studies, the article analyzes the social communication and the psychological campaign that the Argentine Navy projected during those days to model celebratory attitudes and feelings towards the Army and to underpin the military operations of the dictatorship in the South Atlantic, and the consequently expected (and frustrated) diplomatic negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medicina (Buenos Aires) is the property of Medicina (Buenos Aires) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This introduction to the special issue of the Journal of War and Culture Studies sets out the scope of the collection of articles which reflect in different ways on conflict and culture on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Falklands/Malvinas War. The special issue highlights the diversity of practices of cultural production in response to the war and its legacy. The articles examine: how the war has been remembered in Britain since 1982, materials which inform diplomatic practices through which the war is remembered in Argentina and the Falkland Islands, memories of the Malvinas War from the perspective of Argentine military veterans imprisoned for crimes against humanity, UK military veteran practices of return and/or pilgrimage to the islands, and the use of hyper-realistic painting by an Argentine pilot-turned-artist in reproducing and reconstructing some of the war's events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four decades after the Falklands/Malvinas War and Argentina's return to democracy, this article explores the ways in which veterans accused of crimes against humanity remember the conflict. Before confronting the British in the South Atlantic in 1982, the Argentine military had been involved in operations of counterinsurgency and illegal repression at home. Since 2005, hundreds of former officers — including veterans of the Malvinas War — have been accused and convicted for the crimes of the 1970s. This article focuses on the narrative of 'Malvinas' shared by former comandos (special forces) in the prison where they are detained in the present. It questions the content of ethnographic interviews with these veterans, and the context in which they were produced, to revisit the link between the violence of the 1970s and the Malvinas War from the perspective of the military involved in both scenarios. In so doing, the article deals with some unsolved issues of memorialization in post-war and post-authoritarian Argentina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of memory in relation to the Falklands/Malvinas War have typically focused on interrogating narratives, practices and performances associated with its memory within different national contexts (predominantly Argentina, the Falkland Islands and the UK). Far less attention, however, has been placed on how memory of the war is summoned on the international stage, in diplomatic settings like the United Nations (UN). This paper analyses specific diplomatic materials and performances produced by the governments of the Falkland Islands and Argentina on and after the 30th anniversary of the war (2012-15), paying particular attention to how they reference the 1982 war. The paper argues that these performances and materials of diplomacy are revealing of the (re)production of geopolitical relations and strategies, as well as how memories of the past can be consciously foregrounded/backgrounded in an attempt to achieve strategic and diplomatic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Malvinas War was an armed and declared conflict between Argentina and Great Britain (United Kingdom) for the possession of the so-called Malvinas Islands (Falklands, in English) located in the South Atlantic, resulting in the British victory and the beginning of a very more rooted in Argentine society: the conflict generated by different constructions of memory about the war. Veterans and family associations are the places of memories where the most participatory people emerge in the debate about the representations of such a war. César Horácio González Trejo, a civilian veteran of the war, opted to join an association of relatives of soldiers killed in the war instead of a veterans' association. His views on the war differed in many ways from other civilian veterans like himself. I addressed these factors in the interview, when analyzing the construction of Trejo's memory on certain aspects of the war, such as its legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Question (1669-6581) is the property of Universidad Nacional de La Plata and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The 1982 Falklands/Malvinas conflict pitted two of the most foundational principles of postwar international relations—anti-colonialism and self-determination—against each other, creating dilemmas for the great powers and smaller states alike in determining where to place their loyalties. The British consistently upheld the self-determination of the islanders, while portraying the war as a struggle between the forces of democracy and those of dictatorship. Though the United States strove for the appearance of neutrality, support for the United Kingdom resulted in the effective abandonment of the anti-colonialism of the Monroe Doctrine. The Soviet Union viewed the war as an anachronistic return to open imperialist aggression, and backed the fiercely anti-communist military junta in Argentina, even as it waged what was viewed as a "third world war" against the transnational forces of Marxism-Leninism. Meanwhile, the countries of the Western Hemisphere polarised into Latin American demands for decolonisation and the devotion of the Anglophone Caribbean to the principle of self-determination. This division was reflected in the debates and resolutions of the Organization of American States, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the United Nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of HiSTOReLo: Revista de Historia Regional y Local is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Centro Editorial Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Economicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On April 2, 1982, Argentina woke up with the news of the military recovery of Malvinas. The purpose of the article is to make Argentine political and trade union actors visible, addressing them in their position during the development of the initial days of the war, taking into account their capacities and wills as well as their appreciations and particular objectives in the construction of political power. The time frame will be between April 2 - the day of the military recovery of the Malvinas - and April 8 - the day after the swearing-in of General Mario Benjamín Menéndez as Military Governor of the Malvinas Islands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este artículo presenta un análisis de los discursos producidos por Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) y Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-2015) cada 2 de abril durante sus mandatos presidenciales de Argentina, en ocasión del Día de los Caídos y Veteranos de la Guerra de Malvinas (1982). Adoptando el análisis del discurso como práctica interpretativa (Arnoux “Análisis del discurso como campo académico,” Análisis del discurso. Modos de abordar materiales de archivo), se estudian distintos aspectos de la materialidad lingüística que exponen distancias interpretativas sobre la guerra. Específicamente, el análisis se organiza en cuatro ejes: la configuración del adversario, el tipo de emociones desplegadas, la consideración de la guerra como causa nacional o causa dictatorial y la representación de los combatientes. Comparar los discursos de ambxs líderes a partir de estas dimensiones permitirá comprender cómo la memoria de Malvinas se configura discursivamente desde posiciones políticas e ideológicas no exentas de tensiones. This paper aims to analyze the commemorative speeches produced by former Argentine presidents Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-2015) each April 2nd, the Day of the Fallens and Veterans of the Malvinas War (1982). By adopting Discourse Analysis as an interpretative practice (Arnoux, “Análisis del discurso como campo académico,” Análisis del discurso. Modos de abordar materiales de archivo), we study different aspects of the linguistic materiality that uncover interpretative gaps about the War. We especially focus on five axes: the configuration of the adversary, the kind of emotions, the understanding of war as a national or a dictatorial cause, and the representation of combatants. Comparing the discourses of both leaders by taking these axes into account allows us to understand how the memory about Malvinas is discursively configured from a political and ideological position, not without tension.