In 1520, the Malvinas Islands were discovered by the Magellan’s expedition. All the Southern part of the Americas remained under Spanish sovereignty pursuant to several treaties signed during the historical period, such as the 1670 American Treaty between Spain and England. In 1764, France established the Port Louis settlement in Isla Soledad. Spain protested and France withdrew in 1767, in a recognition of Spain`s better title. England had already recognized Spain sovereignty over Malvinas when it declined to carry out an expedition in 1749 due to Spain`s demand.
In 1820, the United Provinces of the River Plate sent Colonel David Jewett to take possession of the islands, as reflected in international newspapers of that time. The Argentine government took several actions in support of its sovereignty over the islands, including the appointment of governors, enactment of legislation on fisheries and granting international concessions. In 1825, Great Britain recognised Argentina as a sovereign state, and made no reservations regarding Argentina`s exercise of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, which was public and peaceful.
On 3 January 1833, the Clio Corvette of the Royal Navy of Great Britain invaded the Malvinas Islands on behalf of the Crown, and took over Puerto Soledad by force.
On 15 January 1833, the Argentine Government protested to the British Charge d`Affairs in Buenos Aires, who replied he “lacked instructions”.
On 24 April 1833, the Argentine representative in London presented a note of protest to His Majesty’s Government, which he reiterated on 17 June 1833, in a lengthy and documented memorandum.
Since then, Argentina has repeated its protests against the act of force and the illegal occupation.
Malvinas Islands: Facts and Fictions 
29 September, 2015 at 11:29 pm
Your picture is not the original. It is the photoshopped version. So much for the truth 🙂
However, if you wish to know the truth – read on https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:13 am
Photoshop? That is what you do, not me, Sir.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 12:33 am
Can’t handle the truth I see
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:51 pm
No, that´s you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:46 pm
There is a nice memo for you to read, if you can, from 1935: Memo JM Vyvyan, 25 July 1935, FCO document FO 371/18634, explaining why the British Government has never submitted the Falklands Islands dispute to arbitration. Vyvyan suggested “We can have no confidence in our claim to the Falklands Succeeding in the event of being submitted to arbitration”. See Minutes of Evidence, 17 January 1983, 150; and Minutes of Evidence, 13 December 1982, 116)
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:20 am
I have all the memo’s considered in both detail and context. You miss the most important out of course 🙂
Click to access 8-1900-to-1944.pdf
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 8:42 pm
And you like to hang around this site. Thanks Lorton.
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 11:32 pm
you are the only one with the truth? try go to to the Un with that cheap blog and then come back. that pertenets to the real times newspaper. you seek to confuse people all the time.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:37 pm
There is only one truth and the picture is a photoshopped version of the original. THAT is a fact.
LikeLike
14 October, 2015 at 9:33 pm
Estimado Sr. Junius: mire por favor un documento para que vea que Argentina nunca dudó. Atte, Adriana Contanzi.-
Decreto de creación de la Comandancia Civil y Militar, Buenos Aires, 10 de junio de 1829.
(A.G.N. Fondo Luis Vernet, Sala VII 2-3-3t)
Buenos Aires 10 de junio de 1829 Cuando por la gloriosa revolución de 25 de mayo de 1810 se separaron estas provincias de la dominación de la Métropoli, la España tenía una posesión material de las Islas Malvinas y de todas las demás que rodean el cabo de Hornos, incluso las que se conoce bajo la denominación de Tierra del Fuego, hallándose justificada aquella posesión por el derecho de primer ocupante, por el consentimiento de las principales potencias marítimas de Europa, y por la adyacencia de estas islas al continente que formaba el Virreinato de Buenos Aires, de cuyo gobierno dependían. Por esta razón habiendo entrado el Gobierno de la República en la sucesión de todos los derechos que tenía sobre estas provincias la antigua Métropoli y de que gozaban sus virreyes ha seguido ejerciendo actos de dominio en dichas islas, sus puertos y costas; a pesar de que las circunstancias no han permitido hasta ahora dar a aquella parte del territorio de la República la atención y cuidados que su importancia exige. Pero siendo necesario no demorar por más tiempo las medidas que puedan poner a cubierto los derechos de la República haciéndole al mismo tiempo gozar de las ventajas que pueden dar los productos de aquellas islas y asegurando la protección debida a su población, el Gobierno ha acordado y decreta:
Artículo 1°: Las islas Malvinas y las adyacentes al cabo de Hornos en el mar Atlántico serán regidas por un comandante político y militar nombrado inmediatamente por el Gobierno de la República.
Artículo 2°: La residencia del comandante político y militar será en la isla de la Soledad y en ella se establecerá una batería bajo el pabellón de la República.
Artículo 3°: El comandante político y militar hará observar por la población de dichas islas, las leyes de la República y cuidará en sus costas de la ejecución de los reglamentos sobre pesca de anfibios.
Artículo 4°: Comuníquese y publíquese.
Martín Rodríguez Salvador María del Carril
LikeLike
17 October, 2015 at 11:37 pm
That blog- in which people cannot leave comments because you are part of the QUITO PLAN – is pure lies. The British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands — also known as the Malvinas — since 1833, has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty. Worried that Argentina, emboldened by international opinion, may attempt to retake the islands diplomatically or militarily, JTRIG and other GCHQ divisions were tasked “to support FCO’s [Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s] goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands.” A subsequent document suggests the main FCO goal was to “[prevent] Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands” and that new offensive cyberoperations were underway in 2011 to further that end.
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 2:49 am
The early history of the Falklands is far more complicated than suggested here.
1) Magellan did not discover the Falklands. this is confirmed by Argentine historians and authors.
2) In the Treaty of Madrid 1670, Spain recognised British ownership over territory. there was no reciprocal recognition of any Spanish rights.
3) France did not recognise that Spain had a better title. Quite the opposite. France agreed to hand over Bougainville’s settlement on conditions. The first being that spain compensate bougainville for his costs, and the second that Spain maintain a garrison to prevent British dominance in the southern atlantic. Spain agreed, recognising that its sovereignty was conditional.
4) There was no British recognition of Spanish sovereignty in 1748/9. In fact Spain asked that the expedition be “postponed.”
5) Argentina has never been able to produce any instruction for the american, David Jewett (Jewitt) to take possession of Soledad. All his orders are in the archives but that one is strangely missing. In his report to Buenos Aires in February 1821, David Jewett made no mention of his action at Port Louis/Soledad. There is no record of any acknowledgement by the United provinces of Jewett’s action until 1832. In any case, Argentina did not exist. Proclaiming independence is not the same as attaining it. The UP had collapsed in March 1820 and it was 1826 before the country reformed.
6) In 1825 Britain and the UP agreed a commercial treaty which recognised no territory not any legal rights (as Canning assured Spain). The information provided to Woodbine Parish in 1824 by buenos Aires and the other provinces made no mention of any pretensions to the falkland Islands. The conclusion from those submissions has to be that either a) the UP did not claim the Falklands in 1825 or b) the UP deliberately hid its pretensions which would be a recognition that it already knew of Britain’s claims.
7) Nothing of importance happened in 1833. Buenos Aires had first publicly claimed the archipelago in 1829. This had immediately been protested by Britain and BA was warned to stay away. BA was warned again in 1832. All that occurred in 1833 was a minor police action to eject a trespassing garrison. Those trespassers left without a fight.
8) BA did protest in 1833 and 1834. The latter protest only claimed the Island of Soledad. BA’s claims ceased entirely after ratification of the peace treaty in 1850.
For more detail, see here – https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history30.pdf
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:07 am
So many distortions in your comment. You lacked thousand documents in your research. You failed.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 4:01 pm
if you are so confident with your alleged “thousands of documents” then why not take your spurious claim to the International court of justice at the hague ?
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Hi James
The Uk does not want to go to Court. Why don’t you ask them? Check the reservations made upon ratification of the ICJ Jurisdiction.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 11:05 pm
What a ridiculous response. Please provide evidence of any documents that you believe that I have missed. Also any books as I’ve only managed to read these https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/bibliography/
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:54 pm
In case you still do not know all the documents you are missing there is another one from 1936: John Troutbeck, Head of the American Section of the Foreign Office wrote: “… The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure to be judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits”.
LikeLike
30 September, 2015 at 6:09 pm
So why are using a fake image – that never appeared in the Times as you show it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 October, 2015 at 2:58 am
Lie. What you sent is being manipulated.
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 6:38 pm
Really, you’ve been caught peddling an obvious fake, thats taken straight from the Times Archive, I have an account.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2 October, 2015 at 10:37 pm
For some reason i can not reply to your comment regarding my question to “why Argentina does not take its claim to International court of justice at the Hague ?” and your reply was that the UK did not want to go, well that is an absurd notion on your behalf, Argentina has Never Invited the UK to the ICJ infact There had been many attempts to resolve the dispute after World War Two. In 1947, Britain offered to submit to the International Court of Justice at The Hague the dispute over the Falklands Dependencies – South Georgia, the South Sandwiches and the area now known as the British Antarctic Territory. Argentina did not accept this offer. Britain submitted the dispute over the dependencies unilaterally to the Court in 1955, applying for redress over Argentine encroachments. The case was accepted and some preliminary work carried out by Court officials. Argentina announced she would not accept any decision, which might emerge, and the Court removed the case from its lists in March 1956.
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:55 pm
I think that is matter you should ask your government and not Argentina. See the reservations made upon ratification of the ICJ jurisdiction. See that is something I’d like to know: maybe because there is a weak case on your side?
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 11:05 pm
The only liar appears to be you Marcos – or Mara should I say?
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:51 pm
The energy you spend in trying to ruin Ruda’s memory and honor better use it for something else. For instance, why don’t you check that nice article from Sunday Times, June 20, 1982, 20.
In case you do not recall, I don’t blame you at your age, in 1936 Gerald Fitzmaurice, the FO Legal Adviser conceded that “our case has certain weakness…”. The memo is contained in document FO 371/19763, 6 February 1936 (See minutes of Evidence, 13 December 1982, 115; also Minutes of Evidence, Monday 17 January, 150)
LikeLike
1 October, 2015 at 3:41 pm
your version of the Times is a Fake, that is Not how that paper looked in that period or ever for that matter, here is an original, so you can see what a deluded fool you are, better luck next time
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Better look closely, Sir.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 1:36 am
Then you lie, the circular is on that edition!
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Really, is that the best you can do, its a fake, I even show how it was faked. At no point have I ever denied that it was mentioned in the Times.
Are you retarded?
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 9:58 pm
The fact you are taking this to the personal area makes me confirm how desperate you are.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:06 pm
My platoon commander used to have a favourite saying, if you speak idiocy, don’t be offended if I call you an idiot. The fact that I responded to a stupid comment was probably my mistake but calling an idiot an idiot is simply plain speaking nothing more.
I’m just exposing your rather poor attempts at deception, its clear you can’t respond and your little friends denying what is right in front of their faces does nothing to help you.
Desperate, thats you that is.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:12 pm
And you spend hours commenting on my blog… I see. I insist: if you want to stop by, be mindful. Otherwise, abstain. When you are left with no arguments, you call me bad names.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:16 pm
No Senor Ruda, my comments weren’t addressed at you, they were replies to someone else.
So if you want to have a discussion, would you care to comment on why you’ve used a fake image and continue to claim its the real thing.
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 9:10 pm
I already replied to this comment.
LikeLike
3 October, 2015 at 12:54 am
I see that Marcos/Mara has now blocked you Justin. Apparently he fears your contribution.
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 8:44 pm
Blocked who? I will check my spam folder. It might have gone there, since all he send is spam.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 11:07 pm
The article was tucked in the bottom right hand corner of an inner page and had no heading. It was of no relevance. Argentina did not exist in 1820. Read and learn –
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1775-1822/
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 9:48 pm
United Provinces of Rio de la Plata is Argentina, in case you are not aware.
LikeLike
2 October, 2015 at 10:19 pm
Nope Senor Ruda, I was not replying to you, I was replying to someone else.
But as I have your attention, why are you using a falsified image?
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Your other comments went to my spam folder. I had to rescue them, as you well see. I am not using a falsified image.
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Junius, thank you for admitting the article WAS indeed published in that paper. That confirms that the act was not only peaceful but PUBLIC and the UK kept as silent as it did in 1825! Thank you for this very useful confirmation.
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 7:41 pm
Exactly. Thanks for the confirmation, Roger Lorton.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:21 am
And quite irrelevant as the United Provinces did not exist in 1820. Have you read Nunez by the way?
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Once again, Junius’ contribution is of VITAL importance! UK did know Argentina asserted sovereingty in 1820! It kept as silent as in 1825! Very good and useful to know this
LikeLike
7 October, 2015 at 7:40 pm
This is what happens. They continue to fill it spam and distorting their own arguments. I pity them.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:39 pm
Argentina did not exist in 1820 and the UP did not claim the Falklands in 1824 or 25 when it provided details of the UP to Woodbine Parish. Read & learn – https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
LikeLike
8 October, 2015 at 11:38 pm
i see the old man already said what he had to said. argentina’s possession was pacific, public and constant. you failed and this is not settled. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gacol3283.doc.htm
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 2:53 am
I will also ask him to have a look at this “Argentina Enjoys Widespread Support over Question of Falklands (Malvinas) as Fourth Committee Begins Debate on Decolonization Matters” http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaspd580.doc.htm
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Argentina did not achieve possession. First claimed by BA in 1829. Warned by Britain. Thrown off by the USA in 1831. Thrown off by Britain in 1833. UP failed to take effective control.
LikeLike
9 October, 2015 at 12:04 pm
And look at this those who say the 1820 Circular is a lie and was not published in UK papers https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Times-3-august-1821-Falklands.jpg
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Jewett’s actions occurred but were not approved by BA nor adopted by BA until 1832. Argentina did not exist in 1820. Declaring independence is not the same as attaining it.
LikeLike
11 October, 2015 at 6:15 pm
are you sure? https://twitter.com/tururod/status/621755963117281282 I think you do not have good information.
LikeLike
12 October, 2015 at 10:24 am
Very sure. Jewett was commissioned as a privateer. In order to make a claim on behalf of a country (which did not exist) he would have required a specific order from the Government in BA (there was no central Government in 1820). Jewett had no such instruction. Also, in his report to BA dated February, 1821, Jewett failed to mention any act of possession. Why?
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 8:41 pm
I believe you are not reading well. Try again.
LikeLike
13 October, 2015 at 10:27 pm
I read very well. The most important paper would be a mandate for Jewett’s action. None has ever been produced. The UP was not recognised as a country in 1820 and so it’s claims in any case were not legal.
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 7:02 am
Sorry, just to clarify, the times article says ‘Falklands Captured’,. So off of whom did Jewitt capture (steal if we use Argentina’s interpretation of gaining possession). It seems there were British and American people on the Island.
Hmmm, so he captured the Islands that were already occupied, is that right?. So in 1833 when they say that GB captured the Islands off the UP/Argentina, how would that differ from what Jewitt did a few years before.
Am I missing something. If it was the accepted way to gain territory….Spanish SA rebellion to UP/Argentina (expanding into Patagonia). Why are you complaining that what you did to others was apparently done to you. Surely that is a clear case of double standards, it’s OK for Argentina to do it to others, but others can’t do it to Argentina.
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 8:17 pm
Funny you speak about double-standards. What you suggest here is totally irrelevant. But that’s what you try to do all the time, right? I read that in this “manual” which I believe you are very familiar with: http://tn.com.ar/politica/snowden-s-documents-the-internal-manual-that-explains-how-to-manipulate-people-through-internet-oper_592092
LikeLike
16 October, 2015 at 9:10 pm
In the voice of Snowden: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
LikeLike
20 October, 2015 at 10:11 am
Funny how it’s irrelevant when it is Argentina that is stealing land, but very relevant when you suggest that GB stole land. And the only irrelevant post seems to be yours, posting some lia manual. Very relevant!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
20 October, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Born Fearless: ? It is fact that Plan Quito exists, documents are for real.
LikeLike
20 October, 2015 at 10:25 pm
More like paranoia. The British Government simply do not care enough about what Argentina thinks to spend money on a project of this kind. I really wish they would.
LikeLike
21 October, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Marcos? Not sure what you think I was refering too. I was talking about Argentina stealing land, but not liking it when another country has supposedly stolen land off Argentina? Simple to understand. Jewitt captured land from whom? Simple question, if there were people on the islands (British and American) who controlled the Islands before Jewitt captured them? Spain, GB, US??? If Argentina inherited them, why did they need to capture them off Spain?
LikeLike
13 January, 2019 at 11:22 pm
More than three years on, I see you are still using the Photo-shopped image. Even Kohen removed it from the English language version of his book, and yet you persist with the lie. How Argentine of you. How viveza criolla.
LikeLike