Leadership of Small Groups in the Malvinas Gravel

Malvinas: Leadership in Small Groups

Marcos Gallacher

Twenty-five years ago, on May 28, 1982, ground combat erupted in the town of Darwin-Goose Green in the Malvinas. Following the defeat of the Argentine garrison there, British forces pressed on toward Puerto Argentino, engaging in battles that ultimately led to the outcome we all know. While much has been written about the Malvinas conflict, many aspects remain unexplored. One such overlooked area is the role and behavior of the officers who led small units during these intense battles.

The significance of leadership in such situations is vividly portrayed in the classic film The Bridge on the River Kwai. In the film, the British prisoner commander, played by Alec Guinness, refuses to let his officers do manual labor alongside the enlisted men. His defiance leads to brutal punishment at the hands of his captors. The commander’s reasoning is simple but profound: if officers take on the duties of common soldiers, the entire military hierarchy crumbles. Without that structure, a combat battalion—even a group of prisoners—becomes nothing more than a disorganized mob.

This reference comes to mind for an important reason: while watching the April 2 commemorative events on television, it was striking to see how this crucial principle of leadership was completely overlooked by the program creators. The broadcasts mixed the valuable testimonies of conscript soldiers who fought in the islands with the opinions of journalists, popular historians, and political commentators. However, the voices of those who were directly responsible for leading these soldiers into battle—the young officers who provided the critical leadership on the ground—were conspicuously absent.

These officers were the ones who ensured that a group of individuals could function as a cohesive combat unit in the heat of battle. Their contributions, vital to the outcome of the conflict, deserve to be recognized and understood as we reflect on this chapter of history.



The ranks of the officers involved in the Malvinas conflict varied widely—from fresh second lieutenants straight out of military college to seasoned majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels. However, few of these officers were interviewed about their experiences, with one notable exception: Ambassador Balza, who served as a lieutenant colonel during the conflict. His insights, it should be said, are invaluable in truly understanding what transpired.

Professional soldiers, much like doctors, lawyers, or engineers, possess a deep understanding of their field that far surpasses that of the average person. It is these professionals, particularly officers, who are best equipped to analyze the events and draw meaningful lessons from them. These officers are the ones who shape a group of men into an effective combat force, using their training to place everyday experiences into a broader context and learn from them.

The Malvinas conflict is often misunderstood by the general public, in part because much of what people read or see on television comes from observers who were not directly involved in the fighting. Even those who were present as conscript soldiers, while brave and valuable, had a limited perspective on the overall situation. Few people realize, for example, that the casualty rate among officers in ground combat was higher than that of non-commissioned officers and soldiers: 2.5 percent of the officers who participated were killed, compared to 1.7 percent of non-commissioned officers and 1.9 percent of soldiers. This is unusual in military history, where it is generally the enlisted men who bear the brunt of the casualties. But in the Argentine Army during the Malvinas conflict, the opposite was true.

The Malvinas conflict remains a deeply emotional issue for many Argentines, but there are important lessons to be learned. One of these lessons is the critical role of leadership at the small unit level, which was a key factor in the tough resistance our forces offered in several engagements. Argentina, in both its private and public sectors, suffers from a significant leadership deficit. Perhaps by reflecting on the positive examples of leadership from the Malvinas, we can begin to understand the kind of leadership that our country so desperately needs.

Marcos Gallacher is a professor of Business Organization at the University of CEMA.

Malvinas: Why Did the IMARA Perform so Well?

Organizational Factors and Combat Performance: The IMARA experience in the Malvinas [1]

by Alejandro L. Corbacho
Universidad del CEMA
Documento de Trabajo 255 

Abstract

When soldiers go into combat, they do so within the framework of an organization that sends them and supports them. In this way its quality is put to the test and for this reason, combat is the critical moment of any military organization. In this situation, its performance will depend not only on the strategic plans, its quantity and the available material, but also on the preparation and spirit that was instilled in its members throughout their time in the military organization.
There is no doubt that for the Argentine Armed Forces the Malvinas War was a critical moment. The following work explores the reasons for the behavior of the Marine Infantry units of the Argentine Navy (IMARA) based on the analysis of two organizational factors. The first factor, most commonly noted, is what is called structural in this analysis; the second focuses on some sociological aspects, more precisely the organizational culture. To explain the structural and cultural attributes of the Argentine Marine Corps, Navy officers on active duty or in retirement who participated or who were privileged witnesses of the events described, as well as official documents and articles and other printed testimonies, were interviewed.

[In Malvinas] The Argentines fought well and bravely in many parts of the islands. Not all. But many. And those groups of Argentines are more interesting than those who fled. [2] 

Introduction 
When soldiers go into combat, they do so within the framework of an organization that sends them and supports them. In this way its quality is put to the test and for this reason, combat is the critical moment of any military organization. In this situation, its performance will depend not only on the strategic plans, its quantity and the available material, but also on the preparation and spirit that was instilled in its members throughout their time in the military organization.

There is no doubt that for the Argentine Armed Forces the Malvinas War was a critical moment. This work investigates which of these issues affected the combat performance of a particular unit: the Marine Infantry of the Argentine Navy (IMARA).

The South Atlantic conflict that took place between April and June 1982 ended in defeat for Argentina and there are numerous works that analyze and reflect on the reasons for it. However, during the development of the conflict there were troops that stood out for their combat skills. These constitute successful cases that also deserve to be investigated. Among them are Marine Corps units. [3]

The following work explores the reasons for the behavior of Marine Corps units based on the analysis of two organizational factors. The first factor, most commonly noted, is what is called structural in this analysis; the second focuses on some sociological aspects, more precisely the organizational culture. To explain the structural and cultural attributes of the Argentine Marine Corps that were central to its outstanding performance in combat, Navy officers on active duty or in retirement who participated or who were privileged witnesses of the events described were interviewed and official documents and articles and other printed testimonies.

The Marine Corps in the Malvinas Theater
Once the recovery of the Malvinas Islands was successfully completed on April 2, 1982, the Marine Corps forces that participated in the operation must have returned to the continent since the original defense plan did not contemplate their subsequent use. However, when the British decided to respond militarily to the Argentine action, the Argentine authorities decided to reinforce the garrison of the islands and sent, among other units, a contingent of Marines.

The bulk of this contingent was made up of BIM 5. The Naval High Command decided to deploy this unit whose permanent base is in Río Grande (Tierra del Fuego) for several reasons:

1. for being the best adapted to combat in a terrain similar to that of the Malvinas;
   
2. for being well equipped; and
   
3. be highly trained, particularly, in night combat and in the use of air cooperation;. 

For its deployment in the Islands, BIM 5 was reinforced by a group of 12.7mm caliber heavy machine guns, by the First Section of Amphibious Engineers, and by Battery B of the Marine Corps Field Artillery Battalion.



Between April 8 and 12, the battalion's personnel and equipment [5] were airlifted to Puerto Argentino. There, the local High Command assigned him the responsibility of defending part of the belt of elevations that surround that city. BIM 5 corresponded to [6] Mounts Tumbledown, Williams, and Sapper Hill. In addition to the battalion, other IMARA units were present on the Islands: the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion, the Amphibious Engineer Company (-), a detachment of Amphibious Commandos, the Third Section of Company D of the BIM 2, Second and Third Sections of Company H of BIM 3, two groups of Bantam anti-tank missiles, three groups of air traffic controllers, a Security section with dogs and a group of Marine Corps Command. These units participated in the defense of the capital, the Camber Peninsula, and Bourbon Island, and all entered combat [7] with satisfactory results. In total, the Marine Corps troops stationed on the islands reached 1,590 men. At the same time, the First Marine Brigade with 3,587 men remained waiting in Tierra del Fuego. This constituted the strategic [8] operational reserve of the South Atlantic Theater of Operations (TOAS).
It is important to highlight that during their stay on the islands the Infantes were well fed, had adequate clothing and appropriate communications equipment. Also important was the fact that during the waiting period from their arrival until the British landed, the Marines were kept busy preparing for that moment. The battalion also had tools to prepare positions suitable for the [9] Malvinas soil. These were the famous “barretas”. These preparations were later key [10] in the tough defense that the Infantry presented to the British attackers.

Mount Tumbledown: recognition

The British landed at dawn on May 21 in San Carlos (Isla Soledad) and the final battles for the heights surrounding Puerto Argentino took place between June 11 and 14. The Second Battalion Scots Guards attacked Mount Tumbledown on the night of the 13th [11]. A British correspondent who witnessed the fighting described the action in the following terms:

Within minutes, Argentine snipers using night sights had killed three of the Guards and wounded two others. The typical British formula of responding with fire from 66 and 84 millimeter rockets seemed to have little effect on the enemy positions located among the rocks. The Scots Guards heard the Argentines shouting and even singing while they fought. These were the best troops that General Menéndez had on the battlefield, they were BIM 5... As the night progressed, the hard fighting continued and the Argentines showed no signs of breaking and their main positions remained firm. .[12] 

This action described by Hastings and Jenkins lasted eleven hours. His story continues: 

The Guards reached the last positions at Tumbledown only after fighting inch by inch on the rocks using phosphorus grenades and automatic weapons to eliminate the enemy bunkers... The Scots Guards battalion had... captured one of the Argentine positions most strongly defended from war [13]. 

After a long night fighting, the remains of the Infantry reinforced by dispersed Army units were still in possession of the BIM 5 command post and Sapper Hill. From there the Infantry prepared for the counterattack. But around noon on June 14, the Argentine High Command ordered a ceasefire on the islands. The armed struggle for the Malvinas had ended. At the end of the battle, BIM 5 suffered a total of 61 casualties, of which 16 were killed and 45 wounded. The Scots Guards claimed to have had 9 [14] dead and 41 wounded.


The Sunday Times team of correspondents later informed their readers that at Tumbledown “the Guards had faced the toughest action of all. There was, well entrenched in a series of intricate bunkers cut into the ground, a well-trained Argentine Marine Infantry battalion.” Furthermore, “the volume of fire from the Infantry was intense and impressive.” Similarly, American military analyst Harry G. Summers noted that “as the Scots Guards approached the main heights of Mount Tumbledown they encountered strong opposition. Instead of the hasty field fortifications the British had encountered earlier in the war, they faced a well-entrenched company of BIM 5." The American added that "a British artillery officer described those positions as exceptionally well prepared." [15]. 


Even in defeat, the Infantes did not lose cohesion and remained united and orderly [16]. According to the story of Lieutenant Colonel Vaux, commander of the 42nd Marine Commandos, the Argentine Marines marched along the streets of Puerto Argentino “elegantly” (smartly) and carrying their regimental colors high. Finally, the British historian Martin Middlebrook [17] also has words of recognition for the performance of the Argentine Infantes:

The Argentine Infantrymen who consider themselves better soldiers than those in the Army probably are. Its basic component was also conscripts, but the Infantry system of incorporating new conscripts in batches throughout the year meant that the unit had a higher degree of training and did not have any young men from the 1963 class when they were sent to the Malvinas. . Another advantage that the Marines enjoyed was that they had better winter clothing... At the same time they were supported by their own Marine Infantry artillery battery. [18] 

On the Argentine side, the Marine Corps also had positive evaluations from sources outside the Navy. For example, a publication by the Argentine Army listed the reasons, which according to them, explain the superior performance of BIM 5.: 

The BIM 5 possessed a well-balanced set of weapons and excellent communications equipment. But much more important was that it had men who, as a result of the Navy's incorporation system, had completed their training, adapted from peace to the terrain and extreme weather conditions...at the same time it had a particular logistics system of the Navy. Navy...managing to maintain it with excellent combat aptitude. [19] 

On the other hand, the report prepared by the Analysis and Evaluation Commission (also known as the Rattenbach Report) reported that:

The BIM 5 (+)...demonstrated a joint vocation, a high degree of readiness, professionalism and adequate equipment, which was evident in the ground combat, during the defense of Puerto Argentino, an action where it had an outstanding performance. [20] 

Therefore, both our own and our adversaries recognized the outstanding performance of the Marine Corps units and in particular of BIM 5. [21].

Organizational factors: structural and cultural

In general, the combat performance of land units is explained by a psychological variable: the degree of cohesion. According to this, men and units in combat cohere (or stay together) for survival, trust in their comrades, or for patriotism. Furthermore, it is argued that a high degree of cohesion allows units to “try to accomplish their mission despite the situation.” Other authors [22] claim that other factors such as national character, the relationship between society and the armed forces, religious beliefs, and ideology affect the way units fight [23]. However, there are still other factors that have so far been little studied. These are variables related to the characteristics of the organization within which soldiers fight. These also help cement cohesion and can be important when explaining “combat performance.” This concept is used here in terms tactical effectiveness similar to that of tactical effectiveness ( ) defined by Millet and Murray as “the specific techniques used by combat units to fight in confrontations that aim to secure operational objectives.” According to the authors, “tactical activity involves the movement [or deployment] of forces on the battlefield against the enemy, the provision of destructive fire against enemy forces or targets, and the preparation of logistical support to be applied.” in the confrontation.”[24]

In addition to the personnel that gives life to an organization, it is made up of structural and cultural elements. The first are the skeleton, the visible, external elements or characteristics, which can be, among others, military material and equipment, the number of members and the organizational chart and geographical arrangement of the units. The latter are more subtle and therefore more difficult to observe with the naked eye. These are the basic assumptions, norms, beliefs, and formal knowledge that the members of the organization have. Both sets of elements configure and shape the collective behavior of soldiers. Therefore, this work is based on the assumption that in addition to the degree of cohesion, both the structural and cultural aspects of the military organization must be studied to comprehensively explain its performance in combat since these ultimately help to develop, reinforce or maintain cohesion. In this way, the focus of the research shifts from the human dimension to the organizational dimension of war.

In a historical overview of military organizations, British historian Jeremy Black describes the following pattern: while successful weapons and tactics can be easily reproduced, it is much more difficult to reproduce “efficient military performance.” According to Black, the latter seems to be connected with the quality of the cadres, that is, officers and non-commissioned officers [25]. Therefore, how is it possible to obtain high quality paintings? A quick answer to this question is to look at how military organizations recruit and educate their personnel to get the job done. During this process, the military organization instills uniform knowledge, procedures, and values that allow its members to share the same spirit that distinguishes one group of soldiers from another [26]. Therefore, to understand the performance of an organization it is necessary to pay attention to both its visible aspects and the more subtle ones that are its characteristic cultural elements. The latter constitute “the invisible force behind the organization's activities” [27].

Organizational culture is commonly defined as “the set of assumptions, values, norms, beliefs, and formal knowledge that shapes collective understanding” [28].

According to Mintzberg, ideology (or organizational culture) encompasses “the traditions and beliefs of an organization and what distinguishes it from other organizations and infuses a certain life into the skeleton of its structure.” [29] Thus, organizational culture is the normative and social glue that holds the organization together and expresses the social values and ideals that the members of that organization come to share. At the same time, it helps to overcome challenges external to the organization. Additionally, it is important to note that these ideas are considered valid because they have worked. More importantly, culture is considered the “toolbox” or “repertoire” of organizational behavior [30]. However, it is important to highlight that culture does not define objectives. In this regard, there is a certain degree of agreement among experts about the consequences of culture in organizations [31]: it helps manage collective uncertainties, helps create a social order, and generates continuity in beliefs and practices. At the same time, members who share the same culture create a collective identity and commitment. [32]

Finally, military organizations, as “total” organizations, instill in their members a common culture or esprit de corps. For example, when analyzing the case of the United States Marine Corps, one historian observed that its “men share an institutionally defined relationship based on subordination to the spirit of the Marine Corps.” Therefore, this research investigates the influence that organizational factors of a specific organization can have, that is, the combat behavior of the Argentine marine infantry [33].

Structural Factors

When describing the combat behavior of BIM 5, the comments expressed above agree in pointing out observable aspects, that is, structural factors. These were cohesion, a balanced set of weapons and equipment, superior logistics, and skill in preparing defensive positions. The observers also agreed [34] in valuing another characteristic of the Navy, the system of incorporation of conscripts.

According to one of its members, one of the characteristics of the Argentine Marines is “the obsession with training and enlistment.” And according to him, that means [35] that the Infantes want to be prepared at all times. Without a doubt, an element that helps develop this characteristic is the geographical location of the main base of the Marine Corps, Batteries. Indeed, the location of said base guarding the entrance to the Puerto Belgrano Naval Base helps explain part of this “impulse” for training. Therefore, the isolated location of the base provides the incentive to train more often than [36] any other unit located near a city.

Added to the isolation factor of the Battery garrison is the fact that the core of the force is concentrated there, the Marine Infantry Brigade and the Amphibious Support Force. The first “plans, regulates and supervises the instruction, training and all [37] activity or operational task of the Organic Units” of this great combat unit.

During the Malvinas campaign it was made up of the Command Battalion, BIM 1, BIM 2, Field Artillery Battalion 1, the Logistics Support Battalion, and the Amphibious Engineer Company. The mission of the Amphibious Support Force is to “supply with its personnel, means and weapons systems, the support and/or reinforcements ordered by the Marine Corps Command, at the request of the different Forces of the Corps that must enter or are located in operations” [38]. This unit was made up of the Amphibious Vehicle Battalion 1, the Communications Battalion 1, the Anti-Aircraft Battalion and the Amphibious Commando Group. It is another structural factor that can help consolidate military cohesion, or esprit de corps size. In this regard, the Argentine Marine Corps is a small force that exists within the context of a larger organization, the Navy. In this way, it is possible for its members to know or be more familiar with each other and learn to work together. In that case, it can be said that the Marine Corps is also made up of a dense web of relationships between its members [39]. In 1982 the Marine Corps had a total of 9,500 troops. The total number of troops in the Navy reached 36,000 at that time. This figure included conscripts [40].

Most officers interviewed agreed that these three factors help create an integrated, cohesive and coordinated amphibious force.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, an advantage that the Navy has over other armed forces arises from having its own means of logistical support. In this regard, a veteran officer of the campaign stated [41] that “the secret of the successful logistics capacity of the Navy's land units in the Malvinas was due to the fact that the logistics were ours.” In that sense, “we did not depend on anyone else” [42].

Finally, many observers pointed out another institutional aspect that distinguished the Navy compared to the Army. When the time came, they considered that the conscript incorporation system was critical for their performance. The Navy incorporated new conscripts in five successive bimonthly batches and the conscripts served a fixed period of fourteen months [43]. For many, this system adopted in the 70s was “one of the reasons why the force was always ready for combat” [44].
Up to this point, this research has identified a set of structural aspects that make up the organization's configuration: geographical location, concentration of troops, size, own logistical support and conscript incorporation system. The conjunction of these factors facilitated training and helped to form an integrated, dense and cohesive force that fulfilled the mission expected of it.

Organizational Culture: values, norms, beliefs and ideals

In addition to the factors here called structural, some of the positive assessments of the performance of BIM 5 mention the attribute of “professionalism”. This concept is difficult to quantify but responds, at least, to the impression that those who carry out a specific task perform it as expected [45]. The demonstration of professionalism in the face of a situation such as combat in extreme conditions against an enemy of stature is a demonstration of the presence of a shared culture that allows those who possess it to face and overcome it with greater success than those who lack this attribute. Analysis of official and semi-official documents and personal interviews with Navy and IMARA personnel suggests the presence of the following key elements as part of the organizational culture of the Navy and particularly the Marine Corps. While some elements are common to both, others are specific to the latter.

Integration 

The idea of integration of its cadres is incorporated into the Navy's educational system. From the beginning, with their incorporation into the Naval Academy, the young cadets become part of an integrated force. During the first two years, instruction is given without distinguishing between naval or infantry cadets. Later, when the last ones graduate as midshipmen, they all start in charge of an infantry section. After two years of service in the rifle companies, they begin their specialization in artillery, communications, engineers or infantry in the corresponding school units. It is important to note that Infants consider these specializations as orientations or technical skills [46]. This process contrasts with that used by the Army. There, the separation of weapons was strictly established and the cadets from the beginning received instruction in separate classrooms and had their blocks separated by weapons. [47]




Members of the Marine Corps are also accustomed to working as a whole on extensive campaigns [48]. Consequently, continuous activity generates integration, that is, a situation in which “everyone knows a little about everything and trains together.” For this reason [49], during the Malvinas campaign, the Marine Corps was very effective in the use of coordinated fire support. Integration was not only achieved within the force but also [50] [51] with the other components of the Navy such as naval support and, especially, aviation. In general, the Navy emphasizes the importance of unity of action and the concept of “interoperability”, that is, the ability to operate in any geographic area in conjunction with other components of the weapon [52].
Finally, due to the characteristics of the naval profession, it teaches its personnel the need to work harmoniously as a team. The staff knows that they will be confined to the same ship for a long time. Under these circumstances, the crew members are in close contact with each other and each one performs an important task for the entire group on the ship. Furthermore, the idea is present that “if the ship sinks, all crew members are equal on the rafts” [53].

The Importance of Leadership

Historian Craig Cameron in his book on the combat readiness of the US 1st Marine Division observes that “Marines almost universally attribute their achievements primarily to their extraordinary leadership at the small unit level.” Argentine infants were no exception to this observation [54].



When remembering his experience in the Malvinas, Commander Alberto Baffico points to the quality of leadership of the officers and non-commissioned officers as the key to the success of the Infantes. According to him, leadership is exercised both by presence and by example. The Navy in general emphasizes personnel leadership in both practical and theoretical terms [55].

In contrast to some accounts in which it is stated that Argentine officers abandoned their men at the front, Baffico maintains that the Infantes “were not alone in their positions.” Indeed, “there was a constant presence of the commanding officers.” Furthermore, “in the Navy it is important to be a natural leader and not merely an institutional one.” [56] Rear Admiral (IM) (ret.) Carlos Büsser pointed out that the good performance of the Marine Infantry units was due to the fact that

The officers and non-commissioned officers were always very close to the troops they led, in very direct contact with the different situations posed by modern combat and therefore, in a position to adopt resolutions quickly and safely. [57] 

In short, driving is “knowing how to give an order in such a way that it can be carried out.” [58]

In relation to the role of the leader, some interviewees mentioned that Navy officers are always taught to be concerned for the well-being of their subordinates. Their “concern for staff is real, not merely formal or simply stated” [59].

Furthermore, for infantrymen, “the man and his personal weapon are the most important weapon system” [60].

Discipline

As in any military institution, the Navy and Marine Corps emphasize the value of discipline. In this regard, Vice Admiral (IM) (ret.) Julio Bardi and Captain (IM) Enrique Olmedo agreed in describing the Argentine Infantry as a highly disciplined force. Both stressed that within the force discipline is both formal and fundamental. Infants tend to emphasize formal discipline because they are more rigid and because “they manifest fundamental discipline by adhering to the principles of formal discipline” [61]. Within the Navy, Infantrymen are recognized for their personal care and military manners [62]. According to one officer, “the infantrymen need their formal discipline as a complement to their combat training” [63].

The importance of the initiative

According to those interviewed, the Infantes respect the independent decision-making criteria. That is, they emphasize inventiveness, self-confidence, and the ability to carry out independent action. In this case, “the ability to act on one's own initiative is most marked in the Marine Corps” [64]. The author of this article vividly remembers his time at CIFIM in City Bell as a newly recruited conscript. During the training the non-commissioned officers always repeated: “the soldier thinks and executes!” [65] This contrasted with what his high school friends who were serving in the Army at the same time told him. They were not instructed under the slogan: “the soldier thinks, he executes!” This simple exercise highlights an important aspect of the culture of an organization where even its lower-ranking elements were instilled in the idea of “thinking.” This can be very useful for exercising initiative in the event that men lose the superiors who normally give orders.

The importance of planning

According to CN Olmedo, Infantry officers are educated in such a way that they develop a characteristic capacity for planning. For this reason, Infants are typically assigned planning tasks [66]. This tendency can be illustrated with an anecdote that exists in the Corps. During the Malvinas War, the General Staff of the Marine Corps Command, once it had planned and executed the mobilization and support operations of its troops on the islands and on the continent, was ordered to prepare numerous schematic plans. These very general plans were intended to cover a wide spectrum of contingencies. The demand to carefully plan every conceivable situation was so great that staff began using the unofficial acronym “PAPs” for these plans [67].

The value of tenacity

Tenacity is another of the values indicated by the officers interviewed. According to Captain (IM) (ret.) Jorge Errecaborde “tenacity is valued by the Marines.” Furthermore, it can be said that infants are different not because they are “more intelligent, but because they are more tenacious.” Infants are taught that they should do what they say they are going to do [68]. In this case, stated CN Olmedo, “the idea of fulfilling the mission is such that it must be very difficult to find a justification for not having fulfilled it” [69]. In the Marine Corps, training aims to teach recruits how to “overcome obstacles by creating the means to do so” [70]. A maxim characteristic among its members is: “overcoming shortcomings with ingenuity and sacrifice” [71].

Foresight: logistics culture

One of the advantages of the Navy most often commented on is that in the Malvinas it had “excellent logistical support.” CLIM (ret.) Büsser explains that the Navy had supplied the Marines stationed on the islands with food, fuel, medicine, spare parts and enough clothing for 180 days. The naval command also sent sufficient ammunition to sustain continuous combat for 30 days [72].
The reasons for such foresight derive from an important idea in the Navy. The concept of “ship” which means that to operate successfully the unit must be self-sufficient and, therefore, everything necessary to remain operational must be carried on board [73]. Consequently, due to these requirements, the Navy has developed a profound characteristic “idea of foresight”.

Learning capacity

With respect to preparation, the Navy as an organization showed a remarkable ability to learn from past experiences. In effect, the naval commanders took advantage of the military preparations of 1978 in anticipation of an armed clash with Chile over the Beagle Channel dispute. This experience allowed the Navy to adjust its equipment and obtain the necessary supplies to carry out a campaign in regions with harsh climates such as the Malvinas [74]. The North American naval specialist Robert Scheina agrees in commenting that “one of the lessons that the Argentine fleet learned during the tensions was its need for greater logistical capacity” [75]. Later, during the Malvinas experience, the logistical changes introduced after the 1978 mobilization worked adequately.

Conclusions 

Once the Malvinas War was over, different commentators highlighted the notable performance of the Argentine Marine Infantry units deployed in the Islands. The reasons for such performance, according to them, were the high degree of cohesion, the availability of a balanced supply of weapons and equipment, and the ability to prepare defensive positions. A more comprehensive analysis allows us to observe the presence of other characteristics that also contributed to the force carrying out outstanding work. These factors are: geographical location, concentration of resources, size, own logistical support and the conscript incorporation system. All these elements that we call structural are easily observable and facilitate the presence of the next level of factors, the organizational culture. At the same time, the mere presence of these factors does not guarantee outstanding performance but is supported by the notion of “professionalism.” Therefore, only when the factors are considered together do they help explain the behavior of the IMARA in combat. Thus, this research adds a rarely discussed dimension. It, more subtle and less visible, is present throughout the Navy's educational system and helps shape the spirit of the organization. In the case of IMARA, the organizational culture dimension includes the following elements: integration, leadership, discipline, initiative, planning, tenacity, foresight, and learning capacity.

It could be argued that these elements are common to the cultures of all military organizations and that this research is therefore superfluous. However, the Infantrymen as members of the Navy share these basic values and beliefs that were tested in combat and demonstrated notable performance during the campaign. Consequently, these values and beliefs can be considered valid components of the IMARA culture. This work does not mean to affirm that only the Marine Corps had outstanding behavior, as already noted, other Army units also had it. However, other research by the author seems to suggest that this behavior depended more on individuals, both officers and soldiers, than on the organization as a whole. [76]

This research also shows that as new troops joined, the Marine Corps was successful in instilling a “Marine pride” that appears to be a nearly universal trait of Marine forces around the world. According to an Argentine Infantryman “the Marines are the best troops that have ever existed in the history of our country and to this day” [77]. These words written in present times are similar to others written years earlier by a young United States Marine: “the spirit of the Marine Corps that I cannot explain (you feel it in your body and act according to it) is the reason why which ours is the largest combat organization in the world” [78]. Perhaps this last phrase is the one that best encapsulates the idea of organizational culture and the role it plays.

Finally, a Navy publication published shortly before the Malvinas conflict characterized the BIM 5 as a particularly cohesive unit, capable of “obtaining superlative achievements.” According to it, the causes that explain this condition are isolation, the geographical insularity of Río Grande, and the adverse conditions that prevail in the area. More importantly, the publication noted the presence of a special spirit that provides a “single and inflexible will... that drags and compels its men to give their best” [79]. This work is a first attempt to find an explanation for that spirit.



References 

[1] This is an improved version of the work presented at the XIVth Naval History Symposium, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, September 23-25, 1999. The author thanks Rear Admiral (ret.) Guillermo Delamer for his comments and the support provided during the research for the same, and Captain (ret.) Guillermo Montenegro for for their valuable comments and to the officers interviewed for having generously shared their experiences with the author. (New York: Brasseys,
[2] Nora Kinzer Stewart, Mates & Boys. Unit Cohesion in the Falklands/Malvinas War 1991). pp. 127-128.
[3] In addition to BIM 5, Stewart identifies as Argentine units that fought with distinction the 25th Infantry Regiment, the 601st and 602nd Commando Companies, the 7th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Artillery Group. p. 108.
[4] See, for example, Martin Middlebrook, The Fight for the Malvinas. The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War (London: Penguin Books, 1990) pp. 47-48; F. R. Aguiar et. al., Land Operations in the Malvinas Islands (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar, 1985) pp. 33-34, 60-61, 103; and Carlos Augusto Landaburu, The Malvinas War (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar, 1988) pp. 133.
[5] Disembarkation Separata No. 16 (1996), 14-15. CLIM (ret.) Carlos Büsser also mentions geographical proximity as one of the reasons that led to the decision to send BIM 5 to the islands (Emilio Villarino, Battalion 5. The Marine Infantry Battalion No. 5 in the Malvinas War (Buenos Aires: Aller Atucha, 1992), p. 9. The BIM 5 is the school unit specialized in cold areas, low mountain terrain and combat in the southern mountains. The VLIM (ret.) Julio Juan Bardi explained in a personal interview with the author that the fact that BIM 5 was prepared and ready was the product of the Navy's strategic vision. This highlighted the battalion in a maritime area (Personal interview, Buenos Aires, 10-08- 99).Vice Admiral Julio Juan Bardi was commander of the Marine Corps during the 70s.
[6] Battalion 5, 58. From the Front. Marine Infantry Battalion; Carlos H. Robacio and Jorge Hernández, Villarino, Battalion N° 5 (Buenos Aires: Solaris, 1996) pp. 250 and 258. On April 28, the Malvinas Military Garrison was organized into two sub commands, the Litoral Army Group and the Puerto Argentino Army Group. BIM 5 came under the command of the latter.
[7] Disembarkation, Separatas No. 10 (s/f), 14 (1995), No. 15 (1995), and No. 20 (1997).
[8] On the South Georgia Islands there was also a small detachment of Marines (70 men) (Landing). According to the Official Report of the Argentine Army No. 160, March 1997, pp. 41-42 the number of force personnel in the Malvinas reached 10,001 (t. 2, Annex 21) ().
[9] Villarino, pp. 64-65; Robacio and Hernández, Battalion 5, pp. 72, 118, 189.
[10] Ibid. 123; ibid. 19; Disembarkation from the Front, Separata No. 16 (1996), 20.
[11] The British first attacked Longdon, Two Sisters, and Harriet Mountains during the night of the 11th and 12th. On the night of the 13th and 14th they attacked Tumbledown, Williams, and Wireless Ridge Mountains.
[12] Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983) pp. 301-303.
[13] Ibid. 303. According to Middlebrook, “the Argentinians lost Tumbledown after a determined and prolonged resistance that upset the English schedule (The Fight for the Malvinas, 262).
[14] Paul Eddy et al., The Falklands War, 253; Martin Middlebrook, Task Force. The Falklands War, 1982 (London: Penguin Books, Rev. ed. 1987) p. 366; Hastings and Jenkins, The Battle..., 303.
[15]Harry G. Summers Jr., “Yomping to Port Stantley,” Military Review LXIV (3) March 1984, p. 14.
[16] Stewart, Mates & Boys, p. 104.
[17] N. Vaux, March to the South Atlantic: 42 Commando Royal Marines in the Falklands War (London: Buchan and Enright, 1986) p. 206-07 cited in ibid. p. 105; Villarino, Battalion 5, p. 201. As a sign of recognition the British allowed the Infantrymen to keep their personal weapons for a short time.
[18] Middlebrook, The Fight for the Malvinas, pp. 254-55.
[19] Eugenio Dalton and Martin Balza, “The Battle of Puerto Argentino” in Land Operations in the Malvinas Islands (Buenos Aires: Círculo Militar), p. 203.
[20] Rattenbach Commission, Rattenbach Report. The Drama of Malvinas (Buenos Aires: Espartaco, 1988), p. 236.
[21] However, an IMARA officer present during the conflict told the author that the unit was not able to operate at one hundred percent of its capacity due to the extreme fatigue of his men due to lack of sleep due to the intense bombing. They were subdued for many days. This observation seems to be supported by the statement of a British intelligence officer: “The Marines coped well with the hostile conditions. However, rain, rest and recovery were rare” (Nicholas van der Bijl: Nine Battles to Stantley, Leo Cooper: 1999. p. 189). For an evaluation of the performance of the other IMARA units see Horacio A. Mayorga, No Expired. Accounts of naval operations in the South Atlantic conflict (Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1998), pp. 458-462, 463-471, 495, 501-02, and Desembarco Separatas Nos. 10 (sf), 14 (1995), 15 (1995), 16 (1996), 20 (1997).
[22] John G. Fowler, Jr.: “Combat Cohesion in Vietnam,” Military Review, December 1979, p. 26. On the topic specifically referring to the Malvinas conflict, see Stewart, Mates & Muchachos... op. cit.
[23] Martin van Creveld: Fighting Power. German and U.S. Army performance, 1939-1945 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 1982) p. 4. See also Omer Bartov: Hitler's Army. Soldiers, Nazis and War in the Third Reich (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 1992) and Stephen Fritz: Frontsoldaten. The German Soldier in the World War II (Lexington, Ky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995).
[24] Allan Millett and Williamson Murray (eds.), Military Effectiveness Vol. I, Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989, p. 19. Another similar definition may be that of “combat power,” which according to military historian Martín van Creveld is “the sum of all the mental qualities that make an army fight.” (Fighting Power. German and U.S. Army performance, 1939-1945. p. 3)
[25] Jeremy Black: “Military Organization and Military Change in Historical Perspective.” Journal of Military History 62 (4) October 1998, p. 884.
[26] According to North American historian Elisabeth Kier, “military organizations develop strong cultures due to their long-term membership and powerful assimilation mechanisms.” (Imagining War. French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997, p. 28).
[27] Steven J. Ott, The Organizational Culture Perspective, (Pacific Grove, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1989) p. fifty.
[28] Kier, Imagining War, p. 28.
[29] Henry Mintzberg: “The structuring of organizations” p. 372.
[30] According to Schein, organizational culture is, among other things, a pattern of basic assumptions that “have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be transmitted to new members as the correct way of perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems.” (Edgard H. Schein, 25 (2) 1984, p. 3). “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture”, Sloan Management Review
[31] Kier, Imagining War, p. 31.
[32] See Harrison Trice and Janice Beyer: The Cultures of Work Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. pp. 8-10.
[33] Craig M. Cameron, American Samurai. Myth, Imagination, and the Conduct of Battle in the First Marine Division, 1941-1951 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994) p. 196.
[34] This ability is more notable given that the Marine Corps' primary mission is to attack positions and not the static defense of the front.
[35] Personal interview with Captain IM (ret.) Jorge Errecaborde (07-21-1999). Captain Errecaborde collaborated with the Commission for Analysis of Combat Actions in the Malvinas Conflict, and since 1987 he has been Head of the Malvinas Office of the Marine Corps Command.
[36] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999) and with a high-ranking officer who requested to remain anonymous (07-17-1999). Geographic isolation also helps to explain the traditional predisposition of BIM 5 to training and professional development (Jorge A. Errecaborde, Anecdotario de la Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina Buenos Aires: Instituto de Publicaciones Navales, 1997. p. 179).
[37] Argentine Navy, Marine Infantry. Three Centuries of History and One Hundred Years of Organic Life. 1879-November 19-1979, Buenos Aires, 1979. p. 122.
[38] Ibid. p. 134.
[39] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999). See also Errecaborde, “Reflections”, 32 (5); personal interviews with Bardi (08-10-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999).
[40] Errecaborde, “Reflections”, 42-42. At the same time, the Army had a total of 125,000 troops (The International Institute for Strategic Studies, IISS, Military Balance, 1982-1983, London, 1983, p. 99)
[41] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999). See also Errecaborde, “Reflections”, pp. 37-38 (6. Logistics).
[42] Interview with Baffico (08-20-1999).
[43] Robacio and Hernández, From the Front, p. 14; Villarino, Battalion 5, p. twenty-one.
[44] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999).
[45] See above commentary on the Rattenbach Report. In a recently published book, General Martín Balza, who commanded Artillery Group 3 deployed during the conflict on the islands, points out the following: “the English say that in Tumbledown they faced an elite Marine Infantry Battalion. I attest to his professionalism”, Buenos Aires: Editorial Atlántica, 2003, p. 175)(Malvinas. Deed and incompetence
[46] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[47] The contrast with the Army is stark. The Arms within it remained strongly separated and a very competitive spirit was created among its members, it can be described as “tribal”. In those years, Army cadets took classes in separate classrooms according to the Arm to which they belonged (infantry, cavalry, artillery, communications, engineers and quartermasters). Each one had its block separate from the others. Once graduated, the young second lieutenants were assigned to the units of their specialization and then to the Arms' own schools.
[48] According to Olmedo, “Brigade-wide exercises begin every October...This is a system operating as a whole. In this way, the Brigade is accustomed to operating together in long campaigns” (Interview 07-20-1999).
[49] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[50] To achieve such a degree of efficiency “you need to be highly trained” (ibid.. See also Jorge Errecaborde, “Reflections 15 years after the feat,” Desembarco XLI No. 160, 1997, p. 36). The account of the operations of the Marine Corps artillery is found in Desembarco, Separatas N° 16 (1996) 58-66 and N°, 124-25.
[51] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, 84-85; Mayorga, Not Expired, 463-471. 17 (1996), pp. 162-64; Villarino, Battalion 5
[52] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999); Bardi (08-10-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999). CF Baffico commented that “in the Navy we continually work with other arms, there was integration, especially with naval aviation.”
[53] Interview with a naval officer who asked to remain anonymous (Buenos Aires, 07-17-1999).
[54] Cameron, The American Samurai, pp. 222-23.
[55] Personal interview with Baffico (08-20-1999).
[56] idem. This statement contrasts with that of British journalists Hasting and Jenkins who maintain that when the war ended “many Argentine soldiers were bitterly critical of the lack of leadership shown by their officers on the battlefield...many officers withdrew from their positions. at the front as soon as the battle began" and cite the opinion of an Argentine stretcher-bearer conscript who stated that "when the soldiers found themselves alone, in the middle of the night, in total darkness, and sought the support of their superiors they did not “They were able to find them.” (The Battle for the Malvinas, pp. 296).
[57] Büsser in Villarino, Battalion 5, p. 16.
[58] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[59] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[60] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[61] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999) and Olmedo (07-20-1999). This can be summarized in the phrase “short hair and a flat belly” (Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 168).
[62] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 168.
[63] Ibid. p. 127.
[64] Olmedo (07-20-1999). Some anecdotes about the inventiveness of the Infantes during their training are told in the Anecdotario, pp. 29-30, 38-.39 and, 40-41.
[65] CIFIM: Marine Corps Instruction and Training Center. The center was located in City Bell, Province of Buenos Aires.
[66] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[67] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, pp. 187-188. In the comments to this work, CN (ret.) Guillermo Montenegro confirmed that the Infantes are recognized as “fanatics” in terms of their attachment to planning in general (XIVth Naval History Symposium, Annapolis, United States, 09-14- 1999).
[68] Interview with Errecaborde (07-21-1999).
[69] Interview with Olmedo (07-20-1999).
[70] Interview with Bardi (08-10-1999).
[71] Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 41.
[72] Büsser in Villarino, Battalion 5, p. fifteen.
[73] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999) and Bardi (08-10-1999).
[74] Interviews with Olmedo (07-20-1999) and Baffico (08-20-1999), and interview with Vice Admiral Máximo E. Rivero Kelly, Naval Center Bulletin N° 752/753, Buenos Aires, 1987, p. 100.
[75] Robert L. Scheina, Iberoamerica. A Naval History, 1810-1987 (Madrid: Ed. San Martin, s.f.) p. 200.
[76] Alejandro L. Corbacho: “Reassessing Fighting Performance of Conscripts Soldiers during the Malvinas/Falklands War (1982)” Paper presented at the Annual Congress for the Society for Military History 1998 Lisle Hilton, Lisle, IL. United States, April 24-26, 1998.
[77] Captain of the Frigate (IM) Jorge Saénz in Errecaborde, Anecdotario, p. 132.
[78] Letter to his parents from Second Lieutenant Richard C. Kennard (USMC), cited by Cameron, American Samurai, p. 156.
[79] Argentine Navy, Marine Infantry, pp. 133-134.

Malvinas/Falklands War: The Last Moments of June, 14th in Puerto Argentino

The Malvinas conflict reached its conclusion on June 14, marked by intense hand-to-hand combat, heroic resistance, and the British apprehension towards Argentine aviation.

During the final hours, tense negotiations took place between the Argentine and British forces. General Galtieri issued orders to Menéndez, which were met with defiance. The British harbored bitterness over the relentless air attacks they faced and the battles that etched themselves into history as some of the most valiant displays of courage exhibited by the Argentine troops.

By Adrián Pignatelli || Infobae

General Mario Benjamín Menéndez was the governor. In this photo he addresses troops in Darwin on May 25, 1982. (AP)

During the initial days of June, the English initiated efforts to establish a ceasefire, using the radio telephone at the "King Edward" hospital, a facility frequently used by the islanders for medical consultations. On June 6, a call was answered by Dr. Alison Bleaney, who was initially skeptical and almost dismissed it as a prank. However, it turned out to be a British staff officer trying to communicate with the Argentine authorities.

Dr. Bleaney relayed the message to Commodore Carlos Bloomer Reeve, the Secretary General of the Interior, through a messenger. Governor Mario Benjamín Menéndez was then informed of the communication, and he appointed Navy Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey to listen to the British message without answering any questions. The message from the British was an attempt to find common ground for ending the hostilities.

Both parties agreed to communicate daily at 1:00 p.m. until the 12th of June.

The final hours of the war are renowned for showcasing the greatest display of Argentine resistance.

Mount Longdon was the scene of a dramatic combat by soldiers from the 7th Regiment. (AFP)

Starting from June 9, the British intensified their artillery fire. Subsequent battles occurred between the 11th and 13th at strategic locations, namely Mount Harriet, Mount Longdon, Two Sisters, Mount Tumbledown, and Wireless Ridge. These battles formed the final defensive line before reaching Puerto Argentino.

During the combats at Mount Harriet and Mount Two Sisters, the British forces encountered formidable resistance. A skilled sniper managed to impede the advance of a Royal Marines company for hours, while another company from the 45th also faced significant opposition on the slopes of Two Sisters. The tenacious resistance demonstrated by the Argentine troops earned admiration from the enemy.

Jeremy Moore, the British commander. The day before the surrender he saved his life in an air raid.

A grueling battle took place on Mount Longdon, resulting in a significant number of casualties. The British forces had to push forward with fixed bayonets, and once they reached the summit, they had to defend against two Argentine counterattacks. The 7th Regiment's C Company, consisting of a platoon of 46 men, forced the English B Company into a withdrawal.

The severity of the conflict was evident in the numbers: out of the 278 men in the "Maipú" Company, only 78 managed to withdraw after enduring twelve hours of combat against the 3 PARA. The British forces suffered 23 killed and 70 wounded.

On Saturday, June 12, at half past 3, history witnessed the launch of an MM-38 Exocet missile from a ramp near the Puerto Argentino airport. The missile was directed at HMS Glamorgan, a British ship responsible for nightly bombardments of the capital. The shot proved successful, hitting the ship's deck and rendering its electronic devices inoperative.

The Tumbledown combat, June 13, 1982. Painting by Steve Noon, British artist.

On the 13th, approximately twenty air missions were conducted over British positions. During an air raid on his camp at Mount Two Sisters, Commander Jeremy Moore miraculously escaped with his life.

On the same night, around 50 Scottish soldiers launched an attack on the base of Mount William, leading to an order for the Argentine defenders to withdraw. Additionally, a British speedboat raid on the Camber Peninsula, north of the Puerto Argentino roadstead, was repelled before midnight.

In the early hours of June 13, a section of the Amphibious Engineer Company withdrew from the northwest of Mount Tumbledown and headed towards the command post of Marine Infantry Battalion 5. At three in the morning, amidst a snowstorm, a fraction of them, along with members of the Amphibious Engineer Company and a section of riflemen from the Company of the 6th Infantry Regiment, prepared to counterattack the west side of Mount Tumbledown. Two hours later, the Nácar Company attempted to regain control of the mountain. A counterattack ensued, resulting in half a dozen Scotsmen being wounded. However, facing heavy enemy fire, General Menéndez authorized the withdrawal of the forces.

Pilots, mechanics, technicians and soldiers of the M5 Dagger Squadron before one of the missions in Comodoro Rivadavia. The actions of the Air Force and Naval Aviation pilots were the greatest concern of the British.

During the battle of Wireless Ridge, the 7th Regiment's trenches endured a relentless onslaught of nearly 6,000 shells fired by British artillery. Initially, the English forces took control of the northern sector, and two companies, which had been engaged in combat since the previous day, made their way towards Moody Brook while facing the relentless barrage of British cannons.

Despite the valiant efforts of the Argentine troops to hold their ground, the British advance persisted. With the support of light tanks, the British infantry managed to reach their positions and encircle the troops from BIM 5. On the southern slope of Wireless Ridge, approximately 40 men from A Company of Regiment 3 courageously launched a counter-attack against soldiers from Para 2.

As dawn broke on the 14th, the surviving soldiers from the battle at Wireless Ridge regrouped and formed a defensive line near Felton Creek. About 50 survivors from the 7th Regiment launched a counter-attack against Moody Brook Barracks, which was already under British control. However, they were met with fierce artillery fire and had to retreat. The British were impressed by the resolute attitude displayed by the Argentine forces.

Some of the soldiers of Regiment 3 who staged one of the last counterattacks of the war.

The Air Force executed its final mission: deploying two Canberra and two Mirage bombers to attack British positions at Furze Bush Pass. Tragically, one of the Canberras was shot down during the operation.

At 6 o'clock in the morning, the Argentine artillery opened fire towards the top of Wireless Ridge, aiming to halt the advance of the British paratroopers. The artillery provided cover fire to facilitate the retreat of the Argentine soldiers. An hour later, the British forces gained control of Tumbledown, and helicopters fired missiles at the Argentine artillery near Moody Brook.

Amidst the withdrawal, a second lieutenant and 21 gunners from the 4 Airborne Group remained behind to operate the last piece of artillery, which they used to engage British paratroopers. However, they were forced to withdraw when a shell got stuck.

At that moment, Carlos Robacio, the commander of BIM 5, defied two withdrawal orders and continued fighting.

In the war's final engagement, a section of the Sea Company from BIM 5 successfully disabled two British Sea King helicopters. BIM 5 completed its withdrawal by 3:00 p.m., marching at an accelerated pace through the streets of Puerto Argentino, with the troops remaining in possession of their weapons. They aimed to regroup and prepare for urban combat.

Commander Carlos Robacio was the commander of the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion. On more than one occasion, he rejected the withdrawal order.

In his memoirs, Admiral Woodward recounted the dire situation during the war's final days: "We were stretched to the limit, with only three ships - Hermes, Yarmouth, and Exeter - functioning without major operational issues. 45% of our destroyers and frigates were incapacitated. The Andromeda's Sea Wolf was disabled, all the Brillant systems had various defects, and the Broadsword had one and a half weapon systems functioning, with one propulsion shaft permanently damaged. None of the 21 ships were fit for battle: the Avenger and Arrow were broken, and Olimpus turbines disabled, among other issues. It was a crumbling fleet."

"In this beautiful place, we have only one Sea Dart line of fire to protect the Etendards. Our convoys to and from the coast are 'escorted' by a semi-paralyzed frigate. The gun line, once consisting of four ships, is now down to two due to damages. The towing, repairs, and logistics area is 'protected' by the broken-down Glamorgan, and South Georgia is valiantly defended by the poor, broken-down Antrim and the formidable battleship Endurance."

The withdrawal of BIM 5 from Sapper Hill marked the end of General Jofre's planned resistance. Most factions abandoned their positions, walking towards Puerto Argentino, some alongside British soldiers who allowed them to retain their weapons.

Para 2 commanded Wireless Ridge, Para 3 Mount Longdon, 42 Commando Mount Harriet, and 45 Commando Two Sisters. The Scots Guards controlled Tumbledown, the Gurkhas were on Mount Williams, and the Welsh on Sapper Hill, with Puerto Argentino dominated by two English brigades.

Generals Menéndez and Jofre agreed that continuing the fight would only lead to more loss of life. Jofre stated, "This is not enough."

In the midst of a conversation with General Leopoldo Galtieri, the call was abruptly cut off by an English bombardment. Galtieri, at Casa Rosada, remarked, "It seems that Menéndez is giving up..." and asked to speak with him.

Menéndez's assistant was sent to communicate with the English troops and seek a ceasefire agreement.

Galtieri called again, demanding loudly that the soldiers leave their foxholes and counterattack. Menéndez explained that he lacked sufficient support, particularly from naval and air forces. Despite Galtieri's insistence to counterattack using troops from the 3rd and 25th regiments and the marine infantry, Menéndez refused, knowing the futility of such an action. Galtieri warned him that he would have to answer for his decision upon returning to the continent. Menéndez considered invoking United Nations Resolution 502, which called for Argentina to cease hostilities, withdraw troops, and negotiate, but Galtieri objected. Faced with difficult choices, Menéndez decided to "leave with honor."

A Gazelle helicopter from Fearless took off, carrying British Parliamentarians. They tied a white parachute cloth to its belly. The officers Bell, Reid, and a Spanish-speaking radio operator accompanied them.

As they walked towards the seat of government, Menéndez awaited them at the door. In the talks, Captain Melbourne Hussey was joined by Vice Commodores Carlos Bloomer Reeve and Eugenio Miari, a specialist in international treaties.

During the first meeting, the British expressed concern about Argentine aviation and called for their attacks to cease.

Until the last moment, Galtieri demanded that Menéndez counterattack with the forces available. He also did not want the governor to sign any documents. (Telam)

At 11 a.m., as snow began to fall, a ceasefire was reached. For the British, this was a stroke of luck as the troops who attacked Puerto Argentino were left with only six batches of ammunition; the rest had sunk with the Atlantic Conveyor.

Galtieri laid out his conditions: Menéndez should not sign any document, and the discussions should revolve around evacuation rather than surrender. Each man was expected to return in uniform, with his weapons, and the commitment was to be upheld with honor. Menéndez was taken aback by the order not to sign, knowing it would be an impossible request to fulfill.

Moore y Menéndez acordaron el alto el fuego. El gobernador exigió quitar la palabra "incondicional", de los términos de la rendición.

Each party retreated to confer with their superiors and agreed to reconvene later, this time with their respective leaders, during the night.

At 19:45, Jeremy Moore, the British forces commander, arrived by helicopter, visibly perturbed by the snowstorm they had to navigate through. He was accompanied by seven officers from his General Staff, the radio operator with direct communication to London, and a legal officer. In one hand, he held a document outlining the terms of surrender, and in the other, a bottle of whiskey.

The Argentinians declined to sign an "unconditional" surrender; they insisted that there would be no public surrender ceremony, that the officers would retain command over their troops, and they would keep their flags.

Moore's telegram announcing that it was all over.

Moore's main concern revolved around the airmen. The aviation action had resulted in the loss of 7 British ships, with 5 being rendered inoperative and 12 experiencing mechanical breakdowns. In response, they reached out to Brigadier Ernesto Crespo, who had proclaimed at the start of the war: "If anyone thought that the phrase 'defend the Homeland until losing your life' was merely rhetoric, this is the moment of truth." As the head of the air command, Crespo pledged to comply with the cessation of hostilities, although he made it clear that he was not surrendering.

After removing the word "unconditional" from the document and obtaining assurances from the air command, all obstacles were overcome. Menéndez then initialed the document, followed by Moore and a British officer as a witness.

Cover of the Clarín newspaper that gave an account of the ceasefire on the islands.

The ceasefire would begin at 23:59 on June 14. Menéndez requested authorization to meet with his General Staff but it was denied, informing him that he would shortly be transferred to “Fearless” as a detainee.

The war was over.

Sources: La guerra inaudita. El conflicto del Atlántico Sur, de Rubén Oscar Moro; 1982. Los documentos secretos de la guerra de Malvinas/Falklands y el derrumbe del proceso, de Juan B. Yofre; Los cien días. Las memorias del comandante de la flota británica durante la guerra de Malvinas, de Sandy Woodward; Una cara de la moneda. La guerra de Malvinas according tothe complete version of The Sunday Times Insight Team de Londres; newspaper from June 1982.