Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina

By Jasper Copping Published: 9:00PM GMT twenty-seven February 2010

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman

The critics contend that multiform strong statements of actuality in the book are "nonsense" and "seriously defective", creation Buenos Aires"s chronological insist to the South Atlantic archipelago "appear stronger than it essentially is".

The legislative public on the islands has created to the Cabinet Office, that commissioned the work, to protest and to ask for the errors to be corrected.

Argentina warns BHP not to cavalcade for Falklands oil Falklands oil: Britain open to talks with Argentina Rattling sabres and teacups in the Falklands Argentina to find UN statute over the Falkland Islands Gordon Brown tells Argentina Britain will not obey the Falklands Thousands spin out to compensate last respects to Raul Alfonsin

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, the book"s writer and additionally a piece of of the Chilcot Inquiry row that is questioning the 2003 Iraq war, pronounced he was "happy to accept the corrections".

The piece comes as Argentina is stepping up tactful vigour over the insist for sovereignty, after a British oil supply arrived in the territory"s waters last week.

The significant mistakes contained inside of the book, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, have been minute by historians essay in the ultimate newsletter of the Falkland Islands Association, a British-based organisation set up to await the islanders.

Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper contend the errors are contained in the initial section of the book, covering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

They contend the work misrepresents treaties in in between Spain and Britain and repeats a fake insist that the Argentines determined a penal cluster on the islands.

They contend the book gives a "seriously misleading" criticism of events in the 1820s and 1830s, when the islands were initial claimed in the name of Argentina. The events of that epoch are executive to the South American country"s stream insist to the islands.

Mr Pepper said: "This work has the stamp of central history. That is the problem. If it was usually an additional story book, afterwards it wouldn"t unequivocally matter. We longed for to put the jot down straight."

Mike Summers, orator for the Islands" legislative assembly, said: "If this was a normal story book it competence usually be piece of a full of health chronological debate, but being an central story gives it a sure inflection that it wouldn"t differently have.

"We have contacted the Cabinet Office indicating out there were inaccuracies and suggesting it should be amended.

"Given who [the author] is and since that it was ostensible to be an central story of the fight you wouldn"t wish inaccuracies to have left unchallenged."

Colin Wright, titular cabinet member of the Falkland Islands Association, said: "There are a series of errors that the Argentine supervision would be means to see at and that could be all piece of undermining and chipping afar the standing of the islands and in strengthening their own claims."

Prof Freedman"s criticism of the 1982 fight itself is not contested and both editions have differently been in all well received.

Two volumes have been published. Volume one, containing the quarrelsome chapter, was initial published in 2005 and was reprinted in 2007, when the errors were repeated.

The full reply from Dr Pascoe and Mr Pepper has usually right away been published, in the Falkland Islands Newsletter, in the form of a pull-out errata trip to be extrinsic in to copies of the book.

Prof Freedman, a clamp principal at King"s College, London, additionally writes on the errata slip.

He said: "It was not a piece of my subtract to do a lot of strange investigate in to the eighteenth century.

"I was perplexing to insist the inlet of the arguments. I was not seeking at any first sources. I couldn"t insist to be a historian of that period. My subtract was to write about 1982.

"At no point do I give any denote of await for the Argentine insist on sovereignty.

"It is a subject about story rather than await for Argentina. It happens. It is the inlet of the job. I don"t feel I have been held out in a elemental misdeed.

"There is engaging new investigate that has been finished that has strew new light on the issue."

The Cabinet Office declined to comment.

Some of the errors

Official history: When Spain returned the allotment of Port Egmont, on the islands, to Britain in 1771, the Spaniards done a stipulation in the covenant with Britain in that "it indifferent the on all sides on sovereignty".

Correction: This insist was not done in the treaty"s last text.

Official history: Another covenant in in between Spain and Britain "clearly prevented Britain from occupying the Falklands".

Correction: The covenant authorised the investiture of a allotment if an additional energy (such as Argentina), done such a settlement.

Official history: When a British soldier Captain Onslow of HMS Clio arrived on the islands in 1833, he told the captain of an Argentine warship there that "the Islands belonged to no one".

Correction: The total point of Onslow"s excursion was to means Britain"s claim, that antiquated from their bottom on the islands 60 years earlier. He told the Argentine commander in chief as much.

Official history: After Onslow"s arrival, convicts from an Argentine penal cluster that had been determined on the islands were forced to leave.

Correction: There was no such penal colony. Onslow told the Argentine castle to leave but asked civilians to stay, as majority of them did.