That's certainly an interesting theory, and not one that I've come across before.

Laying it aside for the moment, The Falklands War was about who had sovereignty over the islands. The British claim was based on a century and a half of control, as well as being one of the initial settling nations, while the Argentine claim was that they had possessed it for a short time before the current period of British occupation, and that it had been a Spanish possession immediately beforehand. (Important notes; the islands had no recorded permanent settlement before Europeans colonized it, and the population at the time of the war was mostly of British descent and desired to remain under British control).

At the time, Argentina had been undergoing economic troubles and protests against the military government, so the war was seen as a way to redirect that popular antipathy against the UK. They basically ignored the populace's wishes, seeing their territorial claim as a trump, and sent a force to occupy the islands. The rest, as they say, is history.

So, unless you believe that, A. Nazis secretly controlled the government of Argentina, B. Nazis engineered massive civil discontent in order to force the Argentine government towards drastic action, or C. Nazis traveled through time back to 1766 in order to plant a British settlement on the islands, there's absolutely no connection to WWII.

That all being said, what's this about WWII not ending until the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Not at all really. I couldn't speak for those particular theorists, but I can confidently say that the Falklands war was a largely isolated geopolitical conflict.

In April 1982, Argentine forces landed on the Falklands. They did so with no direct foreign backing, and no formal announcements of any kind about this. Britain responded by sending a task force of 127 ships, including 2 aircraft carriers. Britain did this with American backing, as America allowed them to use Ascension island as a closer base.

Take into account, prior to this, both America and France had supported Argentina to a degree in their modernization. After this all, the war went on, and Britain was successful. The war ended in June 1982. At no point did the USSR, or Germany, have anything to do with the conflict, be it through diplomatic support of Argentina, or intervention of any kind.

Considering the lack of support from the opposing side, I can confidently say the Falklands was isolated, and in all seriousness was not even truly relevant to the Cold War, much less the idea of an ongoing war from WWII.

To answer that you have to ask yourself what happened with Argentina in the war? They were a neutral nation that had some Axis leanings, but otherwise that didn't factor in too much. The only controversies I've ever read about wartime Argentina involved propaganda related to German airlines, and the oil embargo placed on the country.

Sources tell you the embargo was a result of the pro-Axis leanings, however, the man who represented the Joint Chiefs in the conference which voted for the embargo had been the one who nearly quit his job with Esso because he had been given the hopeless task of negotiating with the Argentinians to prevent the nationalization of Esso's properties in the country.

The Falklands issue is something entirely different. If there was true animosity between Britain and Argentina during the war, the US wouldn't have made a special fuel allotment for British firms which operated steamers in Argentinian territory. The Argentinians would have rightfully kicked the British out after expropriating their vessels instead.

I've never head of this theory and to be frank, it sounds absolutely bogus.

When it comes down to the core reasons behind the war, it was an attempt for the military Junta of Argentina to regain popularity. At the time of the war there were public demonstratioons as the nation was in an economic downturn, civil and human rights were being violated and there were protests erupting across the nation. In fact, a few days before they invaded there was a large trade unionist protest in front of the government building.

The Argentine government incorrectly assumed that they would be able to capture the islands and hold them and that the UK would be unwilling or unable to sent a task force to reclaim them. The UK and Argentine governments both felt that the longer the islands lay in Argentine hands the more likely the chance that the UN would rule the Argentine claim lawful.

Of course as is known the Uk sent a task force to retake the islands, the Royal Navy was inequipped for warfare and as such Merchant Navy vessels and crews were commandeered for the war effort and eventually the task force was sailed and the islands were reclaimed.

After the war there was a political turnaround in both nations, when they first invaded the islands the Argentine opinion of Galtieri and the Junta had become supportive of the campaign and their leadership but afterwards they turned on the government and the Junta collapsed.

In the UK Margaret Thatcher was, at the beginning of the war, the least popular Prime Minister in British history. After the war she would go on to win a landslide victory in the elections and become the defining moment in her political career.

At the 1982 local elections a young Labour representative stood in his first election. The young mans name was Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and he was a critic of the British response to the invasion. Following his only loss in an election he remarked (and I paraphrase) that "British people like a quick war". War would become a major issue in his career and he would be viewed as a controversial figure after his career was over.