so as "Brigadier General". Before leaving the city, the French vessel transporting Lepredour would also make a 21-gun salute to the flag of Argentina. Historical perspectives The historical significance of the conflict is disputed between Argentine historians. Revisionist authors consider it a key event in the history of Argentina, next to the Argentine War of Independence, while traditional historians disagree. A recent example of this conflicting viewpoints took place on 18 November 2010, before the first celebration of the National Sovereignty day (in commemoration of the main battle of the conflict, the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado) as a national holiday. The newspaper La Nación interviewed revisionist historian Pacho O'Donnell, traditional historian Luis Alberto Romero and British historian David Rock. Luis Alberto Romero considers that the importance of the battle is overrated because it was a defeat: the Anglo-French navy destroyed the artilleries and proceed to the north, as they wanted to do. The end of the blockade in favourable terms to the Confederation was more the result of a change of policy by the Foreign Office after the appointment of Lord Palmerston than a success of Rosas' diplomacy. Pacho O'Donnell considers that, even though the combined fleet could force its way, it ultimately failed in its main purposes: they could not turn the Argentine Mesopotamia into a new country, nor gain total control of the Parana River, nor establish their presence in the zone. David Rock concurs, but considers that it is exaggerated to treat the battle as an "epic". He points that the number of casualties in it may be high in the context of the military history of Argentina, but not on a global scale, as it was nowhere near the 1916 Battle of the Somme, with more than 20,000 deaths in just half an hour. Pacho O'Donnell considers as well that traditional historiography had concealed the battle of Vuelta de Obligado. Romero considers instead that, despite not giving it the higher importance, the battle is properly referenced at all the books about the time period. According to Historicising intervention: strategy and synchronicity in British intervention 1815–50, the British government intentions were "to pacify the republics of the Plate, secure the definitive independence of Uruguay, and the advancement of Britain’s commercial and diplomatic relations with all the states in the region, perhaps also establishing contacts with Paraguay". The British expedition, commissioned without parliament authorisation and inconsistent with