Our of respect for Margaret Thatcher who is buried today the posts from the sad announcment of her demise in relation to the arguement over completely justified the sinking of the belgrano (not at all biased in my opinion there) have been moved to this thread.

I should emphasise that I have nothing against Argentina or its people and this side debate relates to a time long gone when a failing Junta thought that they could attack UK oowned territory and that we would not defend ourselves.

Hope that I got everyones comments as I'm now off to tidy up the maggie thread.

ilsm wrote :

Bit late joining in this thread, and perhaps I shoudn't, but I don't mind speaking ill of this particular dead person and, for me, she was evil ... a class warrior who suppressed the working classes and destroyed their institutions, a capitalist who stole millions of pounds of national assets to sell them on to other capitalists and wannabes, a nineteenth century imperialist whose jingoistic Falklands adventure, including the sinking of the Belgrano (nothing short of a war crime) cost so many lives when restraint, negotiation and sanctions could have succeeded instead ... I could go on ... poll tax, milk for school kids and so on. It was she who made it OK to believe in "me" and the relentless pursuit of self enrichment at the expense of social conscience. I would go so far as to say she laid the foundations for the banking collapse in 2008 by encouraging "incentivised" payments to City workers.

What galls me now is that this millionaire is going to receive a funeral surrounded by pomp and circumstance normally reserved for figures who have united the country or who were entitled to it ... Churchill the Queen Mum and Princess Di, for example, costing ten million pounds or so, at the expense of working people who are facing savage cuts in their own incomes to pay for the excesses of our captains of industry ... sorry - she allowed industry to wither ... captains of banking and finance.

How much did Eden's funeral cost? Or MacMillan's, Wilson's, or Douglas-Hume's? Did we spend that much on Heath or Callaghan, or indeed all of those put together? I don't think any of them divided the nation half as much as Thatcher did.

Where's the justice?

Ding dong ...

Shamus Wrote :

Really!

amazed how many people waited until she was dead before they felt safe enough to make their views known.

There are a lot of holes that I can punch in your arguements Ian but I won't bother on most of it... But, the Belgrano... it was war, ships get sunk. The Begrano was playing silly games at the edge of the total exclusion zone and posing a threat to British forces. If you are playing chess you take out the peices that pose a threat... Or would you rather that we did nothing and the Belgrano was brought into action?

Would you rather British soldier died before deciding that having a warship sitting and waiting was a threat to them?

There was only one reason that the Argentinian warship was there and that was to support the invasion of Sovereign territory so inside or outside the exclusion zone it posed a threat and was rightly eliminated.

If they didn't want to lose it they shouldn't have sent it to war.

ilsm wrote :

I know my comments were controversial, but I didn't want them taken as a challenge. I have my opinions, others have theirs, but I have never been reluctant to express my views about Thatcher. Afraid of her? Yes, very. Afraid to say so? No, never. No-one here asked me before.

I would like to take up the comments regarding the Belgrano.

So far as I am aware, Britain has never been at war with Argentine. Certainly not in 1982.

Thatcher's government had informed Argentina that any Argentine vessel or aircraft, military or civilian, deemed a threat would be at risk anywhere in the South Atlantic - the Exclusion Zone was an irrelevance. Britain would attack anywhere it liked.

The Belgrano was at sea, far away from the Exclusion Zone - over the horizon and halfway to the next. She was no threat ... she was on course for her home port where she would likely have stayed until hostilities had ceased. Argentina knew it could not win the war. It would be unable to support its forces on las Malvinas and could not risk unnecessary loss of ships and aircraft. Thatcher knew this but she gave the order to sink the Belgrano anyway - she gave the order herself, personally, fully cognisant of the inevitable outcome.

She weighed up the situation and decided that the demonstration of power was worth the loss of life ... remember, politically, she needed a war to divert attention from domestic problems ... so she sank the ship and drowned the crew. She did this as a demonstration to the British audience the Argentines already knew the game was up.

No British soldier's life was in jeopardy, only Argentinean ones were at risk here. Over a thousand of them.

One further point, from an Argentine point of view, they were not invading an independent sovereign territory, they were attempting to liberate Argentine land from foreign occupation.

Don Tax wrote:

There's a story about the Belgrano thats sadly typical of totalitarianilsm. It goes that they'd employed carpenters to ensure the ship looked like it was equipped to fire Exocet. In other words, a vicious regime was literally playing silly games with wooden toys and didn't give a crap about it's sailors.

I won't labour this point as I'm no expert at naval warfare, but if I'm not mistaken, Exocet could reach a distance further than the horizon when viewed from a height higher than any ship.

Obviously, millions of life were not at stake in the Falklands but I would say the following. Someone of Mrs Thatchers generation, if you gave them a good shot at the Tirpitz or Bismarck in 1939, would (with hindsight) give the order to attempt to sink all the battle group.

Shamus Wrote:

Hi Ian,

With or without a declaration of war Argentinia had declared an act of war when they invaded sovereign territory.

As with a contract such may be in writing or deemed by actions and in the case of Argentina their actions were very clear.

The Belgrano was not just at sea, it was at the closest point to get into the battle quickly and was basically just moving backwards and forwards around the same area waiting.

The same arguement could be used that in WWII there were American troops in the UK waiting to liberate France so was it legitimate for Germany to try and bomb the US bases in the UK or wait until they attacked. I mean, the Americans could not shoot the Germans from where they were but the truth is that they posed a real and present danger in the same way as the Belgrano that was where it was for one reason and one reason only.

The people of the Falklands are British.

The people laying claim are Spanish.

The only difference being is how far back in history you go to determin who the land actually belongs to but the reality is that we have as much claim to land that we took as the Spanish have to the land that they did.

If we start thinking in terms of dubious claims then we may have to give York to the Scots. lol.

To my mind the worst attrocity of the war was committed not by the English or the Argeninians but by the French showing their true colours and not giving the British forces the disarm codes for the French misiles being fired at them.

Without the exocets the Argentinians would have capitulated sooner and a good many lives on both sides would have been saved...

So what say we forget Argenina and invade France, lol. You know that it would be a real vote winner for the coalition.

Shamus Wrote :

Ah, the Bismark and the Tirpitz (and the Graf Spee)... Now those were battleships. (and as a child my first three Airfix models).

They may have been the opposition but one cannot fail to admire German engineering at its best.


p.s. actually, on admiring the opposition another totally unrelated fact. When the Americans dropped the bombs on Japan Hiroshima was not the first selection. The bomb was supposed to have been dropped on Kyoto but the city was deemed to be too beautiful with too much history to destroy.

whilst I fundamentally disagree with the use of that sort of weapony, ever, its interesting to see how great craftsmanship and history saved a city.

ilsm wrote :

"The Belgrano was not just at sea, it was at the closest point to get into the battle quickly and was basically just moving backwards and forwards around the same area waiting".

Correction (with all due respect): The Belgrano had been at the closest point to get into battle quickly, but was returning to port, as were the two other Argentine task forces to the north, which the RN originally feared would combine in a pincer movement.

Argentina had by this time proposed a peace settlement and was withdrawing accordingly (although Thatcher had not responded [or had not had time to respond] to it and would never have accepted it as it would have meant maintaining the then status quo). This fact was treated as an official secret until Tam Dayell found out and spilled the beans.

Thus Belgrano was no longer a threat and Thatcher knew it.


The people of the Falklands are British.

The people laying claim are Spanish.

Correction: The people of the Falklands became British after the conflict.

The people laying claim are Argentine.

I was tempted to alter "of the Falklands" to "occupying las Malvinas" but I do have some sympathy for their position too. (Bloody awkward at times, being open minded!)

Argentina is claiming the territory, not the people, based on the fact that Spain, from which it became independent, had previously owned the islands and administered them from Argentina. Britain's claim is based on occupation only.

Consider: if Argentina planted St Kilda with a number of settlers, and then held a referendum asking whether they wanted to remain Argentine, or become British, would that render St Kilda a sovereign Argentine dependancy?


If we start thinking in terms of dubious claims then we may have to give York to the Scots. lol.

Berwick, certainly. England can keep York, or give it back to the Danes.



So what say we forget Argenina and invade France, lol. You know that it would be a real vote winner for the coalition.

I thought the coalition wanted nothing to do with Europe (since Thatcher).

Shamus Wrote :

Tut, you Scots come down here, sack our cities and then you don't even want them (say the guy of Welsh heritage, lol)

The Falklands have been in British hands since 1833 prior to which Britain, France and Spain all had claims in varying degrees to the islands (and on occassion different islands belonged to different nations at the same time... Bit like the Caribean).

The Argentines used the Spanish link to the islands to rewrite all of the islands in their entirety into their own constitution in 1994.

Argentina invaded on April 21st 1982 calculating that the UK would not defend territory so far away. (If it was a liberation why was it a full scale amphibious attack with armed troops against undefended islands?).

The General Belgrano was sunk on the 2nd of May 1982 (323 people were killed, not 1000).

HMS Sheffield was sunk on the 4th of May.

The British liberation of the islands from the invading Argentine force began on the 21st of May.

Just thought that some actual date based facts might not go amiss in the discussion.

Basically Argentina played with fire for political gains and they got burned in the process.

The UK, and the Thatcher government did the right thing at the right time for the right reason.

There are ways and means of doing things but attempting to impose your will by force against the UK is not one of them.

ilsm wrote :

The Argentines used the Spanish link to the islands to rewrite all of the islands in their entirety into their own constitution in 1994.

This may be so, but the British claim is no better, being based on the right of possession.  Spain's claim is best, being antecedent to Britain's, and continued by Argentina as its successor.

(In fact, Britain and Spain originally agreed that neither would occupy the islands, but it seems that agreement did not last.)

Argentina invaded on April 21st 1982 calculating that the UK would not defend territory so far away. (If it was a liberation why was it a full scale amphibious attack with armed troops against undefended islands?).

The invasion began on April 1st.

A large number of troops were sent to discourage resistance, of course.  Argentina correctly anticipated that the occupying forces that were there - a garrison of Royal Marines and sailors plus the Falkland Islands Defence Force - would resist Argentine attempts to liberate the islands peacfully.  In fact only about 80 Argentine forces were used to capture the British garrison (consisting of about the same number of men).  Some effort was made to avoid loss of life at this stage, and only one Argentinian died.

The General Belgrano was sunk on the 2nd of May 1982 (323 people were killed, not 1000).

That's 323 more than needed to die at that time.  Thatcher could have stood the Conqueror down (and put the Task Force on standby) and agreed to negotiate without accepting a continued Argentine presence ... or at least she could have made a counter proposal to the Argentine peace proposal.  Instead she chose to destroy a retreating ship and let the crew sink or swim.

She did that deliberately, fully aware of the situation ... if it were anyone else, what would you call that?

On a point of detail, I did not say 1,000 Argentines died on the Belgrano, I said their lives were placed at risk (I did not know how many died).

HMS Sheffield was sunk on the 4th of May.

This was not, surely, Thatcher getting her retaliation in first, was it?

ilsm wrote :

May I suggest any further comments re Belgrano be moved to another thread?

Spam Kebab wrote :

Or indeed, another forum?

Rhianrach wrote

Maybe an Argentinian based one where they may hold the same views.

The majority of your comment is purely conjecture ilsm. The rest is bordering on bigotry, the only true purpose of your comments is a blatant attempt at trolling, you also keep contradicting yourself.

Lets get to the crux of sovereignty claims. If we're really honest, the Argentine claim is based on distance. 8000miles from UK - 300miles from Argentina. They're interested in mineral extraction rights, and maybe fishing but they can't say so.

The claim is put forward as one of historical occupation but as has been alluded, the Argentine/Spanish claim was allowed to lapse for longer than they actually administered the territory; 1760s-1830s (uncontinuous) as opposed to 1830s-1940s when the ruling parties accepted the status quo.

Indeed, their claim is more ridiculous than distance suggests because during the period of Spanish colonial administration, the mainland extent of Argentina was, by no means, a settled issue. For decades afterwards, they were fighting the native population for Buenos Aires Province for goodness sakes! Patagonia was unexplored by Europeans and Welsh miners settled there.

Meanwhile the Islanders got on with their lives and under Britains wing, acquired a moral right of self determination.  People are what matter - not disputed borders of a long-defuct empire and anyway, it's a mistake to think Argentina inherited Spains territorial claims. On the contrary, they fought that empire for independence but now want to impose foreign rule on the Falklands.

It is wrong and dangerous for Argentina to promote such a claim and worse for a Briton to go along with their propaganda.  It's not like you can actually see the Falklands from Argentina.  You have to sail some pretty rough seas; unlike say, Spains isolated possessions on and off Morocco :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island

TRAINING LINK wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... lets not forget that when the Falklands War took place Argentina was a dictatership and because of the falklands war is now a democracy. Any claim to the Falklands from now on will be done so diplomatically and not through war.

Dave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
I fully agree.

 

Don Tax wrote:

---

Lets get to the crux of sovereignty claims. If we're really honest, the Argentine claim is based on distance. 8000miles from UK - 300miles from Argentina. They're interested in mineral extraction rights, and maybe fishing but they can't say so.

The claim is put forward as one of historical occupation but as has been alluded, the Argentine/Spanish claim was allowed to lapse for longer than they actually administered the territory; 1760s-1830s (uncontinuous) as opposed to 1830s-1940s when the ruling parties accepted the status quo.

Indeed, their claim is more ridiculous than distance suggests because during the period of Spanish colonial administration, the mainland extent of Argentina was, by no means, a settled issue. For decades afterwards, they were fighting the native population for Buenos Aires Province for goodness sakes! Patagonia was unexplored by Europeans and Welsh miners settled there.

Meanwhile the Islanders got on with their lives and under Britains wing, acquired a moral right of self determination.  People are what matter - not disputed borders of a long-defuct empire and anyway, it's a mistake to think Argentina inherited Spains territorial claims. On the contrary, they fought that empire for independence but now want to impose foreign rule on the Falklands.

It is wrong and dangerous for Argentina to promote such a claim and worse for a Briton to go along with their propaganda.  It's not like you can actually see the Falklands from Argentina.  You have to sail some pretty rough seas; unlike say, Spains isolated possessions on and off Morocco :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island

 

---

 When it all comes down it basics, the best claim is the right of possession, and the Falklands were undeniably a British possession.  How did they come into British possession?  During the first half of the nineteenth century, the Royal Navy landed a force on the then Argentine-administered islands and ordered them to leave - Argentine administration of the islands was, of course, quite unaffected by the fact there were other undeveloped areas within Argentina, and it had British approval.  Although Argentina had a small force able to defend the islands, they were outnumbered and therefore agreed to leave.  (The British took the islands over at the time to forestall the United States, which might have done the same thing, having already sent a gunboat there to ensure American ships could carry out sealing operations.)

If it was right for Britain to use force in 1833, what was wrong with Argentina attempting the same thing in 1982?

The original Argentine settlers remained, while other settlers, mainly from Britain came in and, as you say, got on with their lives.

What we are really talking about is the last colonial war of the British Empire and it had nothing to do with democracy or self-determination.  Not only did Argentina want those bleak islands' hidden resources, but Britain did too.  Having squandered North Sea oil revenues, Thatcher wasn't going to lose any opportunity to grab whatever lay under the waters around the Falklands.

When you see the conflict as the last throw of the dice by discredited Generales and jingoistic tub-thumping by Thatcher to justify possession of islands wholly unconected to Britain in case oil might be found, it all seems much less glorious.  All of the lives lost were sacrificed to economic avarice.

Returning to the Belgrano, and bearing in mind a peace offer was on the table (even if unacceptable in its terms) was Thatcher justified in ordering the retreating ship to be sunk without warning (I am struggling to avoid the M-word), or should she have agreed to negotiate, bearing in mind the outcome of the war was never in doubt and a delay to allow talks to take place would not have made any difference to that result?

Its great when people reqrite history.

It is, isn't it?

The British were there before the Spanish.

Accepted

There was never an indiginous population of the islands.

But there was an Argentine settlement before 1833.

From 1600 to 1833 various nations claimed the islands.

First Dutch, then French, Then English (with no idea that the French were on another island).

The Spanish acquired the French territory from the French (I believe peacfully although sure someone will put me right if I was wrong n that one).

The Spanish then attacked the English forcing them off the islands in 1770 a good 40 years before Argentina existed.

Britain took back the islands in 1833 following on from issues with the islands being used as a Spanish penal colony and descent into a haven for pirates.

No argument with the history there, but since when was hypocrisy a justification for forceful expulsion?  Britain was using Bermuda and Australia as penal colonies at that time. 

Don't know about the priates.

Argentina had no issue with British Governance of the islands until a failing Junta decided to rewrite history to divert attention from issues at home.

Not strictly true.  Argentina never gave up its claims to the Falklands.  That's why the junta was able to use historical claims for its own purposes.

As such, Britain has more claim over the islands than Spain but would have been less than France had France not disposed of their South Atlantic colony.

Britain also ruled the islands before Argentina existed so Argentinas only arguement is from their Spanish history which as shown above they were last to the islands, not first.

According to your argument, Britain lost possession when Spain expelled it in 1770.

Argentina took over the administration of the islands in the 1820s, with British consent.

In 1833, Britain expelled the Argentine administration.

We could play silly games by saying Argentina is not the natural successor to Spain, nor are the Republic of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces of the River Plate, or the Argentine Confederacy, but we must then admit that Great Britain in 1833 was a different entity from the England in the 1600s, and also from Great Britain and Northren Ireland in 1982.

We are discussing the supposed right of an imperialist nation to dominate territory far away from any geographical connection, where its historical claims are tenuous and the only convincing argument is that might is right - how Thatcherite is that?  As I said before, Thatcher was a nineteeenth century imperialist, born a hundred years too late.

The Falklands are not a viable independent nation on their own.  Common sense in the 20th century suggests that they should become part of the nearest country, not a colony of a defunct empire.  There is no justification in the 21st century to perpetuate any imperialist myth that the Falklands are naturally British.  If the people want to be British, they can come home.

As said before, to my mind the sinking of any warship out of harbour of a country that we were at war with was completely justified and I fear that your logic is that shared with current military commanders where enemy forces are not attacked unless our troops are fired upon first even in cases where someone is walking down the street with a rocket launcher over their shoulder.

I am glad you admit that my attitude is more in line with current military ideas and practice than the position you appear to adopt.  I maintain it is wrong to attack an enemy in retreat in order to destroy him completely - those are the tactics of Gengis Khan.  I also believe that, if there is a peace offer on the table, one should not carry out any aggressive actions until the offer has been considered and fromally rejected, especially if the enemy appears to be acting in accordance with the peace propsals.

Belgrano was sunk in spite of the fact she was retreating and after a peace offer had been received but before it had been rejected or even discussed.

Ther may be differing press reports about what went on, but even Thatcher would have to acccept the truth of the above as it is well documented by various (including government) sources and was discussed by Thatcher herself on the BBC.

If someones carrying a rocket laucher you take their head off not wait till they've fired it at you.

Are you a representative of the UK branch of the NRA?  (Joking, by the way)

You'd only do that if you couldn't disarm him and he was threatening to fire.  After all, by shooting at him (a) you might miss (b) he might fire anyway, and the missile would be uncontrolled.

Was the Belgrano retreating or simply altering position ready to attack?

Argentina says it was - they would, of course.

Charts of the action suggest that the Belgrano task force (south of the islands) had virtually returned to its location the day before and had therefore retreated a significant westward journey from its closest point to the British.  At the same time, the chart suggests that the two northern task forces, "25 del Mayo" and "Drummond" had also turned north and west, away from the British.

Thatcher knew of the changes of direction.  Official documents, which Clive Ponting was prosecuted for leaking, confirm this.

She denies "seeing" the peace offer at the time, however.

But she cannot have been unaware of the peace offer - and if she was, she shouldn't have been.  It had been communicated the day before and there was plenty of time for her to read it.  I conclude she chose not to have seen it, or she lied.  The order to sink the ship was given in deliberate ignorance of it or in spite of it.

Again I ask, if anyone else, what would you call it?

Incidentally, she purported to agree to peace negotiations afterwards, despite continued Argentine occupation of the Falklands, but Argentina repudiated it because of her actions.

........................

If it was right for Britain to use force in 1833, what was wrong with Argentina attempting the same thing in 1982?

Not a whole lot of difference, but that doesn't make it a noble act. They rolled the dice and lost. The Falklands was probably one of the least bloody examples of colonisation, especially when compared to the rest of the Americas. I would say as regards any mineral wealth, that it would be sensible for the Falklands to share some that with their neighbours than for it to be pumped out as pound notes in Westminster.

The original Argentine settlers remained, while other settlers, mainly from Britain came in and, as you say, got on with their lives.

What we are really talking about is the last colonial war of the British Empire and it had nothing to do with democracy or self-determination. Not only did Argentina want those bleak islands' hidden resources, but Britain did too. Having squandered North Sea oil revenues, Thatcher wasn't going to lose any opportunity to grab whatever lay under the waters around the Falklands.

This could get into the territory of if the UK was run better before 1979 or afterwards. I've made my opinion known on other recent threads that Britain was a basket case in the 1970s and would equally have wasted north sea oil if a socialist government had continued in power.

The Falklands are not a viable independent nation on their own. Common sense in the 20th century suggests that they should become part of the nearest country, not a colony of a defunct empire. There is no justification in the 21st century to perpetuate any imperialist myth that the Falklands are naturally British. If the people want to be British, they can come home.

Well if the oil exploration comes off, they should be viable even if they haven't been before under some measures. Taking your example of St Kilda. A short timescale of foreign settlement would likely cause a 'Kosovo' like resentment. To state the obvious, immigration to that extent wouldn't be allowed to happen on St Kilda.

When you see the conflict as the last throw of the dice by discredited Generales and jingoistic tub-thumping by Thatcher to justify possession of islands wholly unconected to Britain in case oil might be found, it all seems much less glorious. All of the lives lost were sacrificed to economic avarice.

Yes, Ian. Who knows what went through the PM's mind. I tend to agree with you that she may have felt that she was already at an war against being enslaved by Stalin/Mao type regime. I doubt she thought the USSR was behaving like it did in the 1930s, but it was the same regime (not even a successor one) and in 1982 the outcome of the Cold War wasn't clear.

Returning to the Belgrano, and bearing in mind a peace offer was on the table (even if unacceptable in its terms) was Thatcher justified in ordering the retreating ship to be sunk without warning (I am struggling to avoid the M-word), or should she have agreed to negotiate, bearing in mind the outcome of the war was never in doubt and a delay to allow talks to take place would not have made any difference to that result?

Trying to understand her thinking. She wasn't an experienced war leader. If I'm not mistaken, there were 3 Argentinian battle groups at sea around the Falklands. I can't take the Argentinian peace offer seriously whilst you appear to take the beligerants side who had invaded an island of farmers. These people could easily have been added to the ranks of 'The Disappeared'. Galtieri was bumping off his own people day in and day out. Also nuclear submarines have not often been used in anger there was no guarantee that all the torpedo's would hit, let alone sink the ships attacked. Argentina accepts it was a predictable act of war, even if you don't. The task force was not up to full strength and had two other battle groups to oppose, including an (aging) aircraft carrier. It was probably a toss up and better both politically and strategically.

We could play silly games by saying Argentina is not the natural successor to Spain, nor are the Republic of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces of the River Plate, or the Argentine Confederacy, but we must then admit that Great Britain in 1833 was a different entity from the England in the 1600s, and also from Great Britain and Northren Ireland in 1982.

The fact is that they wanted to be the Spanish Empire. They expanded through Chubut and Patagonia then thought where next. They would have gone north and west as well if they could. The Falklands is simply prima facie the best excuse they can come up with for further expansionism. It can claim all it wants, but Argentina was nowhere near the Falklands in 1833 or 1883. They let the claim lapse. Simply didn't bother till it suited them. It might be they took a leaf out of Hitler's book when he seemed to be doing well in the 1940s.

If Argentina has a right to the Falklands then why shouldn't Spain have a right to Argentina?

Think I've shown with Morocco that there are different hues of territorial disputes. Kunashir Island in Hokkaido Bay is another one. In that case there was international agreement that the the Kuril islands would be returned to the USSR, but Kunashir Island had never belonged to Russia.

http://russiancouncil.ru/common/upload/ldpya5.jpg