The Falklands

[Quake42]

Or: What if Thatcher and her Government had taken quicker notice of Argentina's moves towards the Falklands, immediately sent in the fleet and had not sent out ambiguous signals on the official British position, until it was too late and the Argentinians had already invaded?

Well yes, but that's all a little bit "I wouldn't start from here if I was you" isn't it?

Granted the Thatcher government made a mistake in withdrawing the patrol ship and it seems that diplomatic signals were not sufficiently unambiguous to deter Galtieri.

However, once the Argentinians had invaded, what then? I'm genuinely interested as to what you would have proposed.

Sickening though the jingosim around the conflict was, ultimately a small defenceless population had been invaded by a quasi-fascist foreign power. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of an entirely justified military response.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...Sickening though the jingosim around the conflict was, ultimately a small defenceless population had been invaded by a quasi-fascist foreign power. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of an entirely justified military response.

I'd agree.

There was a tendency at the time, and still is, for elements of the Left (and I'm not being partisan as I'd probably still include myself in that spectrum) to suddenly develop blind spots with regard to certain words and phrases - like self-determination and dictatorship - and the fact that those who had planned the invasion had a habit of dropping the opposition into the sea from a great height.

I'd rather it hadn't happened at all - but it did, and faced with that fact I'm not sorry it ended the way it did.

 

[Quake42]

There was a tendency at the time, and still is, for elements of the Left (and I'm not being partisan as I'd probably still include myself in that spectrum) to suddenly develop blind spots with regard to certain words and phrases - like self-determination and dictatorship - and the fact that those who had planned the invasion had a habit of dropping the opposition into the sea from a great height.

Yes - had the UK or US invaded a small, peaceful island against the wishes of the indigenous people because of some unconvincing irredentist claim from 150 years ago, I think it's fairly safe to say that the Left would have been lining up to condemn the shocking act of aggression.

I'm therefore puzzled as to why the reaction towards the Falkland invasion was so different :?

Self-determination is self-determination, even if the people concerned want to remain British...

 

[linesmachine]

I can't get the image out of my head of a four way conflict between Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland. It would be a marmalade coloured ginger fracas...if it ever made it out of the pub! Lots of cured fish on the menu too.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Or: What if Thatcher and her Government had taken quicker notice of Argentina's moves towards the Falklands, immediately sent in the fleet and had not sent out ambiguous signals on the official British position, until it was too late and the Argentinians had already invaded?

Well yes, but that's all a little bit "I wouldn't start from here if I was you" isn't it?

Granted the Thatcher government made a mistake in withdrawing the patrol ship and it seems that diplomatic signals were not sufficiently unambiguous to deter Galtieri.

However, once the Argentinians had invaded, what then? I'm genuinely interested as to what you would have proposed.

...

The Post which you quoted was clearly in reply to Rynner's own 'What if?'.

If you'd taken a glance at the content in the accompanying link, you will see that the subject of the Falklands, it's people, its mineral rights and it's potential as an oil port had been exercising the minds of various pre-Thatcher Governments, since at least the Nineteen Sixties.

Some actual background history:
'The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The origins of the Falklands war' by Lawrence Freedman

The Labour Government in the Seventies had its own run in with the Argentinian Government of the day and swift action ensured that the situation was resolved, albeit temporarily and ultimately unsatisfactorily, with a minimum of force being required (the 'Shackleton Incident', etc.) .

If your actually read my quote, I suggest that more could have been done, before the Argentinians actually invaded, perhaps even as late as when the Argentinian 'scrap metal merchants' were raising the Argentinian flag on the islands, in a blaze of publicity. Any action after the invasion was too late, vis a vie the resulting loss of life.

...

Sickening though the jingosim around the conflict was, ultimately a small defenceless population had been invaded by a quasi-fascist foreign power. I'm struggling to think of a clearer example of an entirely justified military response.

Is that a sly reference to the US Government's subsequent invasion of Grenada, in 1983? If I remember correctly, many Grenadians also consider themselves to be British subjects. I don't remember Thatcher sending a task force to the Caribbean, at the time, although she may have been quite annoyed.

 

[Quake42]

If your actually read my quote, I suggest that more could have been done, before the Argentinians actually invaded, perhaps even as late as when the Argentinian 'scrap metal merchants' were raising the Argentinian flag on the islands

I accept that, but as I say all that you're saying is "I wouldn't start from here if I was you".

Once the Argentinians had invaded and refused to leave, do you accept that it was reasonable to liberate the islands by force?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

If your actually read my quote, I suggest that more could have been done, before the Argentinians actually invaded, perhaps even as late as when the Argentinian 'scrap metal merchants' were raising the Argentinian flag on the islands

I accept that, but as I say all that you're saying is "I wouldn't start from here if I was you".

Once the Argentinians had invaded and refused to leave, do you accept that it was reasonable to liberate the islands by force?

If you read my answer, above, you will know exactly what I believe. Once the Argentinians had invaded, Britain had no real choice but to send the task force. However, the first crime committed by Thatcher's Government was to sit on its hands until the Argentinian invasion took place.

The second obvious and serious crime, of course, was the sinking of the Belgrano. Perhaps, you don't remember how angry many people were about that, at the time, either.

Not everybody was a Sun reader in the early Eighties, or fell for the, jingoistic claptrap, hype and spin, that the media drummed up at the time. To demand some sort of obeisance to a simplistic reading of the past, as a sort of fait accompli, as the phrasing of your question seems intended to, does a disservice to those who lived through it as well as to those who died during it.

 

[Quake42]

Not everybody was a Sun reader in the early Eighties, or fell for the, jingoistic claptrap, hype and spin, that the media drummed up at the time. To demand some sort of obeisance to a simplistic reading of the past, as a sort of fait accompli, as the phrasing of your question seems intended to, does a disservice to those who lived through it as well as to those who died during it.

I'm not suggesting any such thing, as well you know, and I have no idea what this paragraph is driving at, other than to imply that those who disagree with your interpretation are jingoistic Sun readers who dishonour the Falklands war dead. However, cutting through the spin, we seem to be agreed that:

- prior to the conflict the British government made mistakes which encouraged the junta to think that they could invade with impunity;
- once the Argentinians had invaded it was entirely proper to remove them by force;
- much of the media coverage of the conflict was distasteful; and
- the loss of life on both sides was tragic.

I'd go further and say that the conflict helped to topple the Galtieri junta, a development which I should think all progressives would support.

 

[ramonmercado]

Hmmm, Rockall's disputed territory is it not?

DISPUTED? Its Irish I tell ye!

I expect Scotland's sending a task force to defend it as we speak...

We'll dekilt those haggishumpers!

Takes all sorts!

But you'll need to be careful. While your ripping the skirts of Scotsmen those Danes'll could be creeping round the back entrance. And, lets' face it - Iceland could probably do with some serious distraction just now.

Of course we Celts will stand together against the Viking Foe.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...prior to the conflict the British government made mistakes which encouraged the junta to think that they could invade with impunity...

Nott's defence cuts probably exacerbated that particular aspect.

Funny how post-conflict Britain and the newly warlike Margaret Thatcher neglected to recall that the pre-conflict administration was preparing to turn a rather large portion of the Royal Navy into scrap metal.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Not everybody was a Sun reader in the early Eighties, or fell for the, jingoistic claptrap, hype and spin, that the media drummed up at the time. To demand some sort of obeisance to a simplistic reading of the past, as a sort of fait accompli, as the phrasing of your question seems intended to, does a disservice to those who lived through it as well as to those who died during it.

I'm not suggesting any such thing, as well you know, and I have no idea what this paragraph is driving at, other than to imply that those who disagree with your interpretation are jingoistic Sun readers who dishonour the Falklands war dead. However, cutting through the spin, we seem to be agreed that:

- prior to the conflict the British government made mistakes which encouraged the junta to think that they could invade with impunity;
- once the Argentinians had invaded it was entirely proper to remove them by force;
- much of the media coverage of the conflict was distasteful; and
- the loss of life on both sides was tragic.

I'd go further and say that the conflict helped to topple the Galtieri junta, a development which I should think all progressives would support.

Then I must be misreading your question just as you do not seem to understand my reply. I am saying that Thatcher's Government may well have manoeuvred Britain into an avoidable war. Not a mistake, a heinous crime, if true. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't like you to misunderstand my position on this point.

As to speeding the fall of the Argentinian Junta, perhaps the popular war against a foreign foe actually helped bolster their position at home, at least in the short term? Many of those young conscripts sent out as cannon fodder might have been more trouble to the regime, in civvies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8122794.stm

Once again, you are presenting what seems an overly simplistic view of history as a sort of fait accompli: the way things had to be and all for the best.

 

[ramonmercado]

...prior to the conflict the British government made mistakes which encouraged the junta to think that they could invade with impunity...

Nott's defence cuts probably exacerbated that particular aspect.

Funny how post-conflict Britain and the newly warlike Margaret Thatcher neglected to recall that the pre-conflict administration was preparing to turn a rather large portion of the Royal Navy into scrap metal.

Speaking of Defence cuts: would the UK be in a position to send a Fleet to The Falklands now? There have been even more savage cuts. I know the Argies have had cutbacks as well but...

 

[Spookdaddy]

...Speaking of Defence cuts: would the UK be in a position to send a Fleet to The Falklands now? There have been even more savage cuts. I know the Argies have had cutbacks as well but...

It did actually cross my mind that Argentinian belligerence in both instances might have been to some extent encouraged by news of defence cuts.

 

[Yithian]

I've heard it said - before the current flaring - that HM Armed forces would not now be able to send a self-contained fleet with enough to retake the Islands.

That said:
a) They won't be required to.
b) If they were asked to, they'd manage it. It would be an enormous stretch, but military prestige would demand it. If asked whether it were militarily possible, the armed forces would move Heaven and Earth to defend the soil for which their brothers gave their lives. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't try, even if failure were a real risk.

 

[ramonmercado]

I've heard it said - before the current flaring - that HM Armed forces would not now be able to send a self-contained fleet with enough to retake the Islands.

That said:
a) They won't be required to.
b) If they were asked to, they'd manage it. It would be an enormous stretch, but military prestige would demand it. If asked whether it were militarily possible, the armed forces would move Heaven and Earth to defend the soil for which their brothers gave their lives. It's inconceivable.

Ok an invasion by the Argies is a hypothetical situation.

But IF...

Would the RN have enough ships & jets? Where would the UK Armed Forces get additional equipment from? Would the US be prepared to get all of Latin Americas backs up?

 

[Quake42]

Then I must be misreading your question just as you do not seem to understand my reply. I am saying that Thatcher's Government may well have manoeuvred Britain into an avoidable war. Not a mistake, a heinous crime, if true. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't like you to misunderstand my position on this point.

Then I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying simply that the war may have been avoided had Thatcher's government not removed the patrol ship and/or if it had sent stronger diplomatic signals; or are you suggesting that conflict was *deliberately engineered* by Thatcher and/or others in her government? The former statement is uncontentious, but your use of the word "manoevred" implies the latter, which is a mch more controversial allegation and one for which I don't see a lot of evidence.

If they were asked to, they'd manage it. It would be an enormous stretch, but military prestige would demand it. If asked whether it were militarily possible, the armed forces would move Heaven and Earth to defend the soil for which their brothers gave their lives. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't try even if failure were a real risk.

I agree. It's unlikely Argentina will attack again IMO, but if it was to happen I can't imagine government or military surrendering. I'm guessing also that the Royal Navy is probably less occupied now than a few months ago.

 

[Yithian]

I've heard it said - before the current flaring - that HM Armed forces would not now be able to send a self-contained fleet with enough to retake the Islands.

That said:
a) They won't be required to.
b) If they were asked to, they'd manage it. It would be an enormous stretch, but military prestige would demand it. If asked whether it were militarily possible, the armed forces would move Heaven and Earth to defend the soil for which their brothers gave their lives. It's inconceivable.

Ok an invasion by the Argies is a hypothetical situation.

But IF...

Would the RN have enough ships & jets? Where would the UK Armed Forces get additional equipment from? Would the US be prepared to get all of Latin Americas backs up?

Under Obama? No. He has no love or interest for Britain from all I have seen. The RN would beg and borrow everything floating under even a nominal British flag. Furthermore, I'd expect long-range air-strikes to be a much bigger thing. We've still Ascension Island and a refuelling capability plus the submarine fleet with big missiles on offer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine

Can you imagine aggression being maintained in a democratic Argentina if bombs fall on Argentine soil? I can't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

It'll never happen, of course, but we do still pay a fortune for the Big Red Button...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Would the US be prepared to get all of Latin Americas backs up?

They're either with us or against us...we stand shoulder-to-shoulder...an attack on one is an attack on us all...we're all Falklanders now...etc. ad infinitum...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

It'll never happen, of course, but we do still pay a fortune for the Big Red Button...

That threat worked for Thatcher...allegedly...

 

[Yithian]

Quite incredibly, you can check current naval deployments on the MOD website. (Subs excluded):

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/globalops/

This is the main asset openly deployed off the Falklands today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gloucester_%28D96%29

 

[jeff544]

I've heard it said - before the current flaring - that HM Armed forces would not now be able to send a self-contained fleet with enough to retake the Islands.

That said:
a) They won't be required to.
b) If they were asked to, they'd manage it. It would be an enormous stretch, but military prestige would demand it. If asked whether it were militarily possible, the armed forces would move Heaven and Earth to defend the soil for which their brothers gave their lives. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't try even if failure were a real risk.

I would add that in the current scenario (what with oil being in the forefront this time) the USA would be more likely to assist. (The UK).

 

[Spookdaddy]

Well, the British were pretty stretched before. It was a bit like watching an international football team turn up to Wembley in the back of an Austin Maxi - the situation slightly alleviated by the fact that the bulk of the opposition had been left out in the rain for three weeks and were only wearing plimsolls.

This thread got me raiding the bookshelves. Rodolfo Fogwill's (he is Argentine, despite the fact that his surname sounds like it should belong to a character from Heartbeat), Malvinas Requiem contains a scene where one of the Argentine deserters stares across the bleak and sodden landscape and exclaims, 'you'd have to be English to want this.'

The Brits in Fogwill's novel are strangely neutral, almost benevolent - I can't help wondering if that's a reflection of the well-attested habit of conscripts desparately seeking the opportunity to surrender, even when they were in fairly secure positions, simply because they detested their own officers and thought they'd be better treated as POW's by the opposition than they were as soldiers by their own army.

 

[Spookdaddy]

On a tangent - but of Fortean interest. I've just found a reference in Malvinas Requiem to a British radio broadcast heard by the Argentinian soldiers which referred to 'two nuns'. The whole thing is a bit vague but the response of the soldiers indicates that the nuns in question are actually ghost nuns (edit: flying ghost nuns, no less) and that their alleged presence is affecting the willingness to patrol more than British action.

I've no idea if this is based on anything more than the author's imagination - it would be interesting to know. I do have a very vague memory of reading somewhere that army intelligence had got hold of the fact that a large number of conscripts came from a particularly superstitious region of Argentina - and now I can't get the image of two enormous, hairy-arsed Paras running around in the dark going whoooooooo! out of my head.

Well, you know what they say: NUNS! NUNS! REVERSE! REVERSE! REVERSE!

 

[Yithian]

Here we go. As expected Mr Obama (well, his admin) says he is entirely neutral with respect to sovereignty in the Falklands.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyy ... r-of-need/

We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.

It seems no amount of support for US adventurism, in sterling or blood, makes any difference to what they think of us as a nation. The thing that bothers me is that this actually isn't some indefensible colonial situation. No indigenous population were coerced or enslaved. The principle of self-determination alone should be enough to make the islands British. Perhaps, out of sheer symbolic spite, we should refuse to acknowledge American soverignty in... Hawaii, Guam, or Guantanamo Bay.

edit: 'they': should read as the US administration, not the US people.
edit2: some reading tells me the 1st settlement was French with a British one following months later (without knowledge of the French). Before 1764, there was nobody living there.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

It seems no amount of support for US adventurism, in sterling or blood, makes any difference to what they think of us as a nation.

In fairness I'd say that this administration probably wishes we hadn't supported recent adventures. A minor quibble since you're quite correct about the rest.

Why would a Latin American country want a piece of land rich in natural resources anyway? It's not like it's worked out particularly well for them in the past, has it?

Of course, in the past the US was a little less 'neutral' regards Chile, Guatemala etc though (see also Iran, Iraq etc).

 

[wembley9]

. The thing that bothers me is that this actually isn't some indefensible colonial-situation. No indigenous population were coerced or enslaved. The principle of self-determination alone should be enough to make the Islands British.

Not really. Certainly the people there have every right to self-determination and to be British. The question is whether they have any right to claim sovereignty over the islands. That's one for the international lawyers, handy summary here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_I ... ty_dispute

Nobody is living on Rockall, but that doesn't mean some Argie can occupy it and claim it for the of tangoes and barbecues.

 

[rynner2]

Argentina asks UN to bring UK into talks on Falklands

Argentina has formally asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to bring the UK into talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said he had asked Mr Ban to help stop "further unilateral acts" by the UK.

Mr Taiana was referring to the UK's decision to begin oil drilling under a seabed off the islands.

The UK government says the islands have a "legitimate right" to develop an oil industry within their waters.

In a statement, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, said that the UK had "no doubt" over its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

He said this position was "underpinned by the principle of self-determination as set out in the UN charter".

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8533860.stm

That, plus de facto control for the last 180 years...

 

[Mythopoeika]

If the argument being used is that Britain has no claim because of the distance involved, then perhaps America should leave Hawaii and Guam, all Spanish/Portuguese people should leave South America, all Americans should leave America.... just where do you draw the line?
The problem with involving the UN is that it allows lots of petty dictators to bad-mouth Britain and gang up. All of them seem to belong to a kind of dictator's club.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...Nobody is living on Rockall...

And that's the difference. The Falklands has an established population with links to the UK and a preference for those links to remain. Okay, if you go back far enough the point may become more relevant but in questioning the legitimacy of any historical population settlement you are opening a can of worms that will affect virtually every country in the developed world, not least Argentina.

(Edit: And, of course, many in the underdeveloped - historically speaking, land theft and population shift are not the monopoly of the developed world.)

 

[Yithian]

If the argument being used is that Britain has no claim because of the distance involved, then perhaps America should leave Hawaii and Guam, all Spanish/Portuguese people should leave South America, all Americans should leave America.... just where do you draw the line?
The problem with involving the UN is that it allows lots of petty dictators to bad-mouth Britain and gang up. All of them seem to belong to a kind of dictator's club.

That's okay: if you don't have the bomb, you don't get a veto.
[Unless you're Israel].