Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is Blair, Thatcher in disguise
- Thread starter London Calling
- Start date
dougdeep
New member
Yorkie said:
Check those facts young lady.
NMH
Banned
Yorkie said:
Another thing is, 'the Argies' were led by a military government whose leader, General Galtieri, thought it would go down very well and win him lots of political support to just 'take' The Falklands.
The simpler people of that country would admire and respect this courageous move as it was long thought that their country SHOULD own the little islands off their South American coast.
Only a couple of years earlier, politician Nicholas Ridley, (a strong supporter in the Party of Margaret Thatcher, [died in 1993]) had even suggested we share the island with Argentina - and a deal may have eventually been made - had they not moved in by force. That's just how a military government go about things, heavy handed force before political and democratic acumen.
They had apparently already 'disappeared' 30,000 people who opposed them. With dwindling respect, power and popularity among his own people, and losing all efforts to help a dwindling economy (in a country that sees itself as superior to all of South America's otherwise-third-world) it looked an ideal move.
The concept that it was merely 'about oil' is far off the mark. The Falklands represented a military power-play, and neither Thatcher or Britain were going to accede to a soft relinquishing of any area of our jurisdiction - not another 'peace in our time'.
Sadly, the worst political side-effect (other than loss of life) was that Thatcher won the points and ultimate popularity from it.
Blackadder
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Yorkie said:
Pedantic point.
Wilson was PM for a couple of years between Heath and Callaghan.
Barber and Healey (Tory/Labour) must be Two of the worst Chancellors of all time.
London Calling
New member
- Thread starter
- #68
NMH said:
We could have protected the Islands without the need for war by simply moving back the frigate(s) which had protected the Islans for decades, but had mysteriously been removed only a short while before the incident.
Sent troops etc back to the Islands when we were aware of the Argies future endeavours.
We did neither because we wanted war. I quote Mrs T memoirs
"It all began with an incident on South Georgia. On 20th December 1981 there had been an unauthorised landing on the island at Leith harbour by what were described as Argentinian scrap metal dealers; we had given a firm but measured response. The Argentinians subsequently left and the Argentine government claimed to know nothing about it. The incident was disturbing, but not especially so. I was more alarmed when, after the Anglo-Argentine talks in New York, the Argentine Government broke the procedures agreed at the meeting by publishing a unilateral communiqué disclosing the details of discussion, while simultaneously the Argentinian press began to speculate on possible military action before the symbolically important date of January 1983. On 3rd March 1982 I minuted on a telegram from Buenos Aires: "we must make contingency plans" - though, in spite of my unease, I was not expecting anything like a full scale invasion, which indeed our most recent intelligence assessment of Argentinian intentions had discounted.
On 20th March we were informed that the previous day the Argentine scrap metal dealers had made a further unauthorised landing on South Georgia, again at Leith. The Argentinian flag had been raised and shots fired. Again in answer to our protests the Argentinian Government claimed to have no prior knowledge. We first decided that HMS Endurance should be instructed to remove the Argentinians, whoever they were. But we tried to negotiate with Argentina a way of resolving what still seemed to be an awkward incident rather than a precursor of conflict, so we subsequently withdrew our instructions to Endurance and ordered the ship to proceed instead to the British base at Grytviken, the main settlement on the island. "
Even after the Invasion, – is the Task Force could have ‘stood off’ without losing much tactical initiative if the peace process, through the Belaunde Plan, had any chance of preventing any further armed conflict.
This was all about Flags.
Galteiri was willing to pull out his deployed troops. We were ready to stand off, though Galteiri wanted the Argentine flag to remain flying on the islands.
Thatcher had told Haig, “No Flag, no troops, get out while you still can” Haig by all accounts was left dumbfounded at Thatcher’s uncompromising mood, causing Reagan to call Thatcher direct to complain that his emissary was being ignored and that compromise was required to stop any bloodshed. Mean while Belaunde was known to have got an agreement from Galteiri that the Argentine flag would go with the troops to be replaced by the UN flag and UN monitors. Francis Pym, UK Foreign Secretary, was in Washington for the purposes of the on going peace initiatives when news of the Peruvian peace plan came through and he related this to Chequers, where Thatcher and the war cabinet were meeting.
With the subsequent change of course of Belgrano away from the islands and the knowledge that Venticinco De Mayo was inoperative to the north, then we did have that time to await the outcome of Belaunde plan without any significant loss to the tactical picture.
It could be said, and reasonably so, that Thatcher knew the plan was a ‘show stopper’ and went ahead, on military advice, to order the sinking and any hope what so ever of a peace deal.
If the peace deal transpired to be an effective tool to stop the conflict, then no doubt the UN would have went in and de-militarised situation, returning all parties to the UN conference tables in New York.
I must also reasonably suggest that if this was given the chance needed then 1200 young lives would not have been lost and the sovereignty issue would have been concluded long time ago. That being the case we never have had the need for ‘Fortress Falklands’ and the billions of pounds spent on defending the islands ever since 1982.
LC
Last edited:
London Calling said:
The tour of duty of the ONE frigate (not plural - it used to be HMS Protector then replaced by HMS Endurance) went from October to May. That is their summertime.
There was never any Naval cover from May to October so to say we removed them is twisting the facts.