Wars and Conflicts permalink
Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 9th January 2009
and what would have happened
i lived through the falklands - and during it - the jingoism of the tabloids made it seem like a walk in the park
as we now know it was "A damn close run thing"
most of the salient points went our way - if they didnt - what would have happened - would we have had another go
salient points ;-
retake of South georgia
close run thing - helicopters carying SAS crashed in a white out but we did the bizz - what would have happened if it had ended in disaster
pebble island
sas took a hit when 18 died in helicopters - didnt matter - they carried on and smashed the garrison and Pucaras
Belgrano sinking
she had exocets and was on the way to the task force
Atlantic Conveyor
mistaken for a carrier - what if ??
Sheffield
sacrificed for a carrier
San carlos landings
what if they ere heavily opposed
San carlos bay
what if they had gone for the transports and troop carriers instead of the prestige warship targets
Goose Green
1500 dug in troops surrended to a para battalion attacking over open ground
what if it had been slaughtered
bluff cove
the transports could and should have been bombed flat - as it happens we got the majority of the troops ashore
Tumbledown/mount kent/longon/2 sisters
all could have ended in slaughter
at all the above we could (and maybe should) have caught a bad cold
if we had - could have we have carried on - if we didnt we surely couldnt have gone back
at what point of the above would it have been a lost cause ?? what could we have done then ??
stLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 2
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 9th January 2009
South Georgia was an irrelevance. it was taken becuase it was the first bit of british territory captured and it could be reached easily, without the argentine airforce intervening. Strictly speaking it should have been left and starved out. Psycologically it persueded the Agentines that it wasnt going to be walk in the park and that machismo and right wing politics dont make you bullet proof.
Pebble island. Should have been done with cluster bombs or Naval gunfire. No real reson to do it with troops apart from it gave 2them" something to do.
Belgrano. Screw the exocets. Park her in Stanley harbour and use her guns for fire support in the battles for the ridges arround the town. Nothing in the british armoury could touch it. we would have to break Tiger and Blake out of mothballs and send them down to do it the old way.
Atlantic Conveyer
If we lost a carrier it was game over. Thats why they were so far east they got the Burma Star. The tents and helicopters would have been nice, but it could be and was done without them.
Sheffield. See above she was a war ship. she died doing the job she was built for. What should we have saved her for? The victory parade?
San carlos landings.
The beaches were reconoitered the day before the landings if there had been any one there we would have landed some where else. There were a few other beaches that could have been used the argentines couldnt cover them all in any degree of strength. In fact trying to defend the beach was probably the worst thing they could have done, he who defends everything defends nothing and all that.
San Carlos Air attacks.
Hit one transport or trooper and game over. Sink one more destroyer than they did and game over.
Goose Green? if the paras get a beating then they would have shelled it a bit and sent the marines in. Mind you if they have to do that then they are probably going to have to get another battalion in to boost the Paras or bed down for the winter round san carlos.
Bluff Cove, the army should have got of the boats when they landed instead of waiting for their video to finish. In fact they should have bleeding walked there like the paras did.
The Mountains? Any delay in taking thes means your going to have to face the antartic winter. for mwhat i can remember it came early that year. You pull back to san carlos and use the Artic warfare cardre and the sbs and sas to make life really nasty for the garrison on the ridges. you blockade them and starve them out.
We did have a few options that were never seriously considered at the time which might have been if conditions change, a black buck type raid on Buenos Ares? One of the Polaris commanders has a negligent discharge? or we ask the americans nicely for a bit of help?Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 3
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
If Mrs. Thatcher had listened to the expert advice she was receiving from people like the First Sea Lord and ex-Foreign Sec David Owen, perhaps the invasion and subsequent war would never have taken place! She pig-headedly rejected it all and withdrew our destroyers and supply ship from the South Atlantic, which sent all the wrong signals to Galtieri.
Strange that she was extolled and treated as a heroine rather than blamed, as would surely have been appropriate. As a result she was given more terms as PM and was able to impose Thatcherism on us all.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Strange that she was extolled and treated as a heroine rather than blamed, as would surely have been appropriate. As a result she was given more terms as PM and was able to impose Thatcherism on us all.
Who gave her those terms as PM?
This is no different to Anthony Blair's 3 illegal wars of aggression (against Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003) which nevertheless saw the UK electorate return him to office in 2001 and 2005 so that he could continue to impose Blairism on us all.
In fact there is a difference - the UK's prosecution of the Falklands War in 1982 was not illegal.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 5
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
At least Tony Blair's motives were humanitarian. Mrs. Thatcher's motives were cost-saving, but the resultant bill came to £££???!!! so it was a dud of an idea.
Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 6
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
I don't know if it is only me or other people as well. I know about the Falklands war only in bits and pieces.
Has anyone written a complete book on what actually transpired; if so, would you suggest it to me. Thanks!
TasLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 7
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Tas
There have been more books written about the Falklands War than every other post-1945 British armed conflict combined.
Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War by Hugh Bicheno is the most comprehensive blow-by-blow account.
The Fight For The Malvinas by Martin Middlebrooke is the most readable narrative.
Goose Green by Mark Adkin is the best account of battle.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
At least Tony Blair's motives were humanitarian.
Blair is an neo-imperialist agressor and an indictable war criminal.
Mrs. Thatcher's motives were cost-saving, but the resultant bill came to £££???!!! so it was a dud of an idea.
Thatcher was defending British territory from foreign agression and was restoring the freedom of British nationals from subjugation by a foreign power. Cost doesn't come into it.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 9
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Hi stalteriisok
To answer some of your points.
retake of South georgia
close run thing - helicopters carying SAS crashed in a white out but we did the bizz - what would have happened if it had ended in disaster
The retaking of South Georgia was not vital to the Falklands campaign and it was never in doubt even if the helicopter accident had been much worse.
pebble island
sas took a hit when 18 died in helicopters - didnt matter - they carried on and smashed the garrison and Pucaras
The terrible helicopter accident could have happened at any time any where. If the SAS had been unable to destroy the Pucara’s at Pebble Island then they would have been destroyed by diverting much needed aircraft from other tasks. This raid was not vital to the campaign, but it probably saved many lives by removing a potential threat.
Belgrano sinking
she had exocets and was on the way to the task force
The Belgrano group did offer a threat to the task force but the greater threat came from the 28th de May aircraft carrier group that the royal navy managed to lose track of. By removing the Belgrano the Argentine Navy was intimidated into withdrawing to port.
If it had not been the Belgrano then it would have been the 28th de May aircraft carrier.
Atlantic Conveyor
mistaken for a carrier - what if ??
Losing a carrier would have been disastrous for the campaign, but it would have been possible to continue with just one carrier and a change of the planned landing place.
Henry Kissinger has said that the Reagan administration was willing to lend or sell a US navy carrier to Britain if they had been asked.
Sheffield
sacrificed for a carrier
HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were operating as radar pickets when they were sunk. The reason for this was the lack of a real aircraft carrier. Neither HMS Hermes nor HMS Invincible had catapults to operate fixed wing AEW aircraft. The Royal Navy AEW Gannets sat in a warehouse during the entire conflict thanks to political ideology and ignorance.
Tory defence policy had followed Labour defence policy in regards dismantling the Royal Navy. The Tories were trying to cut costs and save money where the Labour policy had been based on anti imperialist ideology. The result was the same, people died because politicians refused to find political answers before hamstringing the armed forces.
San carlos landings
what if they ere heavily opposed
The reason the Landings took place at San Carlos was the lack of opposition, if there had been strong defences there then the landings would have been moved somewhere without strong defences.
San carlos bay
what if they had gone for the transports and troop carriers instead of the prestige warship targets
This would have resulted in a lot more deaths, but it doubtful that the landings would have stopped.
Goose Green
1500 dug in troops surrended to a para battalion attacking over open ground
what if it had been slaughtered
If the Argentine troops had been good enough to defeat 2para then they would have been too good for the rest of the British troops as well. if this was the case then the Malvinas would be Argentine and the British armed forces would be an international joke rather then operating all over the world at the moment.
bluff cove
the transports could and should have been bombed flat - as it happens we got the majority of the troops ashore
greater loss of life at Bluff Cove would not have stopped the campaign.
Tumbledown/mount kent/longon/2 sisters
all could have ended in slaughter
the same applies as at Gooses Green, the British army was and still is much better than the Argentine forces. If the hills had been defended by better troops then the casualties would have been higher and the campaign would have been longer.
A lot of this comes down to the fact that the Argentine military was no match for the British, and they knew this before a shot was fired. The reason for the invasion was political, the junta needed something to appease the people and they probably thought that the British government would be unable to counter a successful occupation.
The biggest threat to the Falklands campaign was always the fact that there was a very real possibility that it might never have even started.
If Callaghan, Foot or Wilson had been Prime Minister then the Argentines might have got away with the invasion. But fortunately for Britain and the people of the Falkland Islands we had a PM with more backbone than the junta and the entire House of Commons put together.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 10
Posted by LairigGhru (U5452625) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
I wonder if Vizzer and englishvote have understood my point?
The war might never have had to be fought if Mrs. T had not pettily cost-cut by removing our naval vessels from the South Atlantic. Galtieri interpreted the move as meaning that the British no longer had the resolve to hold on to its South Atlantic/Antarctic possessions.
I say that it is ironic that she emerged from the affair so well, given that it was her own naive mistake that lured Galtieri into daring to invade.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Maybe it's you LairigGhru who hasn't understood englishvote's point.
The Argentine Republic only began to sabre-rattle vis-a-vis the Falkland Islands after the UK navy quit the base at Simonstown in South Africa in 1975. That was nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 12
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
The invasion was determined by Argentine politics, not British ones. The claim that Thatcher's withdrawal of Endurance gave the Argentines the green light isn't reflected in what the Argentines themselves say. Added to which Endurance was still in service when the invasion began. Some deterant!
In reaity, the Argentine navy claim they were worried about British submarines and as Vizzer said, that threat reduced with the closure of Simonstown.
By 1982, the Argentine Junta was in serious difficulty and the invasion was timed by the need to back up the previous rhetoric which was starting to look like just mouthing-off.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 13
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
Hi LairigGhru
I don’t agree with your point, but it would be wrong to remove all blame from the Thatcher government.
The potentially disastrous defence review of 1981 presented by John Nott might well have reinforced the Argentine view that Britain would be unwilling to fight to regain the Falklands.
But Mrs Thatcher did not remove any Royal Navy vessels from the South Atlantic, in fact there was only on British ship stationed there, HMS Endurance, which as cloudyj has said was still there when the Argentines invaded.
In fact the 1981 defence review would have brought about the end of HMS Endurance, HMS Invincible, HMS Hermes, HMS Intrepid, HMS Fearless and many other major surface units as well as removing vital logistic support on land and sea. Without the carriers and the landing ships the entire operation would have been impossible.
But the defence review had not been implemented, the ships were still in service, so to say that removal of Royal Navy ships led to the war can only be justified if we look at earlier fleet reductions. That means Mrs Thatcher’s government cannot bear the blame for the Argentine decision to invade, but they also did not help to persuade them otherwise.
If Britain had retained at least one aircraft carrier with catapult capabilities it might well have persuaded the Argentine navy at least that any invasion was doomed. Nobody thought much of the Invincible class of light carriers, not even the Royal Navy, and they had been forced to circumvent labour political ideology to even get these past the planning stage. By calling the carriers “through deck cruisers” the planners had avoided the instant cancelling that any “power projection” carrier would have received from the socialist intent on removing the last vestiges of imperialism.
Granted the war was the fault of politicians not fully appreciating the situation in the South Atlantic, but the faults had been perpetuated long before Mrs Thatcher came to power.
As for the complete nonsense so often repeated that the Falklands war was the main reason for Mrs Thatcher winning the 1983 election this can only be treated with the contempt that it deserves. It is a massive insult to the British people to suggest that they cannot see beyond one issue and it ignores history which clearly shows that any politicians is replaceable no matter how well they led the nation during conflict.
The labour party suffered badly by some of its member’s actions during the war, but other more fundamental reasons made it unelectable in 1983. The one and only time I have voted labour was in 1983 and it certainly was not influenced by the Falklands conflict one way or the other.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 14
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 10th January 2009
hi dan, english vote et al
i started this post after clearing the loft - after the falklands i bought every book available - remember the magazine series
scanning through i had to laugh about the sheer jingoism of it all - and in hindsight realised how many times it was a what if on several occasions - and how would we have dealt with it
south georgia was a sideshow - but how would an IMMEDIATE heavy loss have been received
goose greeen - if the roles had been reversed it would have been an absolute slaughter - but how would 300 dead paras been received - they should have lost that heavily - and strangely - if Jones hadnt died and keeble taken over - they may well have done
san carlos - as u say was recconoitered the day before - but the argies had enough helicopter lift and available troops to have quickly put a blocking force in place
hms sheffield = i meant if it had been bypassed and a carrier had been hit (same with atlantic conveyor)
if ac had not been hit it would all have been over earlier with the use of the helicopters
bluff cove - 5 brigade could NOT have walked there - how dirty would their boots have got !!
can u remember how depressed we felt then - they announced there were significant casualties but for 5 days kept them quiet -and we were all severely depresssed - when they annouced the true figures - although bad - we all went phew !!
victory parade - hey i was there and go a photo of me and that bloke who used to wear the union jack dj lol
stLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 15
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
<quote>Belgrano. Screw the exocets. Park her in Stanley harbour and use her guns for fire support in the battles for the ridges arround the town. Nothing in the british armoury could touch it. we would have to break Tiger and Blake out of mothballs and send them down to do it the old way.<quote>
Hi Bttdp
I was reading Wikipedia (yes I know
) and on the page dedicated to HMS Blake it says that both HMS Blake and HMS Tiger WERE considered for recommisioning,but all work was stopped as nother ship could be readied in time.Now Ive never heard this and funnily enough it was one of the first questions I ever asked on these boards(why didnt they go to the South Atlantic).Ive also got Neil MCarts excellent book about the Tiger class cruisers and he doesnt mention it either!Has anybody heard a similar account to substantiate Wikipedia.
I dont want to be to harsh on Wiki (smiley) as I was reading the post in regards to the recommisioning of HMS Bulwark and it did appear from the stoies of some "old salts" that the RN did look at recommssioning ships laid up ( in Bulwarks case it was abandoned as she was floating disater!).However, Im sure that in regards to HMS Blake,her gun sights/lenses had been smashed.Now the account was from an ex crew man who saw the ship being dismantled and went aboard to have a last look.But was the lense smashed BEFORE the ship was towed to the scapper as part of being on the disposal list?
VfLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 16
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
IMO (from reading various books and I have a copy of Falklands in my attic bought for £2 from carboot sale minus the unit listing booklet in penultimate volume) I've always thought if the FAA and ANA had tried to drop less fewer bombs on "cannon-fodder" like HMS Sheffield and on two trenches on San Carlos Bay (you catch my meaning) but more on Canberra and QE2 etc. then they'd have had more of a chance against us.
After all the ships on the gun-line around the islands were purposely exposed to protect the supply ships etc.
From a cold point of view the only time either organisation got it right was when they sunk Atlantic Conveyor and attacked the RFA's at Bluff Cove.
Sad for those who perished and RIP every man but lucky for HM naval task-force and the people of The Falklands.
Question this however - why didn't the FAA on capturing POrt Stanley not install a runway arrestor system to allow even the A-4's of both the FAA and ANA to operate there? Even so they could fly one way and hit the fleet and then refuel and get back to mainland? Or ominously they could have (in theory) put half their aircraft there, backed up by the carrier 25 de Mayo and attacked the fleet whilst in mid-Southern Atlantic......only 18 or so Sea Harriers to oppose them + guns and SAM's (that couldn't be used to my knowledge when in close proximity to the Harriers).Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 17
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
What good would Blake or Tiger have done against Belgrano that the other more modern ships couldn't? I thought they were missile cruisers.
Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 18
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
What good would Blake or Tiger have done against Belgrano that the other more modern ships couldn't? I thought they were missile cruisers.
A fair point I suppose.The Tiger and Blake were (eventually) Helicopter cruisers.They were armed with missiles,but they were only "Seacat" missiles,a first generation AA missile.They paid off in 1979/80 as the first of the "through deck cruisers" commissioned (HMS Invincible).Up till that point they had acted as flagships and such like.Previous to there conversion they had been relatively handsome conventional cruisers armed with 4 x 6 inch guns and 3 inch secondries.On completion there were various faults with the main armament and it frequently reported in the press at the time that they were failures and would be decommissioned.
Their conversion to carry 4 helicopters was meant to take a couple of years tops and all three ships were to be converted (the 3rd of the class being HMS Lion).However it took far longer than anticipated and cost a hell of a lot more money (sound familiar
) As a result HMS LIon was never commissioned and was scrapped in 1975(not before she had ben stripped of so many prts that her sister ship(the "Tiger" was nicknamed HMS Liger!).The conversion (as with many conversions) wasnt entirely succesfull,the ships which were already "cosy" ended up being even more cramped and for actual capablity it was a lot of money spent for mediocre return.The money spent on the two cruisers counld have certainly kept HMS Victorious or Albion or Centaur or possibly Eagle in commission till 1979 when the Incibles came on stream,however (as always ) political motives were present and as a result of the 1966 defence act aircraft carriers were certainly not on the agenda.Helicopter cruisers with ASW capability however were.
As for the their deplyment to the Falklands?Its an interesting "what if".Given the mixed results achieved by the RN missiles and the lack of close support guns,they may have done quite well,they would have been useful NGS ships.They were of course heavily manpower reliant and to be honest IF HMS Bulwark handnt have been such a wreck she would have been a better option.But it would have been "interesting" to see the result of the two Tigers slugging it out with Belgrano.If they had of sailed I doubt if the Belgrano would risked a sortie against the task force,and who knows,not been torpedoed by HMS Conquerer...
VfLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 19
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 13th January 2009
Wasn't the SAS chopper crash AFTER Pebble Island, and hadn't most of the casualties taken part in it?
South Georgia - yes, reasonably irrelevant (except for offloading the Black Pig to the White Whale), but was a useful facility to have for crossdecking etc.
Six months later, with Invincible and Intrepid transfered to their new owners (both were actuslly sold before the conflict) and the Soper Etandard/Exocet properly mated and war ready, the final result would likely have been different.
BTW - there were rumours at the time that the reports on Blake & Tiger concluded that Belfast could have been recommissioned before either of them because of the state they were in.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 20
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
The mystery is, if Operation Rosario was scheduled for the 150 years of 'occupation,' then why not leave it a year?
In 1983, there would have been no Invincible, no Fearless or Intrepid, no Vulcans, no Endurance and Illusitrious yet. Plus, you would have had a full set of Exocet-armed Super Etendards operating from the carrier.
The answer seems to lie in Al Haig's obervation to the Thatcher War Cabinet during his shuttle that 'they're usually drunk, and you're usually sober.'Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 21
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Various Tory governments had been discussing the issue of sovereignty of the Falklands for years with the Argentine government. It was clearly ont heir agenda, and most definitely on Thatcher's agenda to (at least) minimise the cost of garrisoning the Falklands.
How typical of the wretched woman that she used the conflict, and a lot of lives lost, as a way of returning herself to power. If the conflict had happened later, or not at all, then Thatcher would have been consigned to the scrapheap of useless Prime Ministers, and Britain would not be the shambolic, antagonistic, boorish place it is today.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 22
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Hi Oldhermit.
Tiger and Blake had 2 dual 6inch turrets fitted forwards.
The missiles were I think ant aircraft?
What I cant tell you is if there was any 6inch shells left. to fit the guns. If I remember rightly from a previous post about them the shells proved difficult to store and the gun mounts themselves used to leak oil to the extent that the turret commanders got issued with umbrellas.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 23
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Not the prettiest ships after conversion,but I would still say "handsome" and purposeful.
And the one never converted to carrry helicopters,HMS Lion
Note that she had to have new turbine after only just commissioning!
There is a great picture of HMS Blake at the bottom(pre conversion)Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 24
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
How childish to think Mrs Thatcher set up the conflict to return herself to power.
She did not ask nor did she want Argentine to invade.
As for the rest, she has been out of power for many a long year so she cannot be blamed for any boorishness etc. That is down to the individual.
Look to yourselfLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 25
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Various Tory governments had been discussing the issue of sovereignty of the Falklands for years with the Argentine government. It was clearly ont heir agenda, and most definitely on Thatcher's agenda to (at least) minimise the cost of garrisoning the Falklands.
The Tory government at the time continued the previous Labour government's agenda with regard to the Falklands, which suggests to me that neither party had any real sort of agenda for the islands and just let the foreign office do what it wanted.
How typical of the wretched woman that she used the conflict, and a lot of lives lost, as a way of returning herself to power.
Perhaps if the Labour Party hadn't started to play politics by attemping to blame her for the conflict then it wouldn't have been such an issue. Nor did it help that shadow labour ministers were calling for a negotiated hand over of the islands to the Argentines. The 1983 Labour Party badly misread public opinion, Maggie didn't have to campaign on the Falklands, the Labour Party did the work for her every time they opened their collective mouth on the issue.
On the plus side, the British victory led to the downfall of a fascist government in Argentina!Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 26
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
Maggie didn't have to campaign on the Falklands, the Labour Party did the work for her every time they opened their collective mouth on the issue.
Amen to that
The Labour party at that time was possibly the most rudderless opposition to have been present in the House of Commons.However a lot of "dyed in the wool" Labour followers tend to gloss over (or just ignore) the fiasco of the years 1974 to 1979.
It never happened
VfLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 27
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
There have been more books written about the Falklands War than every other post-1945 British armed conflict combined.
Northern Ireland?Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 28
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
BTW - there were rumours at the time that the reports on Blake & Tiger concluded that Belfast could have been recommissioned before either of them because of the state they were in.
Can you imagine the damage caused to the giftshop!
On one of the links provided there is a picture of HMS Bulwark and HMS Tiger laid up in Fareham Creek around ? 1981.It has to be said that they both look a bit "tired" shall we say.
VfLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 29
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
I do not know the details about the Falklands war, but one thing certainly came across: There is a saying in India, "Even a dead elephant is worth Rs. 100,000." This was certainly proven by Britain.
Gualtieri, probably thought that Britain is a by gone country that has lost its Empire and has no teeth any more. Argentina had a pretty good air-force, not a bad navy, with Exocet's, and a huge army. It was a stone's throw from the Falkland Islands. Yet Britain was able to give it a very bloody nose.
It shows what I have been arguing in my patriotism thread; You need to look after the economy of your country, but have sufficient strength in your armed forces to take care of any situation like the Falklands.
"Walk softly, and carry the big stick" as Teddy Roosevelt said. I say keep our stick proportionate to your needs so you do not bankrupt our country. And maintain a solid economy: That is the Key.
TasLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 30
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 14th January 2009
How childish to think Mrs Thatcher set up the conflict to return herself to power.
She did not ask nor did she want Argentine to invade.
As for the rest, she has been out of power for many a long year so she cannot be blamed for any boorishness etc. That is down to the individual.
Look to yourself
Well said peteratwar.
This attitude is all to prevelent in the UK. The inability of individuals to take personal responsibility.
This is a case in point. Margaret Thatcher has been out of office for more than 17 years and yet some people feel that she is to blame for the condition of UK society today. This pathetic attitude, of course, just let's everyone off the hook: -
"It's all pointless and hopeless and, anyway, none of us has to take personal responsibility for any of our actions or our words. Everything is the fault of of the Great Wicked Stepmother. For ever and ever! Boo hoo! Poor us!"Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 31
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 15th January 2009
the argies didnt get it correct when they sunk AC - they got lucky
the target was a carrier - at that point the AC was a prime target - maybe even better than a carrier - the landing was on - and the helicopters were probably more valuable than the harriers
i have read recently (wish i could remember where) that the falklands investigation was a complete whitewash
the basic fact of hms endeavour being decommissioned must have given argentina a bit of uplift - and at that time - how many brits knew where the falklands were ??
there is one fact - if the falklands hadnt happened - thatcher was OUT - polls said that she was the most unpopular pm of all time
the working class she seemed to hate saved her arse - 300 working class toms attacking over open ground in a battle that should not have been won let her cntinue her onslaught against the british people
aagggghhhhh
stLink to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 32
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 15th January 2009
300 working class toms attacking over open ground in a battle that should not have been won let her cntinue her onslaught against the british people
Would it have been better then had those 300 been wiped out?
Anyway - as has already been said on this thread - the 'Falklands factor' in the 1983 General Election is a media myth. The simple fact is that the Labour Party was still elitist and had set its face against ordinary people. This was evidenced by its so-called 'radical' manifesto which nevertheless totally (and conveniently) avoided the need for electoral reform.
the working class she seemed to hate
'Seemed to', (maybe to some people), but she didn't. She actually freed millions of working class people from psychological strait-jacket of the stifling, class-ridden UK of the post-Second World War era.
The so-called 'Keynesian consensus' was an abject failure and was a gentlemen's agreement between Labour and the Conservatives which had tried to keep the oiks in their place. It failed.
Today we seem to be back to porridge, however, with the Labour and the Conservatives both desperately trying to lock us back down again. Currently they use the codeword 'English' when they really mean 'working-class'.
Fo example - according to representatives of both Labour and Conservative the growing democratic awareness among working class people in England is something to be feared. Labour's Jack Straw and the Conservatives' William Hague both describe the 'English' (code for 'working class') as 'violent':
But the worst Tory toff of all, however, - David 'Bullingdon' Cameron - even goes as far as to say that he is actualy drawing up plans to 'fight' the working class whom he calls 'sour Little Englanders':
They can insult us all they like. But they can't stop the tide of history and neither can they stop the ordinary people of England.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 33
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 16th January 2009
St,
the basic fact of hms endeavour being decommissioned must have given argentina a bit of uplift - and at that time - how many brits knew where the falklands were ??
May I just remind you of a basic fact that HMS Endeavour was still on active service in the area with her full complement of marines when the Argentines invaded. If her planned decommissioning was such an incentive, why not wait another year for her to be out of service?Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 34
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 16th January 2009
D'oh!
Correction: I'm thinking about HMS Endurance, not Endeavour. But I think st is too (otherwise it's Atlee's fault). HMS Endeavour:
Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 35
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 16th January 2009
Statleriisok
I think you meant to say HMS Endurance rather than HMS Endeavour, and as cloudyj has already pointed out HMS Endurance was still in the south Atlantic when the Argentines invaded.
As for the Tory victory in the 1983 general election the fact is that the labour party was practically unelectable and the liberals were a joke, as usual.
The Falklands war had no effect on the outcome of the election, what was important was the economy and the insane labour party behaviour that led to a manifesto that Gerald Kaufman described as “the longest suicide note in history”
Mrs Thatcher would have won the election even if there had been no conflict in the south Atlantic the previous year, Mr Foot’s labour party guaranteed that.
As for working class toms saving her I think you will find that there were a lot more than just 300 of them and they were certainly not restricted to the working classes. Oh and working class “toms” means something completely different in the part of the world I live in.
Most of all the Thatcher government did more for the working class than any labour government since the Second World War. Normal working people were able to buy their own homes, me included, people were freed from the constraints of the political authoritarian trade union movement. More importantly the Thatcher government removed vast chunks of the class system, granted the reforms did not go far enough and the elite’s remained in their positions of power, but at least the obstacles at the bottom of the social scale were lessened.
Over the last 16 years the labour party has managed to widen the social gap that the Tories had eased, after all it is essential to the socialist movement that the working classes are kept in their place.
Bu none of this political manoeuvring has anything to do with the Falklands conflict.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 36
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Friday, 16th January 2009
The significance of the 'Falklands Factor' in 1983 lies in the gender gap. In 1979, many females voted Conservative to 'give a woman a chance,' but soon regretted their choice when the full child-benefit cutting and family destroying implications of the milk snatcher's policies became clear,
But there was a corresponding and even greater shift in her favour from previously chaunvinistic working-class males, who took the view so perceptively articulated by Harry Enfiled's plasterer persona at the time that she was, 'Good for the country, but you would want to sh*g it!'Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 37
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 16th January 2009
Aside from the inherint soverignty issue of the Falklands I wonder if there was the slight inkling that there could be oil offshore....
However I don't think anyone has drilled it yet have they?Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 38
Posted by billy the ball (U2740765) on Friday, 16th January 2009
If I remember there was a similar bout of sabre rattling from Argentina during the Callaghan premiership and two frigates were (not altogether) discreetly despatched there and nothing more was heard.
So when the Mothers of the Disappeared and others started asking awkward questions of the junta and they responded by bringing up the 'Malvinas question' I naturally assumed that the Foreign Office was taking similar precautions -it was patently obvious that something was up since it was in the news globally.
Only when the invasion was under way did I learn that nothing had been done in spite of more obvious developments like the Argentine scrappers operating on South Georgia.
Someone had not been watching the shop.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
-
Message 39
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Friday, 16th January 2009
The crisis also arose out of two mutually incomprehesible political systems; a parliamentary democracy and a military junta.
For decades, the FCO policy for the Falklands was to edge the islanders towards accepting lease-back, with the Args providing a subsidised airlink, medical evacuation and scholarships.
Now comes a prime case of the role of the individual in History, in that much as both sides in NI were driven apoplectic with rage by the complacent arrogance of Reggie Maudling, so the Islanders were supposed to be placated and persuaded by a visit in 1981 from ...Nicholas Ridley.
Returning from his mission, Ridley was his usual self in front of the Commons, and produced a wave of backbench indignation demanding an end to talk of leaseback. The Args felt double-crossed, and Galtieri with his time chairing the Junta coming to an end, needed to save face.Link to this forum: Falklands Conflict - it could have been lost
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.