Falklands War 25 years on

lukin

It's 25 days tomorrow since Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. What do ye all remember about the conflict?
I was only a nipper at the time but it was the first war I remembered so that's why it sticks in my memory I suppose.
I didn't understand what it was about but it was big news at the time and don't forget that one thousand people lost their lives in it.
It indirectly had ramifications for events on this island too as if it happened then Thatcher would never have been re-elected in 1983 and the Northern peace process would have started a lot sooner.

Fratton Fred

lukin wrote:

It's 25 days tomorrow since Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. What do ye all remember about the conflict?
I was only a nipper at the time but it was the first war I remembered so that's why it sticks in my memory I suppose.
I didn't understand what it was about but it was big news at the time and don't forget that one thousand people lost their lives in it.
It indirectly had ramifications for events on this island too as if it happened then Thatcher would never have been re-elected in 1983 and the Northern peace process would have started a lot sooner.

I remember standing on Portsmouth Sea front watching HMS Hermes, Invincible and several RFA ships set off and there was not one person there who thought they would see action.

I have heard people credit Thatcher for starting the peace process, so without her re-election it may not have happened at all, I guess that is one thing that can never be answered.

mike65

Well no point in "whatifery". As for the ahem "conflict", I remember it well esp the labourious media coverage which the public would not put up with now!

24 hour clearance? An outrage.

The war threw up some interesting aspects, like the USA being initially pretty hostile
towards Britains intention to mount a military reply, while the French slapped an embargo on export of thier Exocet missile while giving help (without anyone knowing at the time) regarding how to best beat a system which the Argies used as thier frontline air weapon.

Politically it was a triumph snatched from the jaws of disaster for the UK government and just a disaster for the Galtieri regime. Not only was it a failure militarily but ecomonicly at a time when Argentina was on its knees (hence the war as a patrotic distraction by the Junta). Defeat was a victory for Argentina as it freed them to become a democracy (after a fashion) again. While for Britain it was confirmation of how its reach had shrunk
dangerously - indeed if the invasion happened now they would be able to respond I think.

Zambia

mike65 wrote:

The war threw up some interesting aspects, like the USA being initially pretty hostile
towards Britains intention to mount a military reply, while the French slapped an embargo on export of thier Exocet missile while giving help (without anyone knowing at the time) regarding how to best beat a system which the Argies used as thier frontline air weapon.

.

The UK simply brought any outstanding stock on the world market of this missile. I would not blame the French for refusing to assist with the crippling of there own missile.

Yes I would say such an operation could and would be carried out today.

Fratton Fred

Zambia232 wrote:

The UK simply brought any outstanding stock on the world market of this missile. I would not blame the French for refusing to assist with the crippling of there own missile.
Yes I would say such an operation could and would be carried out today.

Even to a country which was/is a fellow UN security council member, fellow member of NATO and the EU?

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote:

Even to a country which was/is a fellow UN security council member, fellow member of NATO and the EU?

However Like I said the counter was to purchase all stocks off the weapon from France and any unaligned arms dealers the UK could not have done that without some french help(ie the embargo).

Besides that said I doubt there was some sure fire way that could have been easily deployed in the matter of time involved anyway. Even if France helped.

As per the Northern agenda there was as much dislike in Unionist circles of Haughey so I doubt that much would have progressed simply without Thatcher IMHO.

lukin

The thing that amazes me is that the argies were so sure that Britain would not try to take the islands back.
I mean what made them think that? Thatcher was never going to let that happen.

Fratton Fred

lukin wrote:

The thing that amazes me is that the argies were so sure that Britain would not try to take the islands back.
I mean what made them think that? Thatcher was never going to let that happen.

the Argies were under the impression that Britain was weak and did not have the means to take them back. The fact thet they did was down to those on the ground rather than the politicians.

The Galtieri regime also saw an opportunity to divert atention to the economic disaster they had brought on their country as well. iirc, the invasion was as much reactionary as planned following the Argentine scrap merchants landing in south Georgia

Malone

How dare Argentina put it up to Britain like that.Britain has a right to occupy any part of the uncivilised world it wants to and turn it into a beacon of democracy.Maggie is a hero for the way she held her nerve during the that war.

DadaKopf

Defeat was a victory for Argentina as it freed them to become a democracy (after a fashion) again.

Actually, it stalemated Argentinian politics. Neither democracy nor dictatorship were considered possible anymore. It paved the way for a new form of democratic authoritarianism. 'After a fashion' meaning oligarchy, basically. That subsequently led to the distruction of the Argentinian economy at the hands of the IMF, and greater poverty for most Argentinians.

Zambia

DadaKopf wrote:

Actually, it stalemated Argentinian politics. Neither democracy nor dictatorship were considered possible anymore. It paved the way for a new form of democratic authoritarianism. 'After a fashion' meaning oligarchy, basically. That subsequently led to the distruction of the Argentinian economy at the hands of the IMF, and greater poverty for most Argentinians.

I suppose thats why they never tried that again

mike65

The Argentinian ecomony hit the skids twice since 1982 I think, but between was actually very succesful (by the standards of Latin America). The 1998-2002 crisis was part of a wider international one which started in Mexico in 1995 while the fallout from Koreas crisis (1997-98) added fuel to the fire.

Mike.

is_that_so

My own thoughts on it now are much as they were at the time.

Thatcher at the time was down in the polls and one of the suggestions which I agree with, was that the war got her out of jail. There was just about enough justification to convince the international community, but to me it ranks up there as a pointless waste of life.

That said the momentum she picked up allowed her to continue on to Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985 which only she could have delivered.

Fratton Fred

is_that_so wrote:

My own thoughts on it now are much as they were at the time.

Thatcher at the time was down in the polls and one of the suggestions which I agree with, was that the war got her out of jail. There was just about enough justification to convince the international community, but to me it ranks up there as a pointless waste of life.

That said the momentum she picked up allowed her to continue on to Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985 which only she could have delivered.

so it is acceptable that a country can invade the territory of another for no reason other than national pride?

lukin

Fratton Fred wrote:

so it is acceptable that a country can invade the territory of another for no reason other than national pride?

On the one hand it was a waste of life that a thousand soldiers had to die over a few islands in the middle of nowhere but the inhabitants of The Falklands wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom and I know if I was one of them in 1982 I would have felt pretty let down if my government didn't do something.
I'd be very reluctant to say anything positive about Thatcher but on this occassion I think she had no choice. Diplomacy would have been a waste of time, the only way to get the argies out was by force.
Tony Blair even said so this week in an interview.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

did you even read what he posted before you replied so saucily?

Fratton Fred

lukin wrote:

On the one hand it was a waste of life that a thousand soldiers had to die over a few islands in the middle of nowhere but the inhabitants of The Falklands wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom and I know if I was one of them in 1982 I would have felt pretty let down if my government didn't do something.
I'd be very reluctant to say anything positive about Thatcher but on this occassion I think she had no choice. Diplomacy would have been a waste of time, the only way to get the argies out was by force.
Tony Blair even said so this week in an interview.

my view entirely.

I was no big fan of the iron lady, but now I work for an ex state owned and heavily unionised company, I think maybe she was not so bad after all:rolleyes:

BostonB

mike65 wrote:

...
towards Britains intention to mount a military reply, while the French slapped an embargo on export of thier Exocet missile while giving help (without anyone knowing at the time) regarding how to best beat a system which the Argies used as thier frontline air weapon. ...

Apparently the french advice was to put a ship in the way... The Falklands war really highlighted all the cost cutting that had before in the UK military and the UK forces suffered accordingly.

mike65

Dunno about that nugget BostonB its the memiours of John Nott, the defence secretary in 82 I'm working from.

In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies.' They lent the RAF 'a Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft' (in service with the Argentinians) `so that our Harrier pilots could train against them.

'...The French supplied us with detailed technical information on the Exocet, showing us how to tamper with the missiles'. British agents worldwide then identified Exocets for sale in the world arms market and, using French information, rendered them inoperable.

At this time the Israelis and the (white) South Africans were also making `strenuous efforts...to help Argentina'.

He also slates the Americans
for thier lack of technical/logistical help.

Mike.

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote:

Dunno about that nugget BostonB its the memiours of John Nott, the defence secretary in 82 I'm working from.

He also slates the Americans
for thier lack of technical/logistical help.

Mike.

oh well, credit where it's due, that takes away one of the reasons I have for disliking the French government;)

watty

lukin wrote:

The thing that amazes me is that the argies were so sure that Britain would not try to take the islands back.
I mean what made them think that? Thatcher was never going to let that happen.

The British Foreign office had quite a responsibility for the was as they consistently sent the "wrong signals" to the Argentinians in negotiations.

The Gibraltarians could give you an earful regarding The F.O. discussions with Spain.

juliuspret

To all those who think that France was of no help to Britain please read this:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110663

“In so many ways,” wrote Nott, a diehard Eurosceptic like Thatcher, “Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies.”

Was Thatcher bluffing Mitterrand? Or was he exaggerating her ruthlessness? He certainly gave her the Exocet codes, despite the resistance of his ministers and military chiefs, who wanted to protect French secrets and would have been happy to see Britain humiliated.

Investigations in the 1990s revealed that France provided Britain with a large amount of technical assistance. The most valuable information was on the Exocet’s homing radar. Officials of Aerospatiale, the manufacturer, denied having direct dealings with the British; but Aerospatiale was run by Jacques Mitterrand, the president’s brother, a fact that may have facilitated a quiet arrangement.

Sir John Nott, defence minister during the Falklands war, revealed in his memoirs that the French also supplied aircraft similar to those sold to Argentina for British pilots to practise against.

Without French help on combatting the Exocet Anti-Ship missiles which were only 3 years old at the time....Britain would have had a HELL of a lot more work to do and it is very very likely that they would have lost the war!!!

lukin

juliuspret wrote:

To all those who think that France was of no help to Britain please read this:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110663





Without French help on combatting the Exocet Anti-Ship missiles which were only 3 years old at the time....Britain would have had a HELL of a lot more work to do and it is very very likely that they would have lost the war!!!

Yeah, it's a commonly held belief that the war was a cakewalk for Britain ( I thought so myself for years) but it was actually a close run thing for them.
Like you say, if it wasn't for them "cheating" over the Exocet missiles, the Falklands would probably still be in Argentine hands, the British fleet would have come home defeated and Maggie would have been kicked out of office.

Fratton Fred

lukin wrote:

Yeah, it's a commonly held belief that the war was a cakewalk for Britain ( I thought so myself for years) but it was actually a close run thing for them.
Like you say, if it wasn't for them "cheating" over the Exocet missiles, the Falklands would probably still be in Argentine hands, the British fleet would have come home defeated and Maggie would have been kicked out of office.

No one considered it a cake walk, but to say they would have lost if not for the French is vastly over simplifying things. Once the British had landed, the writing was already on the walls. How aking an ally for assistance is cheating god knows, but call it what you wish.

Strangely enough, the biggest setback was caused by an exocet, but it hit the wrong ship. The Argies were after the carriers, but ended up sinking the Atlantic Conveyor which contained several Chinook helicoptors and a lot of spares, this was one of the reasons the British had to attempt to land at Bluff Cove, because they had nothing to transport heavy goods.

I was thinking about the "Loan" of french aircraft though, seeing as the task forces entire air cover was already out in the south atlantic on board the Invincibe and Hermes, what real use would this have been?

Also, The Argentines hit three British shis with Exocets, the first, HMS Sheffield on May 4th, Atlantic Conveyor on May 25th and HMS Glamorgan on June 12th. The info given by the french was obviously a great help!

BostonB

Fratton Fred wrote:

...Also, The Argentines hit three British shis with Exocets, the first, HMS Sheffield on May 4th, Atlantic Conveyor on May 25th and HMS Glamorgan on June 12th. ...

Some help...With friends like those...

Manic Moran

I think the Americans letting the Brits dip into the AIM-9L stocks was probably of greater impact than the French efforts to help the British as regards Exocet. (Of interest, nobody remembered to tell the Aerospatiale engineers in Argentina to stop working, so they helped out with the Super Etendard/Exocet combination, even as the government had frozen all sales and given what they could to the British.)

NTM