[Closed] Anyone remember how the Falklands began?

That has to be the most bitter twisted pile of crap I've ever read on STW

(or else like Ernie - honorary northener. I'd add in Billy Bragg but I think they're the same person 😉 )

see the edit [the **** was typo that got swear filterd but I altered it it will be obvious what word was formed]and excatly what is wrong with what I said? Thatcher really gave no thought to the election then is that your claim?

Yep totally northern working class thats me.

It would be interesting to compare public support for the Falklands war at the time and the Iraq war under Blair.

Both supported by the media, especially one media magnate it appears.

like Ernie - honorary northener

Cheeky git ........ I don't even like Norf Landan.

In fact, I come from [i]Sarf[/i] Croydon.

And I was brought up in SW London......went to school in SE London.

.....southerner through and through me

[i]What on earth do you think the Soviet Union would have made of it if the second most powerful country in NATO hadn't bothered to defend it's own territory against a third rate Latin American state?[/i]

ermm, pretty much nothing actually. What exactly do you think the Soviet Union would have done, launched an attack on the UK ?

[i]That has to be the most bitter twisted pile of crap I've ever read on STW [/i]

Really ! I have only been using this site for about a month and i've seen a lot worse than that. I don't argue that was the sole reason for the war but i do think it played a significant part. She really was in a mess before that war.

Mind you, i too am a northener and personally think she was the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime so i suppose i am a bit biased.

Well you don't need to rely on STW to read that "bitter twisted pile of crap"........it is a very widespread point of view held by many people across society.

you really think that the government of the time in collusion with the armed forces, intelligence services and the foriegn power decided to set in train a series of events.... defence review, withdrawl of HMS Endurance, citizenship legislation in order to create events that would increase their popularity at the time via a conflict at the furthest reaches of the military in a difficult environment etc etc?

tin foil hat anyone?

There is no doubt at all that Thatcher was the most unpopular British Prime ever recorded before the Falklands War. Nor is there any doubt at all that she benefited hugely from the Falklands War.

unpopular politians benefiting from events shocka

Also all the sailors that where killed on the Belgrano and other ships, no need at all.

It's tired and been done to death so let it go.
Besides, more have been killed during the labour wars.

I don't argue that was the sole reason for the war but i do think it played a significant part

unpopular politians benefiting from events shocka

Mind you, i too am a northener and personally think she was the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime so i suppose i am a bit biased.

Thatcher wasn't a Southerner, so she must have been a Northerner.

And her Finchley seat was in North London.......need I say more ?

[i]you really think that the government of the time in collusion with the armed forces, intelligence services and the foriegn power decided to set in train a series of events.... defence review, withdrawl of HMS Endurance, citizenship legislation in order to create events that would increase their popularity at the time via a conflict at the furthest reaches of the military in a difficult environment etc etc?[/i]

No i don't think that they deliberately manipulated it as you describe above but i do think they saw an opportunity when it presented itself.

thatcher was created in greengrocers in grantham

unpopular politians benefiting from events shocka

Ahhh.........we're getting somewhere ! 8)

big and daft has eventually come round to accepting the proposition.....anyone else ?

you really think that the government of the time in collusion with the armed forces, intelligence services and the foriegn power decided to set in train a series of events.... defence review, withdrawl of HMS Endurance, citizenship legislation in order to create events that would increase their popularity at the time via a conflict at the furthest reaches of the military in a difficult environment etc etc?

No, I don't think that at all. What I can never fathom though, is how the Thatcher regime was feted for the so called victory rather than booted from office for allowing the invasion to take place ❓

I'd hope Thatcher as a mother would not have sent our troops off to war just to gain votes. I suspect, the chances of victory were not much better than defeat.

At least today with over 1000 troops stationed down there on continual exercise and proper support there won't be any future invasion.

1000 troops for now until the defence cuts cull them

you suggesting Dave may have the same plan to get out of his election pickle 😉

What I can never fathom though, is how the Thatcher regime was feted for the so called victory rather than booted from office for allowing the invasion to take place

Well she successfully managed to pin the blame on her Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, and he was forced to resign for the failure of British foreign policy in the lead up to the Falkland's invasion.

But I take your point - Anthony Eden was forced to resign as PM because of the **** up which was Suez.

yet when I suggested she may have taken this into account you called it tosh

because it is

option 1
the cabinet meets, someone says wars make us popular (if we win) lets do it

option 2
the cabinet meets, discusses doing nothing bins the idea, military desperate to demonstrate there value in the context of massive pending cuts go "can do", ergo you either go to war to prevent the consequences of not (the rolling up of other similar places, etc) or you or you don't and face being seen as weak by everyone

etc etc

I would suggest that a far more complex version of option 2 occurred

But I take your point - Anthony Eden was forced to resign as PM because of the **** up which was Suez.

we lost in Suez

Thatcher would have known that and also that the odds in the Falklands of winning were probably lower

Can anyone who is so pro Labour explain the morality of the Iraq invasion that the last government lead us into first on the threat of WMDs then when questioned recently changed the story.
The Falklands war cost the lives of around 900 service men and 3 civilians. The Iraq war is estimated at around 100,000 civilians alone. I don't think anyone can claim a moral high ground on this subject leave it to the historians to paint the real villians.

Thatcher! Thatcher! Thatcher! Blah! Blah! Blah!

The Falklands was a sideshow compared with the self righteous bull that's been Iraq and Afghanistan.

BBC News a good bloke dies and his dog joins him - Russia Today 8 Afghan boys under the age of 12 die on the same day in 'misunderstanding'
What gets reported?

As an ex-soldier I'm tired of war,

iirc carrington was the only one to oppose the original decison to remove the ship but he took one for the team.

[i]I would suggest that a far more complex version of option 2 occurred [/i]

I would suggest a combination of option 1 and 2 occured.

[i]Can anyone who is so pro Labour explain the morality of the Iraq invasion that the last government lead us into first on the threat of WMDs then when questioned recently changed the story.[/i]

I am generally more left wing than right (can you tell !) so Labour is my natural "home" but i would never try to defend the Iraq invasion. Bloody shameful is all i can say.

It would be interesting to compare public support for the Falklands war at the time and the Iraq war under Blair.

we lost in Suez

That's not the reason Anthony Eden resigned. He resigned because the British government's policy over Suez was clearly wrong - it was a foreign policy blunder/disaster.

Can anyone who is so pro Labour explain the morality of the Iraq invasion that the last government lead us into first on the threat of WMDs then when questioned recently changed the story.

Can anyone who is so pro Labour explain the morality of the Iraq invasion that the last government lead us into first on the threat of WMDs then when questioned recently changed the story.

[i]I would suggest that a far more complex version of option 2 occurred

I would suggest a combination of option 1 and 2 occured. [/i]
sounds about right

while i dont think she wanted to start a war im sure she was happy to exacerbate the conflict for her own political ends

never underestimate a pms desire to cling to power , thatcher herself was well past her sell by date when she was finally pushed out
blair, brown etc

and a good bit of flag waving low risk RAF action in the middle east will nicely distract from the slash and burn of the public sector, privatisation of the nhs etc

and a good bit of flag waving low risk RAF action in the middle east will nicely distract from the slash and burn of the public sector, privatisation of the nhs etc

Careful now........that's likely to be described as [i]"the most bitter twisted pile of crap I've ever read on STW"[/i]

In the case of the Falklands, I believe the phrase is "a nods as good as a wink". All the noises coming from the foreign office invited the Junta to hop on over there and make a land grab. What they did not count on would be the outcry from the British press (of a certain kind) still purporting the myth that we as a country had an effective fighting force.

The only thing world class brought to bear in that episode was the rhetoric and the air to air missiles that the Americans gave us.

ernie_lynch - Member

and a good bit of flag waving low risk RAF action in the middle east will nicely distract from the slash and burn of the public sector, privatisation of the nhs etc

Careful now........that's likely to be described as "the most bitter twisted pile of crap I've ever read on STW"

i wish it was bitter and twisted, i just cant see any other reason why cameron & hague seem to be pushing so hard for intervention, perhaps some misguided arrogant blairesque belief in their own righteousness?
of course there is all that oil stuff too.........

the myth that we as a country had an effective fighting force.

Except that it wasn't a myth, we [i]did[/i] have 'an effective fighting force'

The only thing world class brought to bear in that episode was the rhetoric and the air to air missiles that the Americans gave us.

So, not the incredible feat of arms involved in fighting many thousands of miles from your country/nearest air/naval bases (but within range of your enemy's air bases) and triumphing in spite of frequently reversing the commonly held adage that a 3:1 numerical advantage is required in order to ensure victory against a well entrenched opponent?

of course there is all that oil stuff too.........

I don't subscribe to the theory that the various signs that the Argentinians took as a green light to invade were deliberate at all - I believe that was ignorance, stupidity and cockup

I am however certain that the chance to go to war was seized gleefully with both hands and that any chances for a peaceful negotiated settlement were deliberately spurned. The sinking of the Belgrano being one such act to ensure that the Peruvian proposals did not work

bravohotel8er - Member

the myth that we as a country had an effective fighting force.

Except that it wasn't a myth, we did have 'an effective fighting force'

The only thing world class brought to bear in that episode was the rhetoric and the air to air missiles that the Americans gave us.

So, not the incredible feat of arms involved in fighting many thousands of miles from your country/nearest air/naval bases (but within range of your enemy's air bases) and triumphing in spite of frequently reversing the commonly held adage that a 3:1 numerical advantage is required in order to ensure victory against a well entrenched opponent?

I can not dispute the resolve and tenacity of the men who were on the ground. many were still in when I took the Queens Shilling. As ever the equipment and support was not there:
Ships with hulls of tin foil
DMS boots for arctic conditions
Rifle unable to fire fully auto to save on rounds spent
no effective air to air missiles
carriers brought back from the brink of scrapping

The sad fact is nothing changes. thirty years late there is not enough desert gear for Iraq or Afghanistan. No body armour to go round. not enough helicopter transport. vehicles you could fire an air rifle through never mind a roadside IED.

Lets just say we were very,very lucky in the Falklands.

You have somewhat oversimplified my point with your option 1 - so much shorter and less well expanded than option 2. i dont doubt for a second that option 2 also occurred- perhpas it was even the main reason who knows. i simply stated that it is naive to think it did not cross the mind of a serving politician [very unpopular at the time] as to what the electoral consequnces for their action may be. They are after all trying to win the next election ,even thatcher, and IMHO this is easier to do by doing popular than unpopular things.
The politicians might just think like this as well even if you dont.

i just cant see any other reason why cameron & hague seem to be pushing so hard for intervention, perhaps some misguided arrogant blairesque belief in their own righteousness?
of course there is all that oil stuff too.....

TBH, joking aside, I reckon the British public have become war-weary. The climate at the time of the Falklands War was quite different. Britain hadn't been engaged in a proper full scale successful war - with air force, navy, and army, since the end of WW2. The thought of military victories in foreign lands seemed reasonably exciting. Things are different now.

If the present government decides to opt for new military adventures in the Middle East, then the overriding consideration imo is Libyan high grade oil.

Things have gone very badly for the West in the Middle East recently. The situation in Libya (which is undoubtedly being stoked up by the West) provides an excellent opportunity to achieve something which the West has long desired, but had in recent years given up all hope of achieving - a pro-Western regime in Tripoli.

I very risky game imo. There are no guarantees who would replace Gaddafi. Al-Qaeda is strong in that region, and being Sunni, Libya would be a natural target/home for them. Libya would indeed be a huge prize for them - far greater than the mountains of Afghanistan, And far more realistic a prize than Shiite Iraq.

As I've said, I very risky game - and certainly we have had a very recent example of British intelligence's complete miscalculation of the political situation in Libya. And there isn't any real guarantee that a more secular new regime would be much more pro-Western than Gaddafi either.

All in all, the West has not had a very good track record of supporting the right people and right foreign policies in recent decades. I fail to be convinced that Libya would necessarily be different.

Lets just say we were very,very lucky in the Falklands.

My dad (an MO) had left a few years previous... and he would get [i]very[/i] angry at the sight of triumphantly crowing politicians.

So, not the incredible feat of arms involved in fighting many thousands of miles from your country/nearest air/naval bases (but within range of your enemy's air bases) and triumphing in spite of frequently reversing the commonly held adage that a 3:1 numerical advantage is required in order to ensure victory against a well entrenched opponent?

Yep, the very forces that the Tories were about to cut, including the carriers and assault ships. Even with those forces, it was touch and go. Shows the professionalism of our armed forces even when their political masters were attempting to cut their balls off.

Cut to today(literally) and the lessons of that conflict seemed to have been forgotten and here we are with History repeating...

The fact that this also happened at the height of the Cold War was no small factor either. What on earth do you think the Soviet Union would have made of it if the second most powerful country in NATO hadn't bothered to defend it's own territory against a third rate Latin American state?

The most Powerful country in Nato Turned tail and ran from Vietnam to what could be classed as a Third rate far eastern state. I didn't see the Soviet hordes piling over the Bering sea to invade the US unless of course you believed Red Dawn was a documentary.

it was on the telly , with airplanes coming of boats! maggie ! long grey boats. rubbush TV's with fake wood pannelling. Floral carpeting. argentinia a word used a lot.

that's what I remember.

rubbush TV's with fake wood pannelling

Radio Rentals. 😀

I can remember talking about this with significant politicos at what was actually quite a fun Christmas Party in December 96 and the general opinion was that the savage beginnings of the Chicago School economic theories had encouraged the Junta to go for it and that without the miniwar the Tories would definitely have lost the upcoming election.
What is really sad is that the Falklands miniwar exposed the substantial shortcoming in British military planning and short termism in political leadership which, TBH, is just as demonstrable today.
It was a totally avoidable event, the sole outcome of which was to re-elect the Tories in the next GE. And look where that got us.
On another note - Che G - must be time for another beer.