[Closed] Anyone remember how the Falklands began?

and secondly, Thatcher benefited enormously from the Falklands War. Indeed it saved her bacon at a time when her political career was about to nose-dive..

[b]"sorry I thought you said"[/b]

Thatcher would have known for certain that she would lose the next general election unless she could somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat - the Argentine invasion of the the Falklands gave her a unique opportunity. And she took it.

No need to apologise, I did say both things ......is there a problem ?

so was it "events" or a deliberate plan to retake the Falklands (with support from Michael Foot) in order to get re-elected.

I just want to be clear seeing as I am so "daft"

Eh ? I'm sorry, maybe [i]I'm[/i] going daft now ..... I don't know what your saying/asking.

But if it helps though - I'll reaffirm what I believe.

Firstly, I reckon that, as the article in the Spectator points out, the Falklands War was a [i]"needless conflict".[/i] It was due to gross incompetence by the Thatcher government. Again as the Spectator points out, [i]"A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas". On a previous occasion under the Labour Government a nuclear attack submarine had been ostentatiously despatched to the South Atlantic to cool Argentinian heads. But in 1982 the Conservative Government failed to make any such deterrent gesture".[/i]

The reason for this gross incompetence ? ....penny-pinching by Thatcher, simple as. Of course ironically, the Falklands War ended up costing an absolute fortune.

Secondly, I believe that Thatcher saw a possible Falklands War as the perfect opportunity to save her political skin and therefore scuppered all attempts to find a peaceful solution to the crises.

And thirdly, I believe that her calculations were correct, and that she did indeed benefit hugely from the Falklands War.......lucky girl.

HTH

project - Member

and quite a few squaddies sadly get killed,or injured, we then have to pay out millions to build an airport and infrastructure, and keeep 1000 troops there to defend a few puffins and a load of burnt out vehicles, oh and it allowed thatcher to win an election, while destroying the miners and steel workers with a good helping hand to the car industry along the way to destroy it as well.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER TO JUST PUT ALL THE conservative VOTERS ON A BOAT AND LET THEM DEFEND THE DAMM ISLAND, AND LET PEOPLE WHO CARE RUN THE COUNTRY.

So easy in hindsight,

Listen, there are people who can help you.

Your post brings to mind a Tory decision that genuinely was a mistake, Care in the Community.

😯

why do all those that oppose this want to simplify the opposing view?
Thatcher removed the ship defending the island and sent mixed messages to the argentinina leaders - not in dispute
They invaded - not in dispute
Winning wars is popular- not in dispute
Thatcher thought about the electoral consequences - not in dispute - though Bign daft objects when I say this but not when he does
Thatcher was unpopular and not likely to win the election prior to the inavsion /recapture- not in dispute Z-11 aside from what ernie says
You may conclude what you want from this but it seems reasonable to assume she did not launch the task force unaware of the electoral implcations of this and that she would not have won without this. Calling ernie a nutter is hardly a reasoned argument. When you disagree perhaps try articulating your argument without over simplyfying the alternative view or those making it?

Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war.

Dobbo - Member

Lol @ ernie_lynch what a ranting nutter.

Gosh, I'm in the company of kids !

Having established that I'm a "ranting nutter" Dobbo, have you got anything constructive to say on the topic which was : "Anyone remember how the Falklands began?"

Go on ........ don't be shy ...... say something 😀

but it seems reasonable to assume she did not launch the task force unaware of the electoral implcations of this and that she would not have won without this.

Reasonable to whom ?

You know, this is one of the things I love about STW...

I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.

penny-pinching by Thatcher

Ahhh - the perpetual personification of politics - I do love the way you do that after all this time. Let it go. That sort of vitriol can make a man sound bitter and stuck in the past.

oh.

to defend a few puffins and a load of burnt out vehicles,

Not really interested in joining in, but having just read through the whole thread that has developed since I posted last night, I have noticed two main things :-

1) The point I was making which is the similarities between the start of the Falklands war, ie having to recommission and buy back scrapped and sold kit is spookily like whats now going on with the Nimrods, and that seems to have passed everyone by.
2) How rude, ill informed and belligerant the Thatcherites seem to be. simply abusing or belittling isn't really an argument guys. It is entirely possible that it is what Public School teaches you, but its not an argument.

Night night

flippinheckler - Member
Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war.

Posted 1 minute ago # Report-Post

Actually it was the bike riding american, and not Lance A , Bliar just did what he was told just like a subservient puppy dog.

???????
Blair made a conscious decision to send british troops to these theatres of war.

Actually it was the bike riding american, and not Lance A , Bliar just did what he was told just like a subservient puppy dog

Oh so thats okay then, typical Labour wasn't me Gov!

TooTall - Member

penny-pinching by Thatcher

Ahhh - the perpetual personification of politics - I do love the way you do that after all this time. Let it go. That sort of vitriol can make a man sound bitter and stuck in the past.

oh.

I was simply quoting the Tory publication The Spectator !

And do you think Captain Nick Barker RN captain of HMS Endurance during the Falklands War was a vitriolic bitter man ? 😀

This is what according to the Spectator he had to say :

[i]"His starting point is the 1981 Defence Review by John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, which sought drastically to cut defence costs. The aim was reasonable enough, for in 1981 Britain was still carrying a proportionately much heavier defence burden than her commercial rivals, such as Germany and Japan. Nott wished to put greater emphasis on the Nato defence of Europe at the expense of `out of area' commitments. Of the three services, the Royal Navy was the least involved with Continental Europe and the most involved in global reach. It therefore seemed to Nott that it was the Navy that could most readily be shrunk. Hence his proposal to sell one of the Navy's only three carriers to Australia, as well as to cut the numbers of other types of ship.

Among these was the Falklands `guardship', the Endurance, an adapted Danish Baltic trader armed with 16 AS 12 air-tosurface missiles and equipped with sophisticated electronic listening gear. Nott announced that she would be withdrawn in 1982 and not replaced. This would leave the Falkland Isles (with its population of British stock) and other British dependencies in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic to be defended by a few lightly armed Royal Marines. A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas". [/i]

So yes, Tory spending cuts were behind the events which led to the Falklands War.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199705/ai_n8781734/

[i]I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.[/i]

Why, can't you make up your own mind 🙂

Reasonable to whom ?

So yes, Tory spending cuts were behind the events which led to the Falklands War.

In your Opinion!

mancjon - Member

Why, can't you make up your own mind

Commiserations on your piss poor reading and comprehension.

[i]Hmmmmmmm and who sent us into Iraq & Afghanistan? Thatcher & Conservatives, NO Blair and NEW Labour far more damaging than the Falklands war. [/i]

What has that go to do with anything. I agree with what you say but the thread is about Falklands after all.

[i]Commiserations on your piss poor reading and comprehension.[/i]

Youv'e lost me on that one. I was simply trying to point out (badly it seems), that Ernie does not necessarily represent what Labour represent and that to rely on one persons interpretation of events to colour your political choice is not really very sensible.

Sorry i didn't explain it very well in the first place.

BTW, this made me chuckle

bravohotel8er - Member

I have considerable reservations about Cameron and the current Tory/Lib coalition government, but reading ernie's posts reminds me why I never have and never will be able to vote Labour.

Result ! 😀

I don't vote Labour and wouldn't recommend that anyone did !

I voted LibDem in '97, 2001, and 2005. And Green in 2010.

Ernie - would the Invasion have occurred in '82 if Jim Callaghan (Labour foreign Secretary under Wilson administration) had not proposed a lease back deal to the Argentinians in 1976?

In your Opinion!

A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering "the Malvinas".

What has that go to do with anything

Whilst I cannot deny the Tories have made some pi$$ poor decisions rightly or wrongly depending on your point of view Thatcher and her government are getting a right bashing over the Falklands, I was just trying to remind everyone that Labour have made far worse decisions in more recent years.

Have you got big fingers junkyard? 😀

[i]I was just trying to remind everyone that Labour have made far worse decisions in more recent years. [/i]

As far as Iraq is concerned i totally agree.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Ernie.....

No mate......you've blown it with me for a while.

Your suggestion that Labour winning in '83 would have resulted in a totalitarian marxist state, with presumably Michael Foot as a dictator, reminded me why I generally can't be bothered exchanging pleasantries with you. Sorry.

no crap typing skills - second dig tonight both deserved
I corrected before seeing your comment so thought it only fair to fess up.

Only a joke though mate. No offence intended.

But where's Dobbo ? ....... I was hoping that he might contribute something more .... is he shy ?
or just limited in his vocabulary ?

Maybe he posted the "ernie-bellend" tag and that's his "contribution" ?

none taken it is a fair comment

I don't think you're a bellend but that is a funny tag. I saw someone called a "fukdik" recently and I found that funny too. I'm just childish.

ZuluXI defeats Ernie again 😆

So Erne - you're not denying in any way that the approach made by the Labour government in the '70's acted as a major point in suggesting to the Argentinian government that the British were willing to cede sovereignty of the islands, and, directly or indirectly, to the events of 1982?

Every time allthepies.

Yep backhander - childish. And seen some a tad more humorous than that.

C'mon Ernie

You've been keen to repeatedly emphasise the effect of withdrawing Endurance

What was the effect of the Callaghan lease back offer in the '70's?

Indeed, there is no doubt whatsoever that it was the Callaghan approach and discussion of possible leaseback which led to the landing on Southern Thule, leading to the op. Journeyman, sending down a Sub and two Frigates in '77.

Now, if we then look at the continuing failure to eject the military occupation of Southern Thule, which despite the flotilla in '77 was [b]allowed to remain there[/b] by, now Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, who ruled out sending in the Royal Marines to end the occupation, preferring diplomacy.

Now, lets get this straight - Argentinian military forces were on Southern Thule, unopposed, from November 1976, throughout this time [b]no[/b] attempt was made to expel them - c'mon Ernie, what message was that sending to the Argentinians?

This unwillingness to project force, [b]plus[/b] the British Government's intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War - however you [b]cannot[/b] ignore the run up events, primarily the proposals laid down by Callaghan, followed by his inaction in the face of the occupation of Southern Thule, and what effect [b]his[/b] approach had in laying grounds for the events of '82

Tell you what - which government decommissioned the Ark Royal in 1978, our last remaining conventional catapult and arrested-landing aircraft carrier? How useful would that have been in '82?

And how about the Gannet Airborne Early warning aircraft that flew off it? how useful would they have been in '82 - yet they were retired in '78 by Labour - how many lives would they have saved, if the RN had had an effective airborne radar screen in the Falklands?

You see Ernie - you want to pick and choose your arguments, well, here's what comes of Labour ineptitude, once again, in '82, the Tories had to clear up your ****ing big mess!

allthepies - Member

ZuluXI defeats Ernie again

You mean more zulu bollox. 🙄

well, here's what comes of Labour ineptitude, once again, in '82, the Tories had to clear up your **** big mess!

what a joke. A mess of the tories own making. To accuse the Callaghan Government of ineptitude while supporting the following Government is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

What was the effect of the Callaghan lease back offer in the '70's?

You mean the non-event? To quote the evening standard:

Plans for a lease back deal were shelved by the Labour government. They were briefly resurrected [u]under the Conservatives[/u] before the 1982 conflict by Nicholas Ridley, then a junior minister at the Foreign Office, but were roundly rejected.

Now, lets get this straight - Argentinian military forces were on Southern Thule, unopposed, from November 1976, throughout this time no attempt was made to expel them - c'mon Ernie, what message was that sending to the Argentinians?

leading to the op. Journeyman, sending down a Sub and two Frigates in '77.

See that was easy, you answered your own question. And to quote from the Daily Telegraph or what you call Marxist times in your world z-11:

They show a Ministry of Defence eager to counter Argentine aggression but restrained by international law and the need to observe the law of the sea.

The secret deployment coincided with talks in New York between Britain and Argentina that reduced tension. Once the talks had started, the Argentines were allowed to learn of the existence of the naval force and soon afterwards the 50 Argentines on South Thule left and the status quo was restored.

See, job done and no one had to die. But again quoting the "Marxist times":

But five years later, after a military coup in Buenos Aires, the invasion took place and there was no similar naval presence.

however you cannot ignore the run up events, primarily the proposals laid down by Callaghan, followed by his inaction in the face of the occupation of Southern Thule, and what effect his approach had in laying grounds for the events of '82

So sending a Nuclear sub, two frigates and using the diplomatic channels was inaction? And once again, no one had to die.

Tell you what - which government decommissioned the Ark Royal in 1978, our last remaining conventional catapult and arrested-landing aircraft carrier? How useful would that have been in '82?

It would have been very useful, but the Navy was getting replacements and were confident about them and the aircraft to do the job they were intended to do: Hunt submarines in the North Atlantic as the Nato arm of the ASW fleet to counter the build up of Soviet forces, not operate "out of area". And HMS Endurance was going to be on station.

So come 1981, HMS Invincible, one of the replacements is possibly going to be sold to Australia? HMS Hermes, the Commando carrier decommissioned? HMS Endurance withdrawn? The rest of the amphib fleet decommissioned? ALL without replacement?

how many lives would they have saved, if the RN had had an effective airborne radar screen in the Falklands?

How many lives would have been saved if the above deterrents hadn't been for the chop?

It's a shame that HMS Ark royal was decommissioned, It reminded me of something else...Oh yes [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-12706441 ]HMS Ark Royal being decommissioned.[/url]

History repeating.

No aircraft, no replacement for at least nine years, I'm sure no one in the World will get up to anything that would require the likes of HMS Cumberland, the Frigate that is to be decommissioned next month due to defence cuts having to rescue British citizens from Libya, or those Nimrods which apparently we could do without suddenly becoming useful again, albeit only a couple of the older versions are still around.

I'm sure you and your Tory boy friends here will bitch about Labour and the mess they left behind etc and I don't disagree, but ultimately this country is still on the world stage and needs to have a proper insurance policy, which is the right gear to do the job or deter others from doing unto you.

This Government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Question is, will we end up paying the price for these cuts?

I thought this government has no money. Well that's what the note said.

I'm also waiting for someone to post the Green Party manifesto commitments on defence from the last election.

All the references to Libya miss the point, we shouldn't be leading anything when there are plenty of NATO airforces a lot closer than ours.

but ultimately this country is still on the world stage and needs to have a proper insurance policy, which is the right gear to do the job or deter others from doing unto you.

Why do we need to be on the world stage?

Do the people want to be on the world stage?

This Government knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Question is, will we end up paying the price for these cuts?

El-Bent - only one problem, your version of events is bollocks!

Quite specifically, your claim that:

soon afterwards the 50 Argentines on South Thule left and the status quo was restored.

the Argentinian force that landed on Thule in 76 [b]was not removed[/b] - South Thule remained under occupation until 1982

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1978/may/12/southern-thule#S5CV0949P0_19780512_CWA_17

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1978/jul/05/falkland-islands#S5CV0953P0_19780705_HOC_542

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1979/nov/28/falkland-islands#S5CV0974P0_19791128_CWA_189

In addition, it was the Labour govt who refused to enact the recommendations of the 1976 Shackleton report!

The complete failure to act for many years, and a repeated disinterest by the UK government, along with discussions offering up the sovereignty of the Islands convinced the Argentinian govt that the UK would not oppose an invasion, and [u]directly paved the way for the events of '82[/u]

El-Bent - only one problem, your version of events is bollocks!

It's the Telegraphs version of events, not mine. I should know better than to trust a tory paper with facts.

The complete failure to act for many years, and a repeated disinterest by the UK government, along with discussions offering up the sovereignty of the Islands convinced the Argentinian govt that the UK would not oppose an invasion, and directly paved the way for the events of '82

Which continued under the Thatcher Government. Once again Blaming the Callaghan Government while conveniently ignoring what the Thatcher Government didn't do. I mean they could have sorted this problem out, they had been in power for a few years up to the invasion, but chose to continue down the previous governments route.

I don't expect any admittance from yourself that your beloved PM and her Government were just as complicit.

All the references to Libya miss the point, we shouldn't be leading anything when there are plenty of NATO airforces a lot closer than ours.

quite right. Oh hang on, we're part of Nato...

Why do we need to be on the world stage? Do the people want to be on the world stage?

As Sh*t as the country seems at the moment, yes. We need to protect our interests abroad, it has made us one of the most powerul economies in the world. Personally, I wouldn't mind us being a bit like the Nordic countries when it comes to this sort of thing. Quite a bit less capitalistic than we currently are, a better lifestyle.

Blair, brown, cameron; all the same type of **** wearing different colour ties IMO.

These are the type of persons that get into power when the public lose interest in politics. Problem is these types of people have literally sown up the selection processes for candidates of their parties preventing mr ave joe from ever rising from the street to downing street.

Which continued under the Thatcher Government. Once again Blaming the Callaghan Government while conveniently ignoring what the Thatcher Government didn't do. I mean they could have sorted this problem out, they had been in power for a few years up to the invasion, but chose to continue down the previous governments route.

I don't expect any admittance from yourself that your beloved PM and her Government were just as complicit.

No, you've missed my point completely, I said in my first post that the actions of the foreign office under successive governments were at fault in the messages they had sent to the Argentinians.

My issue was with Ernie quite clearly suggesting that the critical point was Endurance, and I quote:

Well it was a combination of Thatcher ordering that HMS Endurance, the only Royal Naval presence in the South Atlantic, be withdrawn, plus the 1981 Nationality Act which stripped the Falkland Islander's of their British citizenship, that convinced the Junta that Britain was no longer interested in the Falklands. And which they saw as a nod and a wink/green light.

Which is to ignore the completely entire history of events prior to 1979 - The withdrawal of Endurance was one event in a long chain of interrelated events that led to the '82 invasion.

Without the back history of the initial approach placing sovereignty on the cards in secret negotiations during the seventies by Labour, and without the failure to eject the Argentinians on Southern Thule, the withdrawal of Endurance [b]by and of itself[/b] would not have had the importance it did - and that Ernie cannot blame the complex chain of events, mixed messages and failure of leadership that took place on one government or person, there was a long chain of events under Labour leadership that led to the later failures under Thatcher's premiership which resulted in the invasion, the entirety of which led to the war.

One final point for Ernie - its interesting that you are so offended by the prospect of Foot leading us down the road of a Marxist state - are you denying that Michael Foot regularly met with the KGB and was paid money by them for information and services rendered?

One final point for Ernie - its interesting that you are so offended by the prospect of Foot leading us down the road of a Marxist state - are you denying that Michael Foot regularly met with the KGB and was paid money by them for information and services rendered?

Not argumenative, but can you back that up? I'd be interested to see the supporting evidence to that claim. I know there has been some issues in that respect, but mostly from Oxbridge types like Anthony Blunt. I was not aware of anything which was illegal or underhand with Foot, who despite being rabidly attacked, was in fact universally respected as a man of strong conviction, high moral standards and hugely intelligent amongst his peers of all political persuasions. A man whose opportunity came at a time when style was the victor over substance regretably.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7377111/Was-Foot-a-national-treasure-or-the-KGBs-useful-idiot.html ]Foot was paid by KGB[/url]

An interesting thread in that remembering what heavily biased media reported at the time is in this case less accurate than doing a bit of digging with Google today.

I was in France at the time and mainly remember getting flak from the locals about the OTT military response. That perhaps colours my own attitude which is that defence of the islands was legitimate (unlike the invasion of Iraq) but the methods used inappropriate and based mainly on a desire by the government of the day to impress the British/world population and justify increased spending with their mates in the arms business.