Did the British Goverment lie with regard the Falklands
godofthunder9010
Active member
Did they lie about what? They've held those islands for a long time, so there's a lot of ground covered by that question.
regard Falklands
Sorry for not being very clear
Do you think there was an effort on the the part of the British Goverment to let the Invasion HAPPEN, ie was our inteligence service so crap that we did not know that the Argentinians were building up military forces at perticular stratigic ports,the Captain of the Endurance did in fact reported this build up and he was ignored...comments i find this an interesting subject as the us had to go out on a limb regard this ie they were not supposed to provide intel but they did,and they could not be seen to be supporting us,and Thatcher won the next election.
Taff
Sorry for not being very clear
Do you think there was an effort on the the part of the British Goverment to let the Invasion HAPPEN, ie was our inteligence service so crap that we did not know that the Argentinians were building up military forces at perticular stratigic ports,the Captain of the Endurance did in fact reported this build up and he was ignored...comments i find this an interesting subject as the us had to go out on a limb regard this ie they were not supposed to provide intel but they did,and they could not be seen to be supporting us,and Thatcher won the next election.
Taff
Rufus Excalibur
Active member
Argentina had been sabre rattling in the south Atlantic for a number of years. In 1977? The Labour government had sent a small naval force to deter any Argentinian threat.
Thatcher and the Conservative government could never have expected the Argentines to invade. The Defence review of 1981 would have removed the Navy's capability to retake the islands and if Argentina had waited a few more months then this would have been the case.
The most compelling case that would be utilised against the accusation of the BG lying and orchestrating an invasion is the conflict itself.
When the surrender came, the British Task Force was within 10 days of logistical failure, the Navy had taken heavy casulaties in ships and the Army was in danger of grinding to a complete halt. Had one of the two carriers been hit or sunk, then unless Illustrious or the crippled Bulwark could be hurriedly sent from the UK then a stalemate, perhaps even a British defeat was on the cards. Combine this with the the danger of the exocet missile and many other factors, then the chances of conspiracy are minimal.
In conclusion, the war did wonders for Thatcher, Britains standing in the world and put the Great back into Great Britain.
'We have ceased to be a nation in retreat' Margaret Thatcher July 1982.
A far more interesting discussion would be on the Belgrano.
Thatcher and the Conservative government could never have expected the Argentines to invade. The Defence review of 1981 would have removed the Navy's capability to retake the islands and if Argentina had waited a few more months then this would have been the case.
The most compelling case that would be utilised against the accusation of the BG lying and orchestrating an invasion is the conflict itself.
When the surrender came, the British Task Force was within 10 days of logistical failure, the Navy had taken heavy casulaties in ships and the Army was in danger of grinding to a complete halt. Had one of the two carriers been hit or sunk, then unless Illustrious or the crippled Bulwark could be hurriedly sent from the UK then a stalemate, perhaps even a British defeat was on the cards. Combine this with the the danger of the exocet missile and many other factors, then the chances of conspiracy are minimal.
In conclusion, the war did wonders for Thatcher, Britains standing in the world and put the Great back into Great Britain.
'We have ceased to be a nation in retreat' Margaret Thatcher July 1982.
A far more interesting discussion would be on the Belgrano.
falklands
Thank you for your reply and the information, i still feel however that there was an element of let it happen, and if our intel service was that inept in knowing what was going on heads should have roled have roled and with all your related points Navel cas /damage/army grinding to a halt,even more reason why the intel/secrt service should have kept thier eyes on the ball, and perhape you should canvase the feelings of the famileys who lost loved ones on the Sir Galahad i dont think it put anything great back into their lives, perhaps there is another topic,regard Belgrano Came out got sunk their navey never ventured out agin i do belive saved far more lives than the men who died on the Belgrano.
Taff
Thank you for your reply and the information, i still feel however that there was an element of let it happen, and if our intel service was that inept in knowing what was going on heads should have roled have roled and with all your related points Navel cas /damage/army grinding to a halt,even more reason why the intel/secrt service should have kept thier eyes on the ball, and perhape you should canvase the feelings of the famileys who lost loved ones on the Sir Galahad i dont think it put anything great back into their lives, perhaps there is another topic,regard Belgrano Came out got sunk their navey never ventured out agin i do belive saved far more lives than the men who died on the Belgrano.
Taff
Mark Conley
Active member
Well...seems to me that the Falklands could be an interesting subject. But i dont think it would be interesting because of its hints at conspiracy or politcal situation...
Now that logistical item mentioned in the post...what was it?
Now that logistical item mentioned in the post...what was it?
airmanpatroler
Active member
The British had a right to protect thier land, but had Argentina have had a dozen more of exocets then a peace treayt would have resulted
airmanpatroler said:
I do not see that UK had more rights to the Falklands than any of the other colonies they acquired through the centuries - and since had to let go.
As for "letting it happen" I sincerely think they felt so over-confident that they didn't need to bother too much. In this war, as in any other, the victors have "shaped" the history. As a matter of fact, the Argentine effort was rather amazing. Particularly impressive was the performance of their Skyhawk-jockeys.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The Brits probably didn't take the Argentine noise too seriously (probably happened to often) and when it did happen, probably got caught by surprise. After all, when it first happened, the UK's strategic reach was severely questioned.
The answer was: still enough to beat the Argies. :lol:
The answer was: still enough to beat the Argies. :lol:
we seriously under-estimated their Air-force...which was why we had so many ships hit/sunk
but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease
but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Not so much about under-estimating, but not being able to do a whole lot about. The best aircraft the UK could send there was the Harrier and not in that great of a quantity either.
beardo said:
Anya1982
Banned
NOOOOO
Falklands happened as the argentine president or what ever he is wanted to take it back over and kicked up a fuss.................long story short UK went out to defend falklands.....................
ok we fired apon a argentine ship with out warining which we should not have! which kicked the big fuss up...............so if they torpedo hadn't been released maybe the war wouldn't of been as bad.
but this mis - fire happened due to bad communication................the fire one missed the 2nd hit the bow ..............
the C.O. of the sub mistunderstood the Commands from the head and ended up firing upon the ship they had been sitting under for ages.
Falklands happened as the argentine president or what ever he is wanted to take it back over and kicked up a fuss.................long story short UK went out to defend falklands.....................
ok we fired apon a argentine ship with out warining which we should not have! which kicked the big fuss up...............so if they torpedo hadn't been released maybe the war wouldn't of been as bad.
but this mis - fire happened due to bad communication................the fire one missed the 2nd hit the bow ..............
the C.O. of the sub mistunderstood the Commands from the head and ended up firing upon the ship they had been sitting under for ages.
redcoat
Active member
The Argentinean Garrison numbered nearly 12,000, the British invasion force numbered just over 7,000.beardo said:
Anya1982
The Belgarno was a threat to the fleet.
The Argentineans at this time were attempting to attack the fleet from both flanks with their navy.
The RN high command asked permission of the PM to fire on her.
Maggie gave that permission.
The commander of HMS Conquerer fired with the full permission of both his high command and government.
After the sinking the remainder of the Argentinean fleet fled back to harbour.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yep this is what happened as I know it.
beardo said:
Anya1982
Banned
no
Thats not whole truth........................yes they asked permission to fire then they were told to hold fire..............poor communication got in the way and they ended up firing...........................my uncle was on that sub at the time and was in the op's room...........
ah by the way that history degree stuff wasn't me..........its what happens when you get auto logged on from emails and your mates can get in!!!!!!
Also i served on my last two ships with guys that were in the falklands war on the ships and the subs
Thats not whole truth........................yes they asked permission to fire then they were told to hold fire..............poor communication got in the way and they ended up firing...........................my uncle was on that sub at the time and was in the op's room...........
ah by the way that history degree stuff wasn't me..........its what happens when you get auto logged on from emails and your mates can get in!!!!!!
Also i served on my last two ships with guys that were in the falklands war on the ships and the subs