Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › The Falklands war (Your personal views)
As Maggie is a current event, it has had me thinking about the Falklands. I have seen loads of documentaries on it, the best one is the one made at the time of the war if you ask me. I will link it at the bottom if anyone wants to watch it.
So as I was too young to have loved though it or had any friends to have been sent over and live it first hand, I have always been like indecisive on the whole thing. So here’s how the picture has been painted for me though the media
GBR are in legal ownership of the Maldives and the Argies president at the time was under attack from his people for being a rubbish leader etc. So he stages a coup to reclaim the islands for Argentina. This gains him allot of approval from his people.
Ok also was Thatcher right to invade the islands and try and take them back rather than just waiting them out as the disruption in Argentina at the time would have surely thwarted any long term plans they had for taking back the islands. They were changing their president every couple of months at the time. Also The Argentine soldiers who invaded were not paid or full trained. They were conscripts and when the war was over they were left for weeks in the cold and wet and they were dying from exposure.
TBH this war was a load of hogwash if you ask me and Thactcher really pisses me of in this documentary. But anyway see for yourselves.
I can’t embed it cos it is split into a playlist and I don’t know how to do that. Also there is a sound bug where it had come from a VHS cassette but it is still very watchable
Too young to remember it but seems like she did good from what I know if risky.
Thatcher was no less wrong in going to war in the Falklands than Blair was in Iraq.
Any British leader of any political power would most likely have done so (even if they were leftwing the military would have managed to talk them into doing it – after all soldiers came first, before politicians). In both cases a longer term peaceful solution may have been possible but there was a perceived threat to the British economy and the British people enjoy war and conflict – particularly when they win .
Consider how much of our popular culture today in the 21st century remains obsessed with world war II which to mostly finished in 1945, only with the ever begruding formation of what ultimately led to the EU and how Germans are still mistrusted today (for instance young kids drove a German family out of their house in Newcastle by repeated intimidation and properly vandalism – in 2006!!)
If the Iraq war had resulted in the Middle East backing down and allowing neocolonisation, and petrol was 50p / €0,70 per litre across the EU, there would be celebratory street parties across Europe every few months, legalised drugs (to make the dissenters forget about the nastier bits of what had happened and because the Yanks would be too euphoric themselves to whinge) and Tony Blair would be a military hero like Lawrence of Arabia and statues built of him.
Whether by accident or design Thatcho picked a easier war to win and that was what boosted her power.
Well Britain had an obligation to protect the Falklands and the Argentines invaded. If she sat on her hands and did nothing there most certainly would have been uproar.
I don’t really agree with the assessment that it’s comparable to Iraq though. The Falklands actually got invaded so it was more or less a defensive war. Iraq was invaded on completely false pretences supplied by Bush and ended up costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. Of course if things had turned out differently everyone would be celebrating but the casus belli used was extremely flimsy and for lack of more refined terms “rock-fuck stupid.”
@barrettone 539936 wrote:
I don’t really agree with the assessment that it’s comparable to Iraq though. The Falklands actually got invaded so it was more or less a defensive war. Iraq was invaded on completely false pretences supplied by Bush and ended up costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. Of course if things had turned out differently everyone would be celebrating but the casus belli used was extremely flimsy and for lack of more refined terms “rock-fuck stupid.”
In moral terms the case to invade IR was less (and made worse by apallingly poor military strategy from the USA, and you would think the UK would learn something from mistakes made in WW II and elsewhere) but until recently (the obvious consequence of more immigration) the British people didn’t really give two shits for what happened in foreign lands unless it potentially benefited them. Some fights they win, some they lose. There are still many people around (not just OAPs either) extremely bitter about the loss off the British Empire, even those way too young to even remember what it was and too stupid to learn)
NOT comparable to Iraq, Iraq was never ours and never wanted to be ours, Falklands are British territory and the inhabitants want to remain British
I would say Maggie had no choice, she had to defend British Citizens & territory against an aggressor
BUT
The sickening part was how under-equipped our forces were, the reduction of conventional forces in favor of nuclear deterrent in the decade before not only put our troops at risk ( not only losses from winning but they could easily have lost all together ), but also the Argies knew we would never use Nukes, and would never have invaded if our Navy hadnt been reduced is size.
So yes, a great victory for Britain against the odds, but also a war that should never have happened
@Mezz 539943 wrote:
NOT comparable to Iraq, Iraq was never ours and never wanted to be ours, Falklands are British territory and the inhabitants want to remain British
I would say Maggie had no choice, she had to defend British Citizens & territory against an aggressor
BUT
The sickening part was how under-equipped our forces were, the reduction of conventional forces in favor of nuclear deterrent in the decade before not only put our troops at risk ( not only losses from winning but they could easily have lost all together ), but also the Argies knew we would never use Nukes, and would never have invaded if our Navy hadnt been reduced is size.
So yes, a great victory for Britain against the odds, but also a war that should never have happened
I reckon the Argentinians were counting on the UK deciding it wasn’t worth their time getting the islands back. I don’t disagree with the scaling back of the military because armies cost a lot of money and what with strong US presence in Europe (and the nuclear deterrent) at the time keeping the Soviets at bay there wasn’t really a need to have a pimped out army. I’d much rather this situation than the one they have in the US where they pump trillions into the army in some kind of dick measuring contest with themselves.
At the time there were quite a few people unwilling for an armed confrontation… but it wasn’t called a war. It was “The Falklands Conflict”.
More British service personnel who served in that conflict died from PTSD than actually died in the war. Indeed, for casualties, it was remarkably light… but plenty of cripples and maimed. As a general rule, if the wounded got back to the makshift hospital run by Rick Jolly, they survived. Morphine at the time had the interesting additive of ketamine (I kid you not).
Also, there were civilian casualties. 3 Falkland Islanders were killed by British shellfire in Port Stanley. Roberto Calvi was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge, alledgedly he was the money man paying for the Argentine hunt for more Exocets.
The difference between Iraq and that war was that the people living there overwhelmingly did not want to be ruled by Argentina. True, the Argentines who originally lived there were forcibly evicted by the British circa 1800.
The only two guys who served there that have bitter memories was a)One of the cooks who was off duty when an Exocet hit the Sheffield’s galley area at mealtime. The other was part of the mine clearance party on San Carlos water (nasty fucking time they had – using bayonets to shift Israeli made anti-personnel mines).
Argentina did get democracy out of the whole fucked up business. A lot of people forget that. Ideally the whole thing would never have happened, but it did happen.
Look at a map of the South Atlantic some time. Look at all the little islands on the fringe, claimed by the UK, America, Norway and Australia. How do you think Antarctic exploitation is planned to occur?
Iraq was once a UK colony but long before any of us were born. Even after independence London had economic power into the 1970s until the government nationalised it (with help from the Soviets).
I don’t dispute that colonisation is a bad thing (my own family were born in a former UK colony) but the UK and USA could forsee the coming economic depression and took a gamble which did not pay off. War is unavoidable in bad economic times and/or there is unequal distribution of resources
Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraq Petroleum Company – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
@Mezz 539943 wrote:
The sickening part was how under-equipped our forces were, the reduction of conventional forces in favor of nuclear deterrent in the decade before not only put our troops at risk ( not only losses from winning but they could easily have lost all together ), but also the Argies knew we would never use Nukes, and would never have invaded if our Navy hadnt been reduced is size.
Another consequence of blindly following Washington (which politicians of all colours in the UK did since the end of WW II, seeing nuclear “everything” as a miracle…)
not only has that bit not changed over the years its got even worse, ironically the UK sometimes raises cash by selling off “redundant” MOD infrastructure to the Commonwealth nations (maybe not PK or ZW), expects the EU (especially DE, DK, NO, NL to guard the North Sea (from the South Europeans and/or refugees displaced by Arab Spring) and them moans about paying to the EU budget).
There are plenty of websites that have clear reasons how the war could have been avoided but i’m not sure how much ground the arguments hold. You can have a read on some of them and make your own minds up. Again I don’t really know much as I wasn’t around and it’s not my chosen specialised subject. (Although I know a fair bit of the story as told by the media) Falklands Truth: This war could have been avoided by the UK
One thing I do find a bit harsh was the sinking of Belgrano that is explained more in that link. The ship that was headed out of the exclsion zone but was still sunk killing many on board.
It was a nasty war to say the least. I do wonder what would have happened if we had failed in that attempt to take them back. Would maggie have tried again?
Also as mezz said we were under equipped for the mission, which was made worse was having our carrier carrying all our transport choppers sunk by an exocet missile. The plan was to have our comandos use the choppers for transport, but they had to walk cos of the carrier being sunk.
@thelog 540001 wrote:
There are plenty of websites that have clear reasons how the war could have been avoided but i’m not sure how much ground the arguments hold. You can have a read on some of them and make your own minds up. Again I don’t really know much as I wasn’t around and it’s not my chosen specialised subject. (Although I know a fair bit of the story as told by the media) Falklands Truth: This war could have been avoided by the UK
One thing I do find a bit harsh was the sinking of Belgrano that is explained more in that link. The ship that was headed out of the exclsion zone but was still sunk killing many on board.
It was a nasty war to say the least. I do wonder what would have happened if we had failed in that attempt to take them back. Would maggie have tried again?
Maggie might have been the Iron Lady but she was never a soldier. Let us not forget that she was only one person in a bigger Government. Others in her cabinet and even in other political parties including left wing ones have real experience of military service at the frontline, and the “hard men” would have taken control and did what needed to be done, even if it had meant finding extra money from somewhere and taking the war to the air and perhaps bombing some civillians in Argentina and/or anywhere else who supported them (and risking similar casualties in the Falklands). And if it had ultimately gone to a nuclear conflict, so be it.
those of us below 40 have grown up in a relatively peaceful time due to the economic boom and especially if you have had a relatively middle class upbringing (which the bulk of younger posters on here have) would have been taught that war and conflict was unpleasant and to be avoided at all costs – whereas attitudes (across Europe) were different in the late 70s and early 80s and that would have been the same irrespective of who was in power.
Good read on the subject; “Don’t cry for me, Sergeant Major” By Jeremy Hands and Jock McGowan. 2 ITN Journalists who were there.
It explains quite a bit what it was like, and exactly how Max Hastings got the nickname “Hitler”. raaa
Well worth it if you can find an old copy.
@Pat McDonald 539949 wrote:
The only two guys who served there that have bitter memories was a)One of the cooks who was off duty when an Exocet hit the Sheffield’s galley area at mealtime. The other was part of the mine clearance party on San Carlos water (nasty fucking time they had – using bayonets to shift Israeli made anti-personnel mines).
Should make it clearer – those are the only 2 I AM AWARE of.
0
Voices
14
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Life › Politics, Media & Current Events › The Falklands war (Your personal views)