Argentina to fly the flag of Las Malvinas at London Olympics

[Spymaster]

and the Belgrano too with 500 young soldiers on it while it was OUTSIDE the british-declared and imposed 'exclusion zone' and sailing AWAY from the islands Oh the lolz to be had eh?

Who fucking cares, we were at war. If they didn't want their ships sunk they a) shouldn't have invaded British territory, and b) should have kept their ships in port (and even then we should've bombed them if we could).

Sinking of the Belgrano = tough shit.

 

[Spymaster]

.... and the Belgrano was fucking mass murder, plain and simple.

No. It really wasn't.

It was a well executed example of what the yanks now call "shock and awe" which demoralised the Argentinians, degraded their capacity to wage war, and quite possibly saved many British lives by dealing a huge psychological as well as physical blow.

Nasty stuff, this war business.

 

[Deareg]

No. It really wasn't.

It was a well executed example of what the yanks now call "shock and awe" which demoralised the Argentinians and quite possibly saved many British lives by dealing a huge psychological as well as physical blow, and degrading the opposition's will to continue.

Nasty stuff, this war business.

What the Yanks call shock and awe usually amounts to mass murder too, and I would argue that sinking the Belgrano may have cost British lives as up until that point there was a chance that the Argentines may have been persuaded to withdraw again and Thatcher was not going to risk that happening.

It quite evidently did not degrade Galtier's will to continue either as the thousands of dead on both sides will testify, rather it boxed the fascist bastard into a corner and forced his hand.

 

[Spymaster]

What the Yanks call shock and awe usually amounts to mass murder too, and I would argue that sinking the Belgrano may have cost British lives as up until that point there was a chance that the Argentines may have been persuaded to withdraw again and Thatcher was not going to risk that happening.

The ship was part of a larger operation that posed a risk to British forces. This was the later position of both the Belgrano's captain and the official position of the Argentine navy. They were holding outside the exclusion zone for "tactical reasons". Unlucky.

The entire Argentine fleet was recalled to shallow waters (inaccessible to submarines) off the Argentine coast the day after the Belgrano was sunk. They stayed there for the duration of the war. The sinking of the Belgrano effectively removed the Argentine navy from the conflict. An excellent result.

It quite evidently did not degrade Galtier's will to continue either as the thousands of dead on both sides will testify ....

Not Galtieri's, his soldiers. Knowing that one of your warships and 370 odd sailors are now at the bottom of the South Atlantic can't be good for morale.

 

[Spymaster]

I remember Argentinian posters [meaning posters on street corners] asking for Welsh support at the time of the Falklands conflict.

How long did the posters stay up for after the Argentinians killed and maimed over 100 Welsh Guards at Fitzroy?

 

[likesfish]

What the Yanks call shock and awe usually amounts to mass murder too, and I would argue that sinking the Belgrano may have cost British lives as up until that point there was a chance that the Argentines may have been persuaded to withdraw again and Thatcher was not going to risk that happening.

It quite evidently did not degrade Galtier's will to continue either as the thousands of dead on both sides will testify, rather it boxed the fascist bastard into a corner and forced his hand.

The Junta were never going to withdraw the whole plan relied on the British shrugging and go fair enough.
the junta would have been lynched
Which was a bloody stupid idea giving the uk's history of fighting anyone on the planet with the slimest excuse and the argentine military fighting indians with sharpened fruit or drugged students

 

[Giles]

What the Yanks call shock and awe usually amounts to mass murder too, and I would argue that sinking the Belgrano may have cost British lives as up until that point there was a chance that the Argentines may have been persuaded to withdraw again and Thatcher was not going to risk that happening.

It quite evidently did not degrade Galtier's will to continue either as the thousands of dead on both sides will testify, rather it boxed the fascist bastard into a corner and forced his hand.

No, sadly by that point the Argentinians, and to a certain extent the Brits, had painted themselves into a corner.

If the Argentinians had packed up and gone home with nothing to show for it, the junta would have been out. The UK was quite rightly saying that they were not going to give in to the other side's aggression, and so were not going to hand over the islands and their people in any kind of bollocks leaseback deal. There wasn't much to realistically negotiate about by that time.

The sinking of the Belgrano made the entire Argentinian Navy go back to their home ports and stay there for the duration, because they did not dare to sail out, given that there was a British sub out there that they could not effectively detect, or deal with at all.

Giles..

 

[trampie]

How long did the posters stay up for after the Argentinians killed and maimed over 100 Welsh Guards at Fitzroy?

Oh they probably stayed up after centuries of war between the Moenchengladbachers and the Welsh i dont see why they wouldnt have.

 

[Streathamite]

No. It really wasn't.

It was a well executed example of what the yanks now call "shock and awe" which demoralised the Argentinians, degraded their capacity to wage war, and quite possibly saved many British lives by dealing a huge psychological as well as physical blow.

Nasty stuff, this war business.

It was, nevertheless, an almost-certainly illegal contravention of the RoE, done to trigger the war that Thatcher desperately needed.
You may think it was justified - many do - but that's a separate issue entirely

 

[Streathamite]

I would argue that sinking the Belgrano may have cost British lives as up until that point there was a chance that the Argentines may have been persuaded to withdraw again

No it wouldn't, simply becuase the falklands invasios was theJunta's last desperate throw of the dice. At the time their regime faced huge problems - unemployment, hyperinflation, an unresolved war against the Black Hand guerrillas, the mounting horror over the desparecidos, but if HMG hadn't sent the task force and recaptured the islands they'd have been national heroes, and the regime saved

 

[Deareg]

No it wouldn't, simply becuase the falklands invasios was theJunta's last desperate throw of the dice. At the time their regime faced huge problems - unemployment, hyperinflation, an unresolved war against the Black Hand guerrillas, the mounting horror over the desparecidos, but if HMG hadn't sent the task force and recaptured the islands they'd have been national heroes, and the regime saved

I am not convinced that Galtieri believed to begin with that the British would really go to war over the islands and as such once he realised that they would a diplomatic solution again became an option, which went right out the window once the Belgrano was sunk.

 

[Spymaster]

It was, nevertheless, an almost-certainly illegal contravention of the RoE ....

Absolutely not, and this isn't even claimed by Argentina. It's something that lefties use to batter Thatcher with.

On the 23rd April Britain notified Argentina, via Switzerland, that any aircraft or vessel outside of the exclusion zone that was deemed to present a threat, would be engaged. The Belgrano was put down on the 2nd May.

Argentine Admiral Jorge Allara, who was in charge of the Belgrano task force has said:

"After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".

It was in no way illegal.

 

[Lock&Light]

Compromise would have been needed to achieve a diplomatic solution, and that would have resulted in the Argentinians gaining from their agression. The sinking of warships was also a result of that agression.

 

[chilango]

In answer to the OP I thought you meant this:

i have one of these. It's a very nice flag.

 

[Streathamite]

I am not convinced that Galtieri believed to begin with that the British would really go to war over the islands and as such once he realised that they would a diplomatic solution again became an option, which went right out the window once the Belgrano was sunk.

id agree he didn't believe that we'd go to war, simply because military dictators don't tend to pay much accord to opinion polls, and therefore he wouldn't have noticed that at the time of the invasion she was in such deep shit domestically that only a reconquest could have saved her bacon.
However, by the same token, he knew that any 'solution ' - diplomatic or otherwise - which ended in withdrawal would certainly finish off the junta (btw, this is also my repetition of the consensus I have heard countless times on my many visits to Argentina)

 

[Streathamite]

Absolutely not, and this isn't even claimed by Argentina. It's something that lefties use to batter Thatcher with.

On the 23rd April Britain notified Argentina, via Switzerland, that any aircraft or vessel outside of the exclusion zone that was deemed to present a threat, would be engaged. The Belgrano was put down on the 2nd May.

given that the Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone, I don't see how it could be termed a 'threat', and although I'm no military lawyer I thought you had to formally change the RoE, notify UN etc, rather than just put out a statement

 

[redsquirrel]

In answer to the OP I thought you meant this:

i have one of these. It's a very nice flag.

I take it that white thing is supposed to be an albatross?

 

[agricola]

given that the Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone, I don't see how it could be termed a 'threat', and although I'm no military lawyer I thought you had to formally change the RoE, notify UN etc, rather than just put out a statement

Nope. The message they actually sent to the Argentines was (from wikipedia):

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

Which basically amounted to any Argentine warship on the high seas being fair game. Thatcher only got in trouble for the sinking because she demonstrably lied about what had happened - what she should have said was that we sank it, and would sink the 25th of May and the rest if we could find them.

 

[Spymaster]

given that the Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone, I don't see how it could be termed a 'threat', and although I'm no military lawyer I thought you had to formally change the RoE, notify UN etc, rather than just put out a statement

Speed and heading are immaterial since both can change in an instant. Position is what's important. How can a warship bang on the edge of the exclusion zone not be considered to pose a threat?

As you can see the Belgrano was leading the southern element of a pincer movement (the northern part led by Argentine carrier Veinticinco de Mayo), skirting the edge of the TEZ. Woodward considered this to be a threat and asked for permission to sink both ships, which he received. HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano but HMS Spartan failed to locate Veinticinco de Mayo, as it fucked-off after the Belgrano went down. The Argentinians were fortunate not to lose 2 ships.

After the war it emerged that the carrier was actually within striking distance of the British fleet but was unable to launch her aircraft because of bad weather.

Again, the Argentinians were notified that ships outside the TEZ would be engaged over a week before the strike. Very few people, including the Argentine government and navy, believe that the sinking of the Belgrano was illegal.

 

[Streathamite]

Speed and heading are immaterial since both can change in an instant..

You may well be right on the other stuff, but I really don't think the speed and direction of a huge bloody great battlecruiser can change "in an instant"!

 

[Streathamite]

here's a general reflection; to some extent, the argentinian 'position' on the falklands is mere posturing. All my mates and relatives in Buenos aires scream and rage and wax indignant about the falklands, but when i press them about whether they would enlist to fight the british if another attempt to conquer them came about, or even whether they'd tolerate a sharp rise in taxes to pay for it, the picture changes dramatically. deep down, they know that their fundamental interests are not affected.
It's also deeply hypocritical posturing too; the current day latino-argentinian people are the descendants of brutal colonial settlers who built their country on slavery and genocide of the indigenous people

 

[Spymaster]

You may well be right on the other stuff, but I really don't think the speed and direction of a huge bloody great battlecruiser can change "in an instant"!

Ok, five instants!

here's a general reflection; to some extent, the argentinian 'position' on the falklands is mere posturing. All my mates and relatives in Buenos aires scream and rage and wax indignant about the falklands, but when i press them about whether they would enlist to fight the british if another attempt to conquer them came about, or even whether they'd tolerate a sharp rise in taxes to pay for it, the picture changes dramatically. deep down, they know that their fundamental interests are not affected.
It's also deeply hypocritical posturing too; the current day latino-argentinian people are the descendants of brutal colonial settlers who built their country on slavery and genocide of the indigenous people

Indeed, which is precisely why one could be forgiven for believing that that their president Cristina Fernandez, should probably study some of her own history before hypocritically referring to Britain as a "crude colonial power"!

 

[trampie]

1] Was attacking the ship outside the exclusion zone 'cricket' ?, should we have better standards than that ?

2] Did we do anything to help the survivors of the sinking ?, as far as I know we did nothing at all ?, it may not have been feasible for our own ships to rescue them I do not know, did we tell the Argentinians/United Nations/Red Cross that we had torpedoed a ship giving the exact co-ordinates and that there was hundreds of survivors in rafts in a storm with the temperatures below freezing, if we did do nothing is that akin to machine gunning the survivors in their rafts ?.

Some Argentinians tried to get Margaret Thatcher extradiated for War Crimes, the families of the victims attempted to take the British to the European Court of Human rights but was told they had filed their claim too late to be heard.

For the record 323 men were killed and 770 rescued, lots of survivers were not rescued for 30 hours going into another night in appalling conditions.
The captain of the Belgrano had told his crew to stand down from their action stations as they were in international waters, the ship was unable to send any SOS messages as it lost all power instantly after being hit by the torpedos, there is an unofficial code of conduct amongst the worlds navies that says you are obliged to rescue stranded seamen - although I wouldn't have thought the Conqueror would have been in a position to do so but i dont know, did we tell the UN or the Red Cross where the ship was located ?, the log of HMS Conqueror was "lost", conviently some would say .

 

[dylanredefined]

The Belgrano had two escorts who were not attacked they would have been best placed to rescue any survivors. Unfortunately they didn't realize the Belgrano had been sunk so it took them a while to respond.
Even the Argies accept the sinking was a legitimate act of war.

 

[Streathamite]

Indeed, which is precisely why one could be forgiven for believing that that their president Cristina Fernandez, should probably study some of her own history before hypocritically referring to Britain as a "crude colonial power"!

tbf, President Cristina fernandez de kirchner (full & proper name) has no choice but to play to the gallery; this is a prideful and oddly insecure nation that has contributed little of global greatness in their 180-year history, and their were completely humiliated in 1982
e2a; to a politician, it's at best a vote raiser and more often a flaming nuisance

 

[agricola]

tbf, President Cristina fernandez de kirchner (full & proper name) has no choice but to play to the gallery; this is a prideful and oddly insecure nation that has contributed little of global greatness in their 180-year history, and their were completely humiliated in 1982
e2a; to a politician, it's at best a vote raiser and more often a flaming nuisance

It is their version of the political dog whistle.

 

[Casually Red]

here's a general reflection; to some extent, the argentinian 'position' on the falklands is mere posturing. All my mates and relatives in Buenos aires scream and rage and wax indignant about the falklands, but when i press them about whether they would enlist to fight the british if another attempt to conquer them came about, or even whether they'd tolerate a sharp rise in taxes to pay for it, the picture changes dramatically. deep down, they know that their fundamental interests are not affected.
It's also deeply hypocritical posturing too; the current day latino-argentinian people are the descendants of brutal colonial settlers who built their country on slavery and genocide of the indigenous people

ah well then , you asked your mates . Thats pretty much sorted the issue for us all . Thanks.

 

[Casually Red]

Ok, five instants!

Indeed, which is precisely why one could be forgiven for believing that that their president Cristina Fernandez, should probably study some of her own history before hypocritically referring to Britain as a "crude colonial power"!

Argentina kicked out the Spanish and the British colonial powers . It is not and never has been a colonial power , any more than Kenya is . Your analysis would appear to be up the left .

 

[trampie]

Even the Argies accept the sinking was a legitimate act of war.

No they dont, why do you think the Argentian people took the Brits to the human rights court, its only some government officials and some men of war saying that.

 

[Spymaster]

1] Was attacking the ship outside the exclusion zone 'cricket' ?

Of course.

... should we have better standards than that ?

Better standards than sinking an enemy vessel during wartime?

2] Did we do anything to help the survivors of the sinking ?, as far as I know we did nothing at all ?, it may not have been feasible for our own ships to rescue them I do not know, did we tell the Argentinians/United

You've answered your own question. HMS Conqueror is a submarine. Surfacing to rescue survivors is quite clearly not feasible. Additionally, the Belgrano was not alone when she was attacked, she was part of a 3 ship group also comprising ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Bouchard. Three torpedoes were fired at the Belgrano, two of which hit her and exploded. The third actually hit the Bouchard, but failed to explode.

The blame for the failure to rescue survivors quickly has been put squarely on the Captains of the two other ships that were supposed to be escorting the Belgrano. They both said that they failed to notice the sinking because it was dark and the weather was bad. It would be pretty fair for the captain of the Conqueror, Chris Wreford-Brown, to assume that having sunk one of three ships that the other two would notice!

.... if we did do nothing is that akin to machine gunning the survivors in their rafts ?

Clearly not.

Some Argentinians tried to get Margaret Thatcher extradiated for War Crimes, the families of the victims attempted to take the British to the European Court of Human rights but was told they had filed their claim too late to be heard.

A ridiculous action that should never have been attempted and would have been doomed to failure anyway. The relatives who brought the case knew this but were attempting to pressurise the Argentine government into bringing a wider action. However, since the Argentine navy had already publicly stated that the engagement was "a legitimate act of war", this wasn't possible.

The captain of the Belgrano had told his crew to stand down from their action stations as they were in international waters ....

Silly billy.