Sinking the Belgrano: Militarily Correct Decision
- Thread starter Hollis
- Start date
JHE
.
I didn't see the programme. Did it deal with the testimony of the captain of the Belgrano?
His story is, IMO, the strongest evidence against those who claim that the Belgrano was harmless or that it had given up and was going home. According to the captain, Héctor Bonzo, the Belgrano was under orders to engage the British, was manoeuvring and the crew was keen to 'pull the trigger'. It would have attacked the British ships, probably the following day, if it had not been attacked first.
His story is, IMO, the strongest evidence against those who claim that the Belgrano was harmless or that it had given up and was going home. According to the captain, Héctor Bonzo, the Belgrano was under orders to engage the British, was manoeuvring and the crew was keen to 'pull the trigger'. It would have attacked the British ships, probably the following day, if it had not been attacked first.
Didn't see the show either, but I don't really see the problem with sinking the Belgrano from a military point of view. If you're at war, in a warship, I think you need to expect to be shot at. Saying that, the whole war was a pointless exercise in political campaigning for both sides and never should have happened.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
when fighting it is considered opportune to use any weapon at your disposal!
JHE said:
Hmmm... Apparently not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Ge...side_the_200_mile_.28320_km.29_exclusion_zoneWikipedia said:
Jorum
Well-Known Member
From a strategic point of view it was an obvious decision, and probably "justified " in the context.
Even though the Belgrano was leaving the "area of operations" it would have been back to continue fighting at some point.
I think the real issue was not the UK sinking it, but the gloating attitude of some of the British media (such as the notorious Sun headline).
Celebrating any kind of "success" has to be tempered by the realisation that you have killed hundreds of men who were just doing their duty the same as the British sailors.
Even though the Belgrano was leaving the "area of operations" it would have been back to continue fighting at some point.
I think the real issue was not the UK sinking it, but the gloating attitude of some of the British media (such as the notorious Sun headline).
Celebrating any kind of "success" has to be tempered by the realisation that you have killed hundreds of men who were just doing their duty the same as the British sailors.
Hollis
bloody furious
Fruitloop said:
I didn't think so really.. "The Snow's" have a rather enthusiastic style of commentary - but not over the top. It was nice to avoid too many syrupy voice overs or background music bollocks.
I think it focussed on the military strengths and weaknesses on both sides, and highlighted just how difficult, and to extent, fortuitous the British victory was..
The end shot was of the Argentinian graves on the island.
untethered
For industry & decency
jæd said:Even if you've said you won't attack the enemy if they are in a certain place...?
The idea behind the exclusion zone was that anything within it was liable to attack. I don't think there was an implicit promise that anything outside it was necessarily safe.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Who gives a shit?
'Two bald men arguing over a comb.' is one way of looking at it.
I would go further. The Argentinians, or at least those of my political persuasion, won the Falklands War as the military defeat fatally discredited the military junta and led very swiftly to its downfall. The British, on the other hand, or at least those of my political persuasion, lost the Falklands War as the odious Thatcher government won re-election the following year despite the mass unemployment and widespread misery they had caused, largely on the back of this military victory.
Why would anybody countenance killing even one person over such an idiotic affair?
'Two bald men arguing over a comb.' is one way of looking at it.
I would go further. The Argentinians, or at least those of my political persuasion, won the Falklands War as the military defeat fatally discredited the military junta and led very swiftly to its downfall. The British, on the other hand, or at least those of my political persuasion, lost the Falklands War as the odious Thatcher government won re-election the following year despite the mass unemployment and widespread misery they had caused, largely on the back of this military victory.
Why would anybody countenance killing even one person over such an idiotic affair?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I didn't realize the Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, and survived Pearl Harbour.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
littlebabyjesus said:
Gooooood post.
Herre's an old 1983 joke:
Mrs Thatcher is walking down the street.
She sees a beggar, missing a leg, sat disconsolate against a wall. He has a sign: 'Falklands veteran. Crippled in the service of my country. Please help.'
Moved, and a little humbled, Mrs T takes a £20 note from her famous hand bag, and , half kneeling, offers it to the beggar.
"here you are, my brave man, and God go with you" she says.
He looks up at her with a half smile,
"Muchos gracias, Senora"
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
would it be "militarily correct" to slaughter 'enemy' troops in the middle of manifest retreat from battlefield? If the sailors on the Belgrano were clearly leaving the zone of combat, then they arguably become 'non-combatants' and therefore to launch an attack on them can be seen as a war crime under the terms of the Geneva Convention.
JHE
.
articul8 said:
If the Belgrano had been going home with the intention of sitting out the rest of the combat (a rather odd thing for it to do) and this had been known, attacking it would have been a wicked thing to do. That was not the situation at all. Far from it!
Read what Héctor Bonzo has to say about it all.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
But the Thatcher government new that the Argentinian Junta had withdrawn the Belgrano as part of a temporary cessation of hostilities to give them time to consider the terms of a Peruvian peace proposal for a negotiated diplomatic solution. If the Junta had been seriously 'engaged' at the time you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't. (and remember Bravo wants to talk up the potential strength of the Argentinian navy which - like the whole Malvinas operation - was looking for a diplomatic way out since they knew there was no way they could defeat a surprisingly determined stonger power).
If it was a threat, the Royal Navy would have chosen to sink the Belgrano shortly after it had been identified 48 hours earlier. The real motive for the sinking was Thatcher's desire for military 'win' for political reasons. That makes the Belgrano sinking a politically (rather than militarily) motivated crime.
If it was a threat, the Royal Navy would have chosen to sink the Belgrano shortly after it had been identified 48 hours earlier. The real motive for the sinking was Thatcher's desire for military 'win' for political reasons. That makes the Belgrano sinking a politically (rather than militarily) motivated crime.
JHE
.
By "Bravo" do you mean Bonzo, the captain of the Belgrano?
I don't think Bonzo has any reason to lie about what his orders were or what his and his men's intentions were.
I also disagree with you about the way British forces seemed to the Argentinian govt. Galtieri did not think Britain the stronger power.
As it turned out, Britain won, but it was a close-run thing.
Also, I see no reason at all to think that a diplomatic solution (i.e. without war) was a political possibility. What would the solution have been and what evidence is there that it would have been acceptable to Gen Galtieri?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Sorry, Bonzo (slip of the mind). His motive is to retrospectively talk up his role as captain of a potentially powerful and threatening vessel (in tactical retreat), rather than one which had already retreated tail-between-legs and was taken off guard.
Read the text of the Peruvian plan for an agreed settlement here:http://www.falklands.info/history/82doc010.html [edit- I'm not talking about a pre-war diplomatic solution, but a mid-conflict resolution for cessation of hostilities and agreed process for resolution]
By this stage, Galtieri might well have considered a face-saving settlement rather than risk continuing a confrontation which could (and did) end in substantial defeat. All the indications are that the Junta did not expect Britain to take them on so strongly.
Read the text of the Peruvian plan for an agreed settlement here:http://www.falklands.info/history/82doc010.html [edit- I'm not talking about a pre-war diplomatic solution, but a mid-conflict resolution for cessation of hostilities and agreed process for resolution]
By this stage, Galtieri might well have considered a face-saving settlement rather than risk continuing a confrontation which could (and did) end in substantial defeat. All the indications are that the Junta did not expect Britain to take them on so strongly.
JHE
.
articul8 said:
I agree with you on that bit. Not long ago on the radio (and not for the first time) there was an interview with a top Yank official about his conversations with Galtieri at the time. (Sorry - I've forgotten the Yanks name for the mo' - but he's v famous.) Basically, Galtieri thought that Britain would let him get away with the invasion. When the Yank assured him that Britain would fight and win, Galtieri explained his (strange) view that after the two superpowers other states with sizable armed forces were more or less equal. His argument then for thinking his country would win was "We are as brave as they are!"
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Yes, Galtieri was a military man with insufficient understanding of the political tensions at the heart of the Thatcher government's foreign policy. In his dealings with Lord Carrington and the FO, it is easy to understand how they got the impression that British concessions would be immediately forthcoming in the event of a show of muscle. What he didn't count on was that No 10 had a political agenda which wasn't shared by the Tory 'wets' in the FO and therefore once diplomatic channels broke down, they faced a political will to use military force out of all proportion to what they had been led to expect/
Trouble is, by the time Galtieri appreciated this, and was considering the possibility of a face-saving deal, the whole issue was seen by Thatcher as political manna from heaven (given the state of the Brit economy etc.) and she wanted to torpedo the chances of anything other than outright military victory - so she sunk the Belgrano at a time when it was being withdrawn and a political resolution considered by the Junta,
Trouble is, by the time Galtieri appreciated this, and was considering the possibility of a face-saving deal, the whole issue was seen by Thatcher as political manna from heaven (given the state of the Brit economy etc.) and she wanted to torpedo the chances of anything other than outright military victory - so she sunk the Belgrano at a time when it was being withdrawn and a political resolution considered by the Junta,
untethered
For industry & decency
articul8 said:
Soldiers that don't want to be attacked need to surrender, not retreat.
articul8 said:
They don't "arguably" become non-combatants. Non-combatants are civilians and incapacitated soldiers, not just those that are temporarily drawing back from the fray.
The Belgrano was a military ship full of thousands of uniformed soldiers armed to the teeth and engaged in a war. It was not a pleasure cruise for well-meaning, left-leaning social workers.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
on last point - of course - but the key point is that the decision was not being taken on military grounds (otherwise it would have been sunk soon after it was spotted - when it was much nearer). The decision was taken on political grounds, because Thatcher was worried Galtieri might have accepted the terms of the Peruvian peace proposals, which would have put her under pressure to accept something that fell short of outright victory.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Yes. Without a doubt. The rules of war are not about stiff upper lips and single combat at dawn. Your logic seems sensible upon first glance but it's completely wrong.articul8 said:
Similar threads
