Sinking the Belgrano: Militarily Correct Decision

[Hollis]

But in any case even if, for some bizarre reason, you have no interest in military history, trying to clear up what actually happened is of importance to the political history of the war.. as is understanding the risks undertaken in opting for a military campaign..

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Jesus christ.. where does that leave us with the first world war..

Good point. It means that before considering anything that happened during the war it is important to understand why it happened, something which was sorely neglected in my history lessons at school. Asking certain awkward questions isn't good for forming good patriotic subjects.

Anyway, I shall leave this thread and derail it no more.

 

[untethered]

it is important to understand why it happened

It happened because a foreign country invaded British sovereign territory.

What would you suggest - rewarding their aggression?

 

[likesfish]

there was'nt any temp ceasefire
belgrano and its two escort ships along with an aircraft carrier were attempting a pincer movement but the wind was wrong so the heavily laden skyhawks could'nt get take off

 

[Giles]

I also don't see that the supposed last-minute peace plan would have had much chance of succeeding anyway.

Since Britain had (quite rightly) insisted on a return to the status quo ante, then Galtieri would not have been able to "save face" at all. He would have had to either give up, withdraw his forces and agree not to try again, or the UK would not have agreed to this "peace proposal" at all.

By the time the Belgrano was sunk, it was too late for peace.

Both sides could not afford to compromise.

If the UK accepted any "peace plan" that involved negotiations on sovereignty, or leaseback, or anything similar, then aggression would have been rewarded, which we wouldn't accept.

If Galtieri gave in totally, he would probably have lost support and power in Argentina, so he could not do that either.

There was also the practical consideration that the UK were ready to go for it, and it would have been difficult to keep the ships and troops hanging around while ultimately pointless "negotiations" happened. They had already had three weeks or so while the British ships sailed south.

Giles..

 

[dash_two]

It might have all been avoided if the 99-year leaseback option had been given proper consideration, instead of being shouted down by blimps both Conservative and Labour (Peter Shore was prominent among the latter iirc).

 

[Giles]

It might have all been avoided if the 99-year leaseback option had been given proper consideration, instead of being shouted down by blimps both Conservative and Labour (Peter Shore was prominent among the latter iirc).

But that would have been unacceptable because:

a) it isn't what the islanders want,

and

b) it would have been seen as rewarding aggression

If someone steamed into your house and took it over because they wanted it, would you be happy to say "oh well, if you get out now, you can have the house in ten years"?

Giles..

 

[dash_two]

No, the leaseback issue was debated well before the Falklands War happened.

 

[Gavin Bl]

I also don't see that the supposed last-minute peace plan would have had much chance of succeeding anyway.

I also read that the British became skeptical of the peace plans, as they felt the Argentinians would sign up to them, drag their heels, and wait for the worst of the winter to set in - when it would have been very much harder to maintain a fleet at sea, or organise an attack. It was felt we could only marshall the forces to do this once, so let's just do it, rather than get hoodwinked by the junta.

 

[Giles]

I also read that the British became skeptical of the peace plans, as they felt the Argentinians would sign up to them, drag their heels, and wait for the worst of the winter to set in - when it would have been very much harder to maintain a fleet at sea, or organise an attack. It was felt we could only marshall the forces to do this once, so let's just do it, rather than get hoodwinked by the junta.

This was my point a few posts back.

Hard as it is for the "anti-war" people to sympathise with, there is frequently this consideration that you have gone too far to back down - due to weather considerations - either extreme cold or extreme heat, or due to the sheer cost and morale issues involved in keeping thousands of troops on standby in difficult and uncomfortable conditions.

This problem can often be misrepresented as "oh, they are determined to have a war" - and sometimes this is sadly true, but often there is a practical problem: if you allow the opponent, who is often clearly in the wrong, and who knows what they really must do to defuse the conflict, to wriggle and prevaricate while appearing to be "in favour of peace talks" then effectively you let them win.

Giles..

 

[chainsaw cat]

I raised this question with a RN Falklands veteran on Wednesday night.

'Fucking big ship, fucking big guns. Sink the fucker. Only option. Tough shit.'


This is a word for word quote from a naval officer who was there.

Screw the politics.

 

[Gavin Bl]

This was my point a few posts back.

Sorry missed that - interesting thread.

Another interesting aside on the falklands has been the reappraisal of the death of 'H' Jones. There seems to be, even within the Parachute regiment, a view that despite the clear personal bravery involved, it was extremely poor battlefield command skills - not only fairly futile frontal attacks, when heavy weapons were being brought up, but also what was a colonel doing leading small scale skirmishes - how can he have a wider view? Can't remember the programme it was on, twas a few years back now.

The falklands was like an 'old-fashioned' war, get two sides in a big field, knock hell out of eachother, go home when one lots had enough.