The Falklands Conflict

[Dixie]

The problem is that the Falklands War is a fresh memory, with so many veterans from both sides still with us there will be strong feelings from both sides for quite some time.  I don't want to cause any fresh arguements, but it seems (I may be wrong) that the strongest feelings from Argentina come from those who grew up after the war, and a lot of the Argentine veterans do not have the same feelings.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: sprior

Kick away! What did you read and where?

It was a few months ago and it is in Military History magazine, November 2006 page 60. It's called "British Prison Ships: A Season In Hell." An article about how Britain treated their captives during the Revolutionary War. None of it good. No need to go into detail as I have good friends on here from Britain. That's why I brought up the part about our country enslaving the Africans. Heck, we did horrendous things to the Native Americans too. What race is free from mistakes? When I play Europa Universalis-3 it reminds me of how man really is. [;)]

[sprior]

I asked more from interest than rancour and wondered how - or if - it differed from the treatment meted out to prisoners of war duing the Naploeonic Wars or the US Civil war

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: sprior

I asked more from interest than rancour and wondered how - or if - it differed from the treatment meted out to prisoners of war duing the Naploeonic Wars or the US Civil war

I edited my post above with the exact place this article is at. I'm no history buff so I am bowing out, that's one reason why I said that "I may kick myself." I don't know much on this subject and I am at your mercy. I read what I can but I have not studied history like so many of you here. It amazes me how much you posters know about the intricasies of war issues. I learn a lot from reading these posts. Thanks to all of you! [&o]

[LarryP]

There's also some good Interactive stuff in The Armchair General, May 2007 page 40 called "Goose Green, 1982." It also states that this Interactive series starts in the January 2007 issue. [:)] They are also online at www.armchairgeneral.com .

[sprior]

Here's a modern take from an Argentine historian:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6545899.stm

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Another little bit of info that may not be widely known, but the US refused to get involved on any military scale. They were very active in the diplomacy, but not so on the military front. I believe a request was made for some. We didn't have enough aircraft carriers or aircraft, and I think seaborne aviation help was requested.

According to Thatcher's memoirs, the idea of the US loaning an aircraft carrier from which to fly British aircraft was suggested but turned down. And the US provided the RAF with the latest Sidewinder missiles, thus giving us an edge in air to air combat.

The US administration really did not want the war at all, as they were buddy-buddy with Argentina at the time, but when the war actually started and the US was resigned to the fact it was going to happen, they did help a little in their way. Their heart was in the right place. [:D]

Re. the British ships being sunk, there were rumours at the time that this was due to aluminium construction of the ships, which may well have been true for some of them, but HMS Sheffield was the most famous loss and HMS Sheffield was actually made out of steel. So it wasn't that...

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I believe the US was very involved. If not the British would never have recovered the MALVINAS.

[:D]
[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Typical Yanks! Bwahahaha!

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

The several thousand islanders may want it this way but 40 million Argentines do not and the Argentine government supports them.[:'(]

So what? I don't see how the opinion of those in a different countyr matter a jot.

[sprior]

According to DK Brown (who should know a thing or two) the Sheffield's fire was caused by burning fuel from an Exocet in a ready use fuel tank which was realtively high up in the ship's structure.

Smoke was big proble because of the covered access on 2 deck (the Burma Way) and not all the bulkfead openings were smoke tight. The Type 21's were worse in this respect because none were smoke tight and the whole ship had a single ventilation system.

[JudgeDredd]

I was just going to post that the Sheffield was hit by an exocet...quite a few of the others were destroyed by unexploded bombs!

That's why it was touted that it was because of the aluminium which they were made of which was the cause of the fires on them.

[EUBanana]

I know on one of the ships (HMS Antelope) it was hit with bombs that did not explode, they were trying to defuse the bombs later when they went off, and the ship subsequently sunk.  I'm not sure that any of the ships were sunk by bombs that did not, even after the battle, explode. 

Though I could be wrong.

[JudgeDredd]

You are correct.

[DuckofTindalos]

I could misremember this, but did the warhead of the Exocet that hit Sheffield even explode? The fuel burned, obviously, and the aluminum helped do the rest.

[BrucePowers]

I was told of an interview of the captain of the newly recommissioned USS Missouri. A reporter asked him what he would do if an exocet hit his ship. His reply was that he would send a couple of crewmen up on deck to sweep away the debris.[:D]

I heard this story second hand. I do not know if it is true.

[Ike99]

The problem is that the Falklands War is a fresh memory, with so many veterans from both sides still with us there will be strong feelings from both sides for quite some time.

Well you also have this little thing about the Malvinas are 13,000 kilometers from Britian too but still self proclaimed ¨theirs¨ by 2,000 sheep herders.

I wonder what British attitudes will be if we go up to the Sheffield Islands, drop a couple thousand Gouchos with some cows on one and claim it, then we offer a trade? [:D]

The point is easy to see...it's a geographic absurdidty. Before the war I'm guessing 90% of the British populace didn`t know where the Malvinas were much less ¨theirs¨ Maybe they still don´t. I did see a documentary and at first news of the war most of them thought the Malvinas were an island off Scottland! [&:]

During the war there was a song on the radio that summed it up by Raul Porchetto about a British soldier saying...

¨Estoy en este lugar, tan lejos de casa, que ni el nombre recuerdo...¨-I´m in this place very far from my home and can´t even remember the places name.

But JudgeDredd says this thread is about the conflict itself not the islands soverignty so... It's been said here how the Junta timed the event because the domestic population wanted democracy and it was a ¨wag the dog¨ thing. I agree with that.

But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.[;)]

edit-Hi Larry, I've never heard anyone saying the British soldiers mistreated them as a prisoner. I've never heard a British person saying they were mistreated by Argentine soldier.

About the islanders, 3 were killed during the war by British friendly fire accidents. So it was very clean except for the Belgrano sinking. Who knows, maybe one day even they too will recognize the Malvinas as a ¨wrong¨ from their colonial past and return them. If they do as a bonus they should give Northern Ireland back to the Irish too. [;)]

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
But my British mates have not mentioned Mrs.Thatchers own little wag the dog war crime of sinking the Belgrano outside of the publicly stated and agreed upon exclusion zones to get a quick victory, bring up the low war support at home and help her own political future.[;)]

First of all, I agree with pretty much everything you've written about the sovereingty of the islands. I also think the war was a waste of time, money and lives from both governments.

However, this really isn't the place for it, and if you find one, expect a circular arguement which drones on for days resolving nothing. As a conflict, I find it interesting and can seperate that from my political feelings.

Now, funny you should mention the Belgrano, I meant to in my first post. The exclusion zone seemed a very silly idea IMHO, and the fuss over sinking an enemy vessel while at war.....well it didn't seem to deter Argentine pilots from bombing a merchant ship.

Calling the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime is bizarre. It wasn't a pleasure cruiser, and happening to be outside the British-advertised field of play hardly makes it a war crime.

As for Thatcher, I firmly believed she profited from the war, particularly the manner of victory, and she was able to deflect responsibility for allowing the invasion onto Lord Carrington. Quite amazing, the Tories were in the process of dismantling Britain's ability to construct a task force, and because they didn't quite finish the job they're lauded as heroes and swept back into power on a wave of jingoism. Record unemployment, recession and nationwide political divisions overturned in 10 weeks.

I've never heard a British person saying they were mistreated by Argentine soldier.

Didn't each side fly prisoners to Chile while the war was going on? IIRC, all the original troops captured during the Argentine invasion were home before the fleet sailed.

[Ike99]

Didn't each side fly prisoners to Chile while the war was going on?

My neighbour said he was returned to Montevideo, the closest neutral port after the war was over.

Sending the Argentine prisoners of war to Chile...[:D]

I don´t think that would have been a good idea at the time. [:D]

[Ike99]

Calling the sinking of the Belgrano a war crime is bizarre. It wasn't a pleasure cruiser, and happening to be outside the British-advertised field of play hardly makes it a war crime.

Well it seems bizarre because your flying the union jack for your avatar.[:D]

just joking [;)]

Well there have been people from both sides ever sence that ship was sunk saying,

1.Belgrano was returning to port with engine problems and sailing back to Argentina.

2.She was moving north as part of a move with 25th of May to destroy the British carriers at dawn.

3.Everything in between these two.

But regardless of what Belgrano was doing she was outside the exclusion zone when sunk. Now some may say this is war and that's absurd. I remind them even in war there are rules between ¨civilized¨ nations. No use of gas, respecting hospitals ships, the red cross etc. etc. etc.

By sinking the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone one of the rules was broken and that constitutes a war crime. It would have been very simple for the British to announce a larger exclusion zone prior to the fighting (Argentina declared a wider exclusion zone prior to the fighting than the British) and did realize their mistake but too late.

This is why there was a last second attempt by the British commander to have the British exclusion zone made larger prior to sinking Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. He did not want to be comitting a crime. If he felt he was doing nothing wrong he would have simply sunk her no questions asked. But it was a violation and that's why he hesitated.

In the end Mrs.Thatcher made the call herself for Belgrano to be sunk.

To flip it around...imagine Port Stanley being publicly declared ¨open¨ when the British soldiers surrendered and the Argentine general saying ¨well...these British soldiers may change their mind, they can still be a threat, open city...ehh, who cares. Let shell them anyways.¨

It looks quite nasty yes?[;)]

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Well it seems bizarre because your flying the union jack for your avatar.[:D]

just joking [;)]

I'm usually the most critical of my country's history.

But regardless of what Belgrano was doing she was outside the exclusion zone when sunk.

That's true, but the leap to:

By sinking the Belgrano outside of the exclusion zone one of the rules was broken and that constitutes a war crime.

Is the bizarre. General Belgrano was an enemy capital ship. The exclusion zone wasn't a rule of war, wasn't a recognised treaty provision, it was a voluntary area marked by Britain as one where Argentine personnel would be attacked. The right or wrong of fighting outside may be debateable, but if anything it's a ruse de guerre, not a crime. For a crime to occur there has to be a law broken.

This is why there was a last second attempt by the British commander to have the British exclusion zone made larger prior to sinking Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. He did not want to be comitting a crime. If he felt he was doing nothing wrong he would have simply sunk her no questions asked. But it was a violation and that's why he hesitated.

Nothing to do with crime, everything to do with PR.

To flip it around...imagine Port Stanley being publicly declared ¨open¨ when the British soldiers surrendered and the Argentine general saying ¨well...these British soldiers may change their mind, they can still be a threat, open city...ehh, who cares. Let shell them anyways.

The Belgrano wasn't surrendering. Perhaps your analagy would work if the Argentine commander gave the garrison 10 hours to surrender, then started shelling after 9. Would that be considered a war crime? I don't think so. People would bitch about it, but that's a long way from criminal.

When we use terms such as "war crime" or "genocide" flippantly, then we cheapen the victims of them.

It looks quite nasty yes?[;)]

War is nasty, that's why it shouldn't be entered into lightly.