OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Falklands

[DSwain]

RIP to all the brave servicemen (on both sides) who lost their lives

[CT Grognard]

Indeed.

Let us hope they have learned from the mistakes of the past.

[sprior]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17542097

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Indeed.

Let us hope they have learned from the mistakes of the past.

They havn't. Argentina is still pushing hard to "reclaim" their alleged lost islands, and continue to ignore the simple fact that the islanders who...you know, actually LIVE there.....want no part of the Argentinian government and wish to stay citizens of the United Kingdom.

The only thing the current regime is doing differently is they are trying diplomatic and economic pressure to get what they want.

[AW1Steve]

From the retoric flying about down there , one wonders if they are ready to "go for 2 out of 3". [8|]

Of course finding oil and mineral wealth has NOTHING to do with ownership desire. [:(]

Hopefully this war of words will remain simply hot air. [8|]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Of course finding oil and mineral wealth has NOTHING to do with ownership desire. [:(]

Nah. Couldn't be...

I'm sure that it also doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa Argentinian economy, the failure of their social state or their currency's inflationary death spiral. Because we've never EVER seen failing governments use a nationalist cause to distract the populace from woes at home. [8|]

[oldman45]

I can't believe its been 30 years already....

[Terminus]

Weird that we haven't seen any of the resident trolls coming in and taking the side of Argentina yet. They usually frenzy when somebody is dumb enough to chum the waters like this.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Weird that we haven't seen any of the resident trolls coming in and taking the side of Argentina yet. They usually frenzy when somebody is dumb enough to chum the waters like this.

Oh for the days of the UV forum and Ike99 out of control.

Never met a more rabid anglophobe with a bigger chip on his shoulder.

He truly was so much fun to taunt.

And remember guys they don't want the Falklands, they want the Malvinas.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I can't believe its been 30 years already....

Every 5 years or so I dust off Max Hastings' book on the subject and give it a reread.

[tocaff]

Argentina is lining up all of South America to support it's claim.  The talk continues to heat up and there would be no great surprise if it came to armed conflict once again.  This is a question of Argentina's national honor as they see it.  This time around I have to wonder how the UK could respond other than trying to call in their IOUs with the US.

The fact that the populace want nothing to do with Argentina is of no concern to Argentina.  They are superior to just about everyone else.  Just ask them and they try to insist that they are European.  Who said the maps lied?

Mario, Ike99, loved to to play the Japanese and had venom to spare for the US and UK. He had an amazing warped point of view. If I remember properly he was a high school teacher in Buenos Aires. Was it history that he taught?

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Every 5 years or so I dust off Max Hastings' book on the subject and give it a reread.

i rather liked that book, IIRC it was the 1st one i'd read by Hastings.

a coupla' others, memoirs by RN officers:
"Amphibious Assault Falklands" by Michael Clapp & Ewen Southby-Tailyour &
"One Hundred Days" by Sandy Woodward w/ Patrick Robinson.

i've not read anything by British Army guys, nor nothing Argentinian-sourced, neither.

Atlantic magazine has a photo collection, i've never seen the majority of these before:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012 ... ar/100272/

[jmalter]

i'm a bit confused by Argentina ramping up again w/ their Malvinas thing. it's also a bit disappointing to me, that they do so. just t'other day i was reading about a new museum/memorial for their Falklands War dead, being created in a building that was a notorious detention/torture center during the Galtieri dictatorship.

OTOH, there's more to the Brit/Arg history than just the Falk/Malv dispute. British expeditions occupied BA in 1806, and Montevideo in 1807. Then in the 1850s, Britain got on the Argentinian's bad side again, by not helping repress the naval actions of a certain Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was sailing in support of the rebellion of Uruguay from Argentina. IOW, there's more historical bad blood between these two nations than most people realize.

[Terminus]

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

Don't forget who was President at the time or, more importantly, who was SoS - Al "I'm in charge now" Haig. The US Policy was entirely screwed up. Haig tried to channel his inner Kissinger and avoid the war and make nice to the rest of the Americas. Having expended his political capitaol for no gain, Haig had to then find a reason to not openly support an important Ally. Hence the USSR will join in on Argentina's side if the US intervenes.

That by the way completely ignores the Monroe Doctrine which in its purist sense said the US should have instead fought along side the Argentines. In a 20th Century sense, Monroe's edict basically meat the only people allowed to bully the South Americans is the USA.

Conversely, if the US had taken a pro-UK stance from the get go, the Argentines may have folded. After all the USN could have put two or three CVBG with AWACS and F-14s off Port Stanley along with a half dozen attack boats. They then could have put a full Marine Division ashore in quick order with CAS. If the US had pushed harder for Thatcher, a lot of lives may have been saved. The price would have been loss of stature with the South Americans which would not have been that much because they all hate the Argentines anyway

[YankeeAirRat]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's amusing to me that the US was afraid the Soviets might enter the conflict on the side of Argentina. Why in seventeen steaming Hells would they do that?

Conversely, if the US had taken a pro-UK stance from the get go, the Argentines may have folded. After all the USN could have put two or three CVBG with AWACS and F-14s off Port Stanley along with a half dozen attack boats. They then could have put a full Marine Division ashore in quick order with CAS. If the US had pushed harder for Thatcher, a lot of lives may have been saved. The price would have been loss of stature with the South Americans which would not have been that much because they all hate the Argentines anyway

Which is why some of the smarter folks in the DoS desk for South America pushed for a neutural stance and just outside observance. After the failures of the previous three decades and the supposed growing influence of Soviets and Cuban style politics into Central/South America lead some of the folks in DoS to advise Haig to advise the President to speak loudly out against both sides and privately give assurances to the rest of the nations in S. America that if the Brits tried to come ashore on the mainland they would have been met with force. All in attempts to peddle soft power and start to swing some of the previous juntas and other tin pots back into America's realm of influcence. There are also very common rumors all amongst the US Navy and US Navy spy community about a CVBG just having left the Windward Islands early from a port visit and then hitting a "storm front" while transiting to Lebanon AOR forcing this carrier to dive south near the war zone with a full complement of SigInt birds (EA-3B Skywarriors and EA-6B Prowlers) to collect intel on the war zone. Ditto for rumors of early release of AIM-9L Sidewinders to the RAF about 18 months prior to the expected buy in exchange for some additional bennies.

[jmalter]

Adm. Woodward details the presence of Soviet 'sigint' trawlers at Ascension, where his flotilla was assembling for the voyage south. but those trawlers were only present for Sov 'sniffing' purposes, they were most certainly not aiding the Argentine effort. Let's remember that Galtieri's junta was virulently anti-Communist & lined up completely w/ contemporary US policy. IMO, both the US & USSR were unprepared for the Falklands flare-up, which had no place in either country's ColdWar stance, it was a local prob between US allies, the USSR had no horse in the race. the Argentinian military was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US, w/ French, German & UK additions.

the idea that USSR would've actively intervened in the Falklands conflict is laughable, as is the idea that the US would've (or could've) shown up in 'quick order' to prevent the initial Argentine descent on the Falklands & South Georgia. (2 or 3 CVBG + full USMC assault div w/ CAS, i say NFW).

some US policy (Haig's abortive diplomatic efforts notwithstanding) was essential to British efforts - SecDef Caspar Weinburger was golden, allowing British access to the airbase at Ascension, & providing supplies of the AIM-9L Sidewinder missile (19 kills from 20 launches).

so let's posit that the 'special relationship' trumped the Monroe Doctrine in this conflict. US diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict followed UN efforts, both were rejected by Thatcher's UK government. US military efforts were limited to base-access & ordnance supply to the the Brits, but did not extend to active intervention against the Argentine side.

[Gunner98]

Was down there a couple of years back. I think the Brits are a bit better prepared for things now but sustaining another campaign down there would be the trick. There is a new base which is designed to form the front end of an air-bridge and I am sure that there would be a very powerful land and air force there within 72 hours, but the RN has undergone some big cuts lately.

B

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Adm. Woodward details the presence of Soviet 'sigint' trawlers at Ascension, where his flotilla was assembling for the voyage south. but those trawlers were only present for Sov 'sniffing' purposes, they were most certainly not aiding the Argentine effort. Let's remember that Galtieri's junta was virulently anti-Communist & lined up completely w/ contemporary US policy. IMO, both the US & USSR were unprepared for the Falklands flare-up, which had no place in either country's ColdWar stance, it was a local prob between US allies, the USSR had no horse in the race. the Argentinian military was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US, w/ French, German & UK additions.

the idea that USSR would've actively intervened in the Falklands conflict is laughable, as is the idea that the US would've (or could've) shown up in 'quick order' to prevent the initial Argentine descent on the Falklands & South Georgia. (2 or 3 CVBG + full USMC assault div w/ CAS, i say NFW).

some US policy (Haig's abortive diplomatic efforts notwithstanding) was essential to British efforts - SecDef Caspar Weinburger was golden, allowing British access to the airbase at Ascension, & providing supplies of the AIM-9L Sidewinder missile (19 kills from 20 launches).

so let's posit that the 'special relationship' trumped the Monroe Doctrine in this conflict. US diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict followed UN efforts, both were rejected by Thatcher's UK government. US military efforts were limited to base-access & ordnance supply to the the Brits, but did not extend to active intervention against the Argentine side.

I was not suggesting that my proposed alternative was possible. The Argentines were not dumb. They tried to play the Hemispheric Alliance card. The US with Nicaragua and communist uprisings in Costa Rica, Guatamela, and El Salvador was in a bad place. While no one outright supported them (besides Castro), they did have some sympathies within the Latin American community who all had axes to grind with European Colonialism. So I don't think Reagan really had a choice other than appearing neutral while backing the UK covertly. Any other stance would have undermined the pro-democracy (read anti-communist) efforts in Central America

I was only pointing out that direct US intervention may have led to fewer casualties for both sides.

BTW, from what I read, Haig was truly dispondant over his failed efforts. He really had a desire to leave his mark on history ala Kissinger/Carter

[jmalter]

hi Gunner98,

going from my fallible memory here, but from what i recall, the RN in '82 was a coupla' months shy of selling HMS Hermes to India, & standing down their 2 assault ships (Fearless & Intrepid), as well as reducing some land-combat formations, as a result of drastic budget-cuts & MoD desire to retain what forces they needed for NATO-oriented commitments.

which is to say, that if Argentina had delayed its descent on Las Malvinas by 6 or 8 weeks, Britain would've lacked the assets needed to re-take the Falklands, though they'd still have been able to use their SSNs to scourge the Argentinian Navy. HMS Conquerer sank the Belgrano, but refrained from attacking her escorts.

i'd imagine that some similar calculus exists to this day - Argentina could descend on the Falklands again, at the price of losing its navy.