Falklands War, 1982, Thread

[b787]

"The 200 mile TEZ was a political invention indeed, NEITHER asked for by the RN or given any real importance by either side's armed forces. The Argentine Leadership at the time have said then and since they did not place any significance on the TEZ, neither did Adm Woodward and his staff. As far as both sides were concerned, the entire South Atlantic was a war zone and any forces belonging to the other side were fair game. This was acknowledged several days earlier by the Argentine Government. The TEZ was dreamt up by politicians without regard to any Military advice, and was a source of irritation to both sides. At no time was it ever stated that Argentine forces outside the zone would be safe from attack, or given fair warning prior to an attack. The Belgrano's Captain, Hector Bonzo, stated he knew his ship was at risk from attack, and also acknowledged his ship was in a holding pattern at the time it was sunk, NOT heading back to port. His ship, by his own admission, was a legitimate target, and you dishonour the members of his crew lost in the sinking by suggesting otherwise. They were not innocent victims murdered without warning, they were brave warriors who fell in battle, and should be remembered as such."

Correction of my earlier post. One word can make a lot of difference.

you are saying things without logic, you are saying your politicians were liars, the 200 mile TEZ was no true, it was not like that, in wars there are basic rules

A correct legal analysis of the question arises because it considers that article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use of force except in self-defense.

The United Kingdom had recognized the legal validity of this prohibition not only at the time of the elaboration of resolution 502 of the organism, process in which it had a leading role, but expressly expressing, at the time of sending its task force, that it acted in observance and On the basis of the aforementioned rule.


In these terms, the justification for the collapse of the ARA General Belgrano Cruiser can only show that it was an imminent threat to British forces.

In concrete terms, not through the generic rhetoric of the danger used in his letter by Admiral Molina Pico - and used by Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister) in his defense -, but to the fact that the Argentine cruiser was at a greater distance 400 miles from the bulk of the British forces and more than 250 miles from its nearest units, while the range of its cannons did not exceed 40 kilometers. And that he was sailing at a speed of 11 knots to the island of the States; That is to say that it was not heading either to the exclusion zone or to the British units

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The British, not only lied about the exclusion zone but also about the justification, since the Belgrano was not a threat to any British ship when it was sunk, so you whole argument show british double standards

The order to sink the Cruiser A.R.A. "Gral. Belgrano ", emanated directly from the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, involved the use of methods and means that caused superfluous ills and unnecessary suffering to its crew; No warning was given prior to the launch of the torpedoes, or ultimatum, the vessel was not considered to be a military danger, the HMS Submarine "Conqueror" left the area without attempting to rescue the shipwrecked, nor warn the Argentine ships that they could Assist them, or humanitarian agencies such as the International Red Cross.
He just walked away from the area at full throttle.
Although it was a military ship, the Cruise A.R.A. "Gral.Belgrano", because of its location, purpose, firepower, inferiority to the nuclear submarine that pursued it for more than thirty hours, can not be considered at the moment of its sinking as a precise military objective. Much less could be envisaged the limitation of their effects, which were terrible in human losses, and which could still have been greater, were it not for the skill of their crew.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[b787]

If The Argentines Though the US would burn the UK for them, they were misguided!
The First actions after the news was to pass UNSC resolution 503 followed by shuttle diplomacy. The US could not side with The Argentine Actions and occupation by US treaty with the UK, Nor could it let the UK shred the Argentines Mediation was the best first action. and if you look at what happened The US Sec State was flying to both capitals.
The UK demand was clear they would negotiate but only if the Argentines withdrew their military forces.
The Argentines Scoffed at UK demands. They it seems did not believe the UK would fight until the fight started.
Had the Argentines withdrawn there military forces and left the Falklanders with maybe just a few police. Mediation could have nailed down a deal amiable to both sides.
British Forces were prepared for such even as they deployed.
faced with those options The Reagan Administration gave tacit support to the UK in hopes that the changing dynamics would push the Argentines to the Table.

The US needed the UK and Thatcher as history proves to round out the Cold war, And both the UK and Argentina were treaty allies with the US and giving open support to either side would have been a disaster.

your whole statement shows you do not understand what was the OAS, if you read the newspaper fragment of the Vulcan they mention the OAS and Article 7 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Protection (ITRA) in it Brazil did what the USA did not do, Brazil kept the Vulcan for a while due to a request from Argentina citing article 7 of ITRA, Brazil even kept the Shrike.

The USA by providing military aid, was not even Neutral, but basically siding militarily with England and in Breach with Article 7th.

If you read this newspaper fragment in Portuguese, you understand Brazil fulfilled its OAS obligations but the USA did not

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This will be paid by the USA, since later, leftistsGovernments in South America, will side with Brazil in MERCOSUR, Argentina and Brazil will start a new era of trust, in fact after 1982 Argentina considers Brazil an ally and not a threat.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

B787, you are forgetting the US UK special relationship, Where in military technologies, bases and intelligence have been shared since the second world war.
Furthermore you are giving Brazil to much credit, historical precedent. In the second world war American B29's making strikes on the Japanese in China and Japan were forced to divert to Russia. Russia was not yet in the war against Japan so they to impounded B29's and housed there crews under identical conditions. IE Brazil said Because we are not siding with you we will just sit on your plane and pilots until the end of hostilities or decide to send them home, And in fact the Jet and crew were sent home early as they were released on June 11th the conflict ended June 14th. Although the British were miffed about the 1 remaining Shrike missile the Jet had launched with 4, fired 2 jettisoned one, That Shrike was likely malfunctioning as it could not be dropped.
And similar incidents throughout the History of Naval warfare where in uncommitted nations Impounded for a period combatant ships housed there crews impounded war arms and returned them on there way asking that they not return to the conflict.
Basically Brazil was playing Neutral.

 

[b787]

B787, you are forgetting the US UK special relationship, Where in military technologies, bases and intelligence have been shared since the second world war.
Furthermore you are giving Brazil to much credit, historical precedent. In the second world war American B29's making strikes on the Japanese in China and Japan were forced to divert to Russia. Russia was not yet in the war against Japan so they to impounded B29's and housed there crews under identical conditions. IE Brazil said Because we are not siding.

Terran

The USA is and was a independent nation, as a nation the USA is free to do what they please in terms of their foreign policies.
My point was the USA signed a treaty, that treaty was based upon an inter American states agreement.
The USA did not fill its part, at least not from the point of view of most Latin American nations.
In the context of the Malvinas/Falklands war, Argentina considered it a treason, and so many other South American nations.

I am not giving too much credit, Brazil gained a lot from the war, its reputation grew to a defender and leader in South America, Argentina ceased any hostile policy towards its new ally, (remember there was a nuclear race between both nations in the 1970s)

The War also influenced Latin American leaders to say the OAS was a waste of time and Latin America needed an organization like UNASUR.

You believe it or not the USA lost a lot by siding with England, since the Falkland/Malvinas issue has never being resolved not at least from a legal UN point of view.

Any way the USSR declared war at Japan, so the USSR was not exactly neutral

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Terran

The USA is and was a independent nation, as a nation the USA is free to do what they please in terms of their foreign policies.
My point was the USA signed a treaty, that treaty was based upon an inter American states agreement.
The USA did not fill its part, at least not from the point of view of most Latin American nations.
In the context of the Malvinas/Falklands war, Argentina considered it a treason, and so many other South American nations.

Except that the US was not bound by one Treaty it was bound by 2 or more on each side.
The US had the OAS treaties but it also has a Bilateral Defence pact and NATO pacts with the UK.
IE Argentina has a pact through the OAS And Attacked the UK in hopes that the US would side with it.
The UK has a Pact with the US and was attacked by Argentina and hoped that the US would side with it.

The US was placed in a position of which treaty to honor. Had the Us honored the OSA treaty the US may have lost the UK as an Allie and could have resulted in a BREXIT from NATO.
The US chose to honor the UK obligations as in this case they had the stronger claim of being attacked, IE the smaller number of Royal marines on an Island with no indications of hostile intent to the Argentines was assaulted by an Argentine force.

 

[b787]

Except that the US was not bound by one Treaty it was bound by 2 or more on each side.
The US had the OAS treaties but it also has a Bilateral Defence pact and NATO pacts with the UK.
IE Argentina has a pact through the OAS And Attacked the UK in hopes that the US would side with it.
The UK has a Pact with the US and was attacked by Argentina and hoped that the US would side with it.

I understand your point, however see that Brazil capitalized upon the USA mistake, the USA took sides, and this meant loses, the main mistake was the USA lost South America.

La nacion, Argentine newspaper from 1982, shows the Belgrano sinking and a article about a Pucara that attacked the Hermes

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Same newspaper but this article about the sinking of the
Sheffield

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

you are saying things without logic, you are saying your politicians were liars, the 200 mile TEZ was no true, it was not like that, in wars there are basic rules
No I'm saying that politicians with no military experience and precious little understanding of military matters should not dream up unnecessary and confusing concepts without regard to the needs of their own military engaged in combat. When the Task Force sailed Neither Admiral Woodward in charge of the ships at sea nor Admiral Leach back at Northwood based any of their planning on any form of 'exclusion zone' and indeed were quite irritated by it when the Government announced it some time later. At the very least they interpreted the fact that although the statement said that any ships or aircraft found within the zone were liable to be attacked without warning, NOTHING in the statement said that Argentine forces OUTSIDE the zone would have any form of immunity from attack. The Task Force itself spent most of the war outside the TEZ, and yet there is no suggestion that Argentine forces attacking them would be given a 'free ride' just because they were outside the TEZ. The Zone was a political invention, a pointless one made by politicians who should have, but did not know better.
The British, not only lied about the exclusion zone but also about the justification, since the Belgrano was not a threat to any British ship when it was sunk, so you whole argument show british double standards
The Belgrano's captain has already refuted what you say, as has the Argentine Navy. I have already demonstrated the ship was a clear and present danger, and was dealt with accordingly. The order to sink the Belgrano originated with Admiral Woodward as stated previously. The submarines were not under his direct command but he had to impress upon London how serious the threat was so he issued the order to sink the Belgrano directly to the Subs. This order was picked up at Northwood (Fleet HQ in London) who immediately countermanded it, and contacted Woodward for clarification. This lead to the matter being passed up the chain of command with greater urgency and it was on Admiral Leach's recommendation that PM Thatcher issued the order to sink her.

Thatcher, like most of her government had little or no understanding of how Armies or Navies actually worked, and was ignorant to the point that when informed the Task Force would sail at 49 hours notice headed by Invincible and Herms with as many Sea Harriers as could be mustered at short notice, confidently replied "You'll be sending the Ark Royal with her Phantoms and Buccaneers too?", forgetting her government had sent that ship to the Breakers yard two years previously.
Sinking the Belgrano lead directly to the rest of the Argentine fleet returning to port and staying there for the rest of the war. Just imagine how many more lives would have been lost if they hadn't withdrawn from the War.
The loss of life on the Belgrano was regrettable, but that's what happens in wartime. We didn't start it.

 

[b787]

The Belgrano's captain has already refuted what you say, as has the Argentine Navy. I have already demonstrated the ship was a clear and present danger, and was dealt with accordingly. The loss of life was regrettable, but that's what happens in wartime. We didn't start it.

the Captain Hector Bonzo is not a lawer in international law, you have to prove your point upon international law, without it you are not proving anything, under international law, the Belgrano did not represent a threat, and you are in contradiction if your politicians say 'exclusion zone' and your captain does not obey means he is a rogue captain, your contradictions are funny, wishywashy, of course he followed orders from London, he did sink it upon orders, it was a political kill, you might try to convince me, but most Latin american will tell you it was not a military target, but a political one


Newspaper page from 1982 from Argentina saying we downed 2 British Helicopters and 2 aircraft

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

t but most Latin american will tell you it was not a military target, but a political one

She was armed, She was a Naval warship. She was a Military target.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

the Captain Hector Bonzo is not a lawyer in international law, you have to prove your point upon international law, without it you are not proving anything, under international law, the Belgrano did not represent a threat, and you are in contradiction if your politicians say 'exclusion zone' and your captain does not obey means he is a rogue captain, your contradictions are funny, wishywashy, of course he followed orders from London, he did sink it upon orders, it was a political kill, you might try to convince me, but most Latin american will tell you it was not a military target, but a political one
She was a Warship. In a war Zone (The South Atlantic). If she was in any way 'innocent', what was she doing there? Sight seeing? Whaling? On a Fishing trip. No she was heading the southern pincer of the Argentine Navy's planned attack on the Task Force. The 25 de Mayo escorted by the Hercules and Santissima Trinidad was the northern pincer. Captain Bonzo would have been well versed in the law as it applied to his ship and it's rules of engagement. I don't have to prove anything on this matter in a court of law,, it has already been decided. The United Nations declared Britain had the right to remove illegal occupation forces on and around the islands.

Once again I ask you to show WHERE in any part of the declaration of the TEZ it says that Argentine forces OUTSIDE the zone were in any way EXEMPT from attack? It was clearly understood by both sides that this was not the case.


Newspaper page from 1982 from Argentina saying we downed 2 British Helicopters and 2 aircraft

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Argentine press reports from 82 showing an attack on the Hermes, with lasers by the look of it!

And here's the best available Argentine proof that they attacked the Invincible...
...And here's the original RN publicity shot they doctored to produce that evidence:
All of which goes to show why I place little weight on anything the newspapers have to say as a general rule.