Chinahand Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 I have very little truck with the idea that Maggie deliberately tried to create a conflict in the Falklands. I realize she is a disliked figure, but I have to say it takes a very jaundiced view of a person to say something like that. No doubt she was misguided cutting military activity down there, but the idea she was deliberately doing it to draw the Argenitinians in just isn't realistic. Most especially her cuts made it very very difficult to fight the campaign. If it had happened only a year or so later the plans at the time had the carriers scrapped as the UK specialized on anti mine and anti submarine warfare under Nato - read American - air defence. Also of course the personalization of language here is over done as it so often is with Thatcher - "she was doing" "her cuts" - these were decisions involving thousands of individuals with the Chiefs of the Defense Staffs having a leading role - to blame everything on Thatch very much fits in with a biased prosecution. Royal Marines were kept on the Falklands - that was the deterent in the area making it necessary for the Argentinians to take agressive military action to change the status quo. The mistake was to assume the outlying Islands could be left undefended - it was assumed they had no strategic worth and if seized could be recaptured via blockade and starvation if diplomacy failed. As they were out of range of aircraft, a submarine picket and surface ships could have done that task in a time scale of months - and submarines could be there in days to stop resupply. It was not an unreasonable strategy. Especially as the Callaghan Government had done nothing militarially at all about the occupation of South Thule in 1976 leaving the situation unresolved and dealing with the issue entirely diplomatically. The fact that the Junta would go the whole hogg wasn't expected and created a genuine crisis in the Admiralty etc - there was very real doubt that the Islands could be seized back and that doubt wasn't misplaced - if one exocet had not locked onto the Atlantic conveyor, but the carrier also in its sights the result could have easily been the defeat of the landing at San Carlos Water. Maggie didn't look for that war and to say that the inhabitants of the Falklands should have been abandoned to there fate is in my mind chilling: the record of the Argentine military in the Dirty War is clear - the Argentinian courts examining the events later have accused their own military of genocide. I genuinely ask what was she expected to do - just roll over and accept it? Boy, do people hate her. No doubt she benefited greatly from the war - but to twist that round to say she caused it really takes a view which I think is highly biased and with very little foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 No doubt she benefited greatly from the war - but to twist that round to say she caused it really takes a view which I think is highly biased and with very little foundation. People who think Thatcher engneered the war have to explain why Carrington resigned over the invasion by Argentina. "He took full responsibility for the complacency and failures in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to foresee this development and resigned. " Wikipaedia. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 No doubt she benefited greatly from the war - but to twist that round to say she caused it really takes a view which I think is highly biased and with very little foundation. People who think Thatcher engneered the war have to explain why Carrington resigned over the invasion by Argentina. "He took full responsibility for the complacency and failures in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to foresee this development and resigned. " Wikipaedia. S I think Chinahand explained that point, the decision to withdraw the marines and withdrawal of the Endurance serves as a symbol of Britain's lack of interest in the area. This was misguided given the obvious soundings in the Argentian government for something to be done about those South Atlantic islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 No doubt she was misguided cutting military activity down there, but the idea she was deliberately doing it to draw the Argenitinians in just isn't realistic. Most especially her cuts made it very very difficult to fight the campaign. If it had happened only a year or so later the plans at the time had the carriers scrapped as the UK specialized on anti mine and anti submarine warfare under Nato - read American - air defence. Also of course the personalization of language here is over done as it so often is with Thatcher - "she was doing" "her cuts" - these were decisions involving thousands of individuals with the Chiefs of the Defense Staffs having a leading role - to blame everything on Thatch very much fits in with a biased prosecution. Not so. Basically Thatcher gave the Chiefs of Staff her parameters, which would have made an operation such as the one that took place impossible i.e. it was a very stupid and crass move which she completely U-turned on afterwards. "The lady's not for turning" - what a complete and utter load of Saatchi & Saatchi bollocks. But it wasn't just about withdrawing the Endurance. In a typically cynical ploy she dis-enfranchised the Falkland islanders by default in a move to keep Hong Kong Chinese citizens from coming to Britain prior to the Chinese take-over. Unfortunately they had the same status. She did this because it was politically expedient to do so. The signs it sent to the Argentines, that the UK was abandoning the Falklands, encouraged them to go there and then - because it was politically expedient to do so. So in they go and Carrington resigns because otherwise Thatcher would have to. THAT'S why he went! Royal Marines were kept on the Falklands - that was the deterent in the area making it necessary for the Argentinians to take agressive military action to change the status quo. The mistake was to assume the outlying Islands could be left undefended - it was assumed they had no strategic worth and if seized could be recaptured via blockade and starvation if diplomacy failed. As they were out of range of aircraft, a submarine picket and surface ships could have done that task in a time scale of months - and submarines could be there in days to stop resupply. Not so. The "tripwire" posting to the Falklands was the worst option imaginable in the Commando Brigade. They were there to be killed in an invasion and for no other reason. This means no negotiation necessary and in you go. Thanks to a combination of good luck and superb soldiering no British lives were lost. A bummer for Thatcher as a settlement, which would have meant Argentine involvement possession being nine-tenths, would have meant the end of her political career. Bye bye Belgrano. That one IS down to her. Boy, do people hate her. With good reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I have very little truck with the idea that Maggie deliberately tried to create a conflict in the Falklands. I realize she is a disliked figure, but I have to say it takes a very jaundiced view of a person to say something like that. I wonder who said she deliberately tried to create a conflict in the Falkland Islands? That certainly wasn't the point I was making. IMO she should share a significant degree of the responsibility for the conflict alongside the Argentinian Junta. If she really wanted to hold onto the Falklands it was clearly stupid to withdraw all but token forces in the Falklands at a time when the Argentinian military junta were making clear signals that they wanted to 'reclaim' them. Her desire to cut costs cost lives. I would never say that she did it deliberately - but strategic foolishness is not much better. Then to cap it all off she later on inflicted even more cost cuts that would make sure no repeat operation would ever be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 I wonder who said she deliberately tried to create a conflict in the Falkland Islands? That certainly wasn't the point I was making. I was replying to this: Even at the time I remember there were murmurings that Maggie had engineered the conflict to boost her ratings or she would have had to go to a General Election without the popularity vote. ... with "deliberately created" being a reasonable synonym for "engineered ... to boost her ratings". I am not disagreeing that the defence changes were miscalculations, but I find the idea that they were engineered to create the conflict an incredible statement. Also Manshimajin my understanding is that after the conflict there was a complete defence review and the UK has from then on always insured it had expeditionary force capacity - before the conflict there were plans for cuts to end this capacity - under the assumption of a US umbrella - and this was specifically abandoned after the war, I think you are implying otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I said there were murmurings, to show that people were pretty cynical about the good lady even as history was being written. If it was not engineered, it was certainly fortuitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSpock Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm looking forward to the day she finally pops off, and all the evil in the world returns to hell where it belongs. Anyone up for a sweep? - put her me down for a fiver for Sunday 20th June 2010. What a great idea, someone loses their life and another makes money from loads of people who end up with nothing. I'm sure that idea has worked before. Tell you what, give me a million and I'll just kill her. I personally think that Thatcher should be given a State burial... Sort of RIGHT NOW!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Also Manshimajin my understanding is that after the conflict there was a complete defence review and the UK has from then on always insured it had expeditionary force capacity - before the conflict there were plans for cuts to end this capacity - under the assumption of a US umbrella - and this was specifically abandoned after the war, I think you are implying otherwise. It was more accurately termed an amphibious capability given its capabilities, size, and purpose. There was a supplementary White Paper and it was recognised that it was desirable to maintain a small but complete 'out-of-area' capability. It is a common misconception and I am not saying you (Chinahand) have it, but there was no major re-assessment to naval policy and planning - the marginal changes amounts to replacements of old frigates, and the maintenance of the Endurance and the LPDs. If it had not been for the issue of the Falklands it is arguable that the cuts would have been quite sensible. Nott recognised that the defence increases that the Callaghan government had followed would bankrupt the Treasury by the mid-1980s. Prioritisation was to be given the manpower commitment in Europe, the strategic deterrent, and then to the naval EASTLANT (East Atlantic) force. Amphibious capabilities were nowhere near as important. There was no assumption of any other power taking a policeman role in aid of Britain, but rather that NATO was to be given the role of carrying out 'out of area' operations by combining the amphibious capabilities of different fleets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm a bit unclear LDV - my understanding was that the carrier force was originally destined to be reduced to the extent it could not have undertaken the type of operations it undertook in the South Atlantic and after the Falkland's conflict this was reversed. You seem to be saying I'm mistaken in this - another anti-Thatcher myth!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm a bit unclear LDV - my understanding was that the carrier force was originally destined to be reduced to the extent it could not have undertaken the type of operations it undertook in the South Atlantic and after the Falkland's conflict this was reversed. You seem to be saying I'm mistaken in this - another anti-Thatcher myth!? Whcih carriers were you referring to? Bulwark was decommisioned in 1981 (just checked on Wiki) and Hermes was going to get the chop and did get sold in 1986. But then she was old and really would not have added greatly to any amphibious capability. She was used for expeditionary operations in the 1960s, but in the 1980s she was that vulnerable to Argentinian air attacks she had to kept well away from the Falklands. As for the other anti-submarine, light carriers, the Invincible and Illustrious, and the upcoming Ark Royal, they were exactly what the Navy needed. They were designed for anti-submarine operations in the Northern waters and Eastern Atlantic. And these vessels, though not being able to supple as many planes or helicopters, could be used for amphibious operations. Operation Palliser off Sierra Leone is a good example. There was talk of maintaining and updating (not upgrading) the amphibious capability in the White Paper in 1982 and in (just referred to one of my books "The Royal Navy since 1945 by Eric Grove) in 1986, but not much was done. I think maybe you might be referring to the fact that they would have got rid of Hermes far sooner than they did if the Falklands did not happen. As that would only leave Illustrious and Invincible. In any case, however, only the carrier Ark Royal was added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 Thanks LDV - found this which seems a good summary - http://eprints.nuim.ie/844/1/Speller.pdf In my mind, the main change was to keep 3 light carriers - ie not sell Invincible to Oz. With only 2 of them, plus them being smaller than Hermes, there would have been a reduction in capability - hard to say if it would have tipped the balance from victory to defeat if the Conflict had been delayed for a year or so, but I think I agree with you that more has been made of this than the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Cheers, will check out the link. Forgot about the proposed sale to Australia, and yes in the short term it would have been disastrous if another Falklands episode occurred, until the Ark Royal was completed it would have left a big gap, you'd probably only have one carrier available for use. Of course, for such events the ships have to ready and the nearer to the conflict and better-equipped they are the better. What it all amounts to is simply a recognition that an independent (British) amphibious force has some utility. But, apparently, a number of military historians do think there was a greater re-assessment of naval policy than there was. I don't understand how they have formed this argument. (Maybe interesting to mention that Hermes was actually taken out of service in 1984, well before the Ark Royal was in service,doesn't demonstrate much of a recognition for a ready and powerful amphibious force, probably says a lot more about financial difficulties) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 All this "carrier" nonsense is just a smokescreen (sorry) because "Harrier" changed all the "carrier" (oh dear) parameters, at least for UK forces. Let's look at another Thatcher "achievement". The current Labour administration are being belaboured (not my best post this one) for failing to meet their target re poverty. However I have always maintained that the most revolting thing about Thatcher is the way she deduced that the only way she could stay in power was to look out for those who voted for her, middle-England affluence in the main, and the working-class rest, like the miners, could go hang as far as she was concerned. However who could possibly argue that narrowing the gap between rich and poor could be anything other than meritorious? As the government of the day you should at least make an effort to look out for ALL of your citizens. But not Thatcher, oh no. The gap between rich and poor is the is the so-called Gini index. Traditionally the gap widens during a Tory administration and narrows during a Labour one, all you tory fans take note, you're the bad guys as far as poverty is concerned. It starts with MacMillan in 1961 with the baseline - 100. Wilson then narrows the gap to 96. Heath widens the gap to 103 Wilson/Callaghan narrow it to 92. Enter Thatcher in 1979, she widens the gap by an absolutely obscene 39 points to 131! It's been bumbling along +/- 6 or 7 ever since. Kind-of puts Thatcher's +39 points in perspective... Yeah, good-old Maggie, a quite revolting woman who was only interested in power for power's sake. As for the citizens she was allegedly there to serve she looked out for less than 25% because that's what she needed to do to stay in power i.e. the only citizen she was interested in serving was herself. Bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 Got a link for those figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.