Re the Belgrano. Point to note: Ships have rudders and can be sailing north and yet 2 minutes later can be sailing south !! Hector Bonzo himself has admitted that when the Belgrano was hit, it was repositioning to carry out an attack on the Task force. Genuine RIP every sailor on the Belgrano, but rather you than a member of the Royal Navy.

@littleshep5502

2 жыл бұрын

There wouldnt have been so many losses, but the two escorts ran as soon as the torpedoes struck

@littleshep5502

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon Is that why the destroyers both started dropping depth charges. They also ordered chilean vessels trying to help away

@rodalheatingtechnologies2596

Жыл бұрын

I can say with authority that it was in a holding g pattern - to and fro waiting for their sub to get into position and make a pincer attack move. It had Tog go...and it did.

@rodalheatingtechnologies2596

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon how do you know that?

@rodalheatingtechnologies2596

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon the sequence of events and that destroyers dropped charges? I can assure you they fled with pace.

The Belgrano was torpedoed not bombed. Forcing the withdraw of the Argentine Navy was a greater success and more vital than the diplomatic and political reaction.

@mariuszfidzinski7474

3 жыл бұрын

well, yes - but there was a simple fact: Argentinian carrier had only one engine running, and the winds in that area suddenly and surprisingly stopped... 'the fog of war'???

@seancreighton6959

3 жыл бұрын

@@mariuszfidzinski7474 The Belgrano was not a carrier it was a cruiser. The Veinticinco de Mayo was the carrier, the northern part of the pincer, and that was been trailed by HMS Splendid.

@allybally0021

2 жыл бұрын

It was reported torpedoed.......and it sank.

One inexcusable consequence of the war, the Argentinians weren't made to clear their minefields!

@danielw5850

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed! The indiscriminate use of mines (no marked fields), whilst not a "War Crime", was in contravention to the accepted rules of war; much like their siting of artillery, the active assistance of their hospital ship's searchlights for fire-control.

@bradleysmith5781

4 жыл бұрын

@@danielw5850 Had to clear mines using sheep.

@jwadaow

4 жыл бұрын

@@bradleysmith5781 The sheep aren't heavy enough to initiate the mines.

@bradleysmith5781

4 жыл бұрын

​@@jwadaowYou need weigh about a lamb. Anything that weighs about a watermelon. Sheep aren't clouds, they can be heavy when they want to be.

@alastairbarkley6572

4 жыл бұрын

Using POWs for forced mine clearance would be a clear breach of the Geneva Convention. Absolutely and totally forbidden. If we wanna be 'better than the bad guys', we have to live up to that. Sure, we could simply ignore the Convention - or find a legal excuse to do that. Exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did. Look how they ended up treating their POWs.

I'm fed up with idiots from other countries condemning Britain and demanding we relinquish our sovereignty over the Falklands. Why doesn't Spain give the Canaries to Morocco?Why doesn't the USA give Alaska to Canada or Hawaii to Kiribati?In reality there are a number of countries including Argentina that are eaten up by bitter jealousy and resentment due to their own failures as countries.the Falklands may be a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic, but their our rocks, and the UK must defend them at all costs.

@johnries5593

5 жыл бұрын

It should be noted that Spain once ruled the Falklands as part of the Vicerealm of La Plata (modern Argentina), but that was a very long time ago. It is clear that the Argentines only want the islands, not the people; and the British have some obligations to the Falklanders. In any case, Alaska was never Canadian (the US bought it from Russia in 1867) and Hawaii was independent until 1898.

@camieabz

5 жыл бұрын

Why doesn't Russia give back Ukraine to Ukraine. Oof! :D

@johnries5593

4 жыл бұрын

@@camieabz Russia should do that, but a lot of Russian nationalists are of the opinion that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia and should be annexed accordingly.

@comikdebris

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnries5593 And the British gave Alaska to the Russian as repatriation payment after the Crimean war.

@davidwright7193

4 жыл бұрын

comikdebris ???? Don’t understand where this comes from. Alaska was Russian by direct settlement. The UK did occupy a couple of islands during the Crimean war which were given back at the end of hostilities but certainly not as “reparations” victors do not pay reparations to the vanquished.

The Professor’s introductory history omits a lot of important detail. The true history begins well before 1833. There were British on the Falklands before permanent settlement and before Argentina was a nation. There were no indigenous people. The Argentines who were evicted were merely a garrison, not settlers.

@josedro

4 жыл бұрын

Wrong Sir. in 1813 Argentina got its Independence from Spain Malvinas included . 20 years later UK invaded. Now you can argue all you want

@n43510

3 жыл бұрын

@@josedro The Wikipedia article on the history of Argentina reveals your assertion to be nonsense. Even as late as 1840, the state of Argentina extended south only as far as about latitude 40°S. The Falkland Islands are at a latitude of about 51°S, more than 1000km south of the southernmost part of Argentina even in 1840.

@ursodermatt8809

2 жыл бұрын

@@josedro so can you

@josedro

2 жыл бұрын

@@n43510 You are talking Geography I am talking Spain belongings before 1810 and after. The New Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata Malvinas ( Former belonging to Spain ) then 23 later took by UK Empire

@josedro

2 жыл бұрын

@@ursodermatt8809 What do you mean?

To me, the issue is cut and dried. A Fascist junta invaded a sovereign territory of the Falklanders of whom virtually all wanted to stay British. It had to be regained otherwise our reputation as a nation was shot.

@Ardass486

4 жыл бұрын

RICHARD LAVERSUCH Zuog buffgh gdft oppjg bugf doijkg of dgts an couzlk

@Ardass486

4 жыл бұрын

@ uh

@coldwar45

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. The Argentines were the aggressors in this situations.

@HankD13

4 жыл бұрын

Argentina was well aware of the lack of interest the UK had in retaining the Falklands, and was well aware that if it just waited a couple of years they could have them by default. But they needed to distract and unite their unhappy people with a popular war. Once riding that tiger, they had no way of getting off - hence no negotiation, however favourable.

@NoFaithNoPain

4 жыл бұрын

@@HankD13 The local people would not have allowed the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. You can't betray or de-state people like that in the modern World. It would never have worked.

We are VERY far from TRAPPED by the Islands. They are now ours by BLOOD!

@The8591berkamp

2 жыл бұрын

I would never forgive any government that left my comrades sacrifice in vein.

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

"ours"? goodness me nationalism is a philosophy for the delusional lol

There are British graves on those islands, older than Argentina itself.

@tensevo

3 жыл бұрын

Yes but their argument was that they were entitled to the islands because they were closer. How long you have been settled there is not the issue, it was that they felt like they were entitled to the Falkland's and they were aggrieved by that.

@tensevo

3 жыл бұрын

@steam driver There were British graves on the British isles before the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans or Saxons invaded. Warfare is mostly a claim on territory. What is your point? The Argentines tried to clam the Falklands after British were already established there. Their argument was that they live closer, so they felt entitled, which we know is a weak argument. When Britain was dependent on Naval supremacy, the Falkland's would have been strategically important, but maybe not so much now, though it is a strategic asset. The war was a matter of principle. You can buy a piece of the land, but not claim it all, without a war.

@eddiel7635

2 жыл бұрын

@steam driver why should we bury the issue, the status quo is perfectly fine, the falklands belongs to the islanders.

The Belgrano was torpedoed (not bombed). My dad, a naval scientist who had project managed the development of a British sonar system and then had been involved in the development of underwater warfare tactics commented at the time: The Begrano's escorts faced the classic dilemma of the escort ships when the capital ship has been torpedoed: To stay and rescue survivors, or to hunt the submarine which is now known for certain to be in the vicinity. Instead, the Argentine escorts did neither; they buggered off as fast as they could.

@littleshep5502

2 жыл бұрын

And then lied about not knowing there was a submarine, or that the belgrano had been torpedoed, to try and save face

@rodrigorodrigo1055

Жыл бұрын

Los escoltas lanzaron las cargas de profundidad, y comenzaron acciones evasivas (igual que el Conqueror)

@pablofrediani2348

11 ай бұрын

ustedes hicieron un crimen de gerra viva argentina

After the sinking of the Belgrano cucero, the Argentine navy fled to port. And he did not come out again until the end of the war.

51:33 "The Belgrano was bombed and sank" - oops! Definitely torpedoed, _not_ bombed! His political analysis is spot on though.

@allybally0021

3 жыл бұрын

It was certainly reported as torpedoed. It certainly sank. There is very little definite otherwise I suspect.

@MrDavidht

3 жыл бұрын

Also it was not sailing away from the Falklands, it was sailing a course parrallel to and just a few miles outside of the exclusion zone boundary. Also the Argentinian government have conceded that they had been informed of the change in the rules of engagement by the UK Government and that they were pursuing a pincer movement on the Royal Navy carriers.

@chrisabler1925

3 жыл бұрын

Torpedoed by HMS Conqueror a submarine as I recall

@raystephens1142

2 жыл бұрын

Whether by bomb or torpedo, it was certainly NOT catching fish…

@DekuNutss

2 жыл бұрын

This seems a bit pedantic given that it's a lecture on political history, not military. I know you've semi-acknowledged that here, but it's a bit irrelevant given the context. The ship sank, and it did so though hostile (British) means.

A well delivered lecture!

Excellent sir. Thank you so much.

wasnt there a similar incident in the 70s? solved by a phone call...' Nice aircraft carrier you have there, shame if something were to happen to it'

People of his ilk are amazing and humorous.

Superb speaker.

I think the whole idea of leaseback is a fool's gold. Surely, once sovereignty is transferred, the Argentine government would see itself as an overseer and regard anything it didn't like happening in the islands as a justification to take control, the moral justification for British resistance having been removed?

@maxmoore3472

2 жыл бұрын

OF course , we've seen how the junta , behaves ,

@raystephens1142

2 жыл бұрын

I’d be very interested in your views on the Argentine disappeared. You’d probably describe them as British miners.

@camelpissdrinkernabimuhamm6611

2 жыл бұрын

Eventually it'll be on British intrest to give that island to Argentina and normalize relationship with Argentina. Bcz maintaining a military garrison and give them ration from 5000 miles from British tax payer won't be economically viable after sometime.

I lived through all that and knew some but not all the political curves that had been negotiated. The military lessons can be added to these.

Also to add Britain settled and claimed the islands before Argentina was even a country. Yes the settlement had to leave due to economic issues but Britain never renounced its claim on the Falklands when Argentina set up their own colony there.

What if Canada laid claim to Greenland which is right on its doorstep?

HMS Belgrano? Also it wasn't sailing away from the islands but a circular course around the islands just outside the exclusion zone and it wasn't bombed but torpedoed by HMS Conquerer.

@sichere

3 жыл бұрын

After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day. On 1 May 1982 the Argentineans launched their attack : The General Belgrano ( formerly the USS Phoenix CL-46 a survivor of Pearl Harbour )and her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern half of an Argentinean pincer attack on the British task force. The Northern group Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo that had once served in the Royal Navy as HMS Venerable and two destroyers.. Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away. The Argentine Navy had also organised a combined air strike against the British with eight A-4Qs, from ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, and two Super Etendards from Río Grande Air Naval Base attacking simultaneously. The heavily ladened naval Skyhawks needed a minimum wind to help them take off from the carrier, and unexpectedly the wind did not blow and both Super Etendards were unable to receive fuel from the KC-130H Hercules tanker and aborted their mission. The British had assigned the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo and located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorised to engage. After failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission. Meanwhile the Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack on the Task Force and was counter attacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo The Cruiser General Belgrano had been spotted earlier by Canberra PR9s of No.39 Squadron operating clandestinely out of Chile. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to a request from Admiral Terence Lewin, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on General Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror sank her @ 15:57 Falkland Islands Time using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinean surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy. On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield's priority was hunting for the Argentinean submarines when she was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar . On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day, HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned. If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles backed up by the guns of "USS Phoenix", all whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties. The moral of the story is that fleet was saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo ! upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg

The General Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes from the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. The Argentine junta continued to play chicken on the road with their young conscript forces until it was too late and a truck hit them. As the prof says, the whole episode has made an acceptable solution impossible for at least a generation. RIP all deceased from both sides.

@danielw5850

4 жыл бұрын

"... young conscript forces...": those forces were interspersed with their marines and special forces; this "victim narrative" for Argentine is ill-served.

Excellent

I was in the Royal Navy when Argentina invaded the Falklands, I had mates go down South, 3 were on ships that were sunk, fortunately they all survived and came home, we did what had to do, a desperate act by a corrupt and despotic military junta, we had no option. They were never going to leave, they rolled the dice and lost.. as were many lives on both sides

Good well rounded lecture.

50:55: HMS Belgrano? Nothing frustrates me more than mistakes made by "intellectuals".

@alexwilliamson1486

2 жыл бұрын

I agree …”bombed” and sank….FFS….it was torpedoed….armchair intellectuals/generals who’ve never been to war or fired a shot…

@finkployd8684

Жыл бұрын

Its an horrendous mistake. Not even an apology !

All the legal arguments seem to me now to be moot, for the following reason. Argentina attempted to settle the matter by force of arms, and they lost. That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned.

@j.boylan3343

4 жыл бұрын

My relatives blood is on that island Welsh gards that says it ours if they hadn't have invaded he wouldn't have died there. British land forever.

@GH-oi2jf

4 жыл бұрын

Nagger Holocaust - The difference is, the street is a part of a political jurisdiction whete the civil and criminal laws of the government apply. There is no conflict of sovereignty. In a republic (where I live), the people, collectively, are sovereign. Individual people are not sovereign.

@germibestia

2 жыл бұрын

you are probably not concerned. But the British government and British taxpayers are. It will cost more and more to defend the Falklands. Furthermore, it is realistic to foresee an increase in South America public opinion in favor of the Argentinian, given the end of colonialism movement across the globe. This could mean no more goods or services provided from that continent. I let you imagine if everything needed in the Falklands would have to be brought in from England, what the cost would be. Thinking about exploiting any natural resource -oil or gas- against Argentina's hostility is just not conceivable.

@nealokelly

Жыл бұрын

@@germibestia Friend, try again whenever you want. But it'll be more than 649 next time.

@germibestia

Жыл бұрын

@@nealokelly I am not Argentinian and, luckily, not British too. So the fate of a useless remote island doesn't affect my life that much! The UK economy is not at its peak, and only dreamers can hope for a brighter future in a medium term. So the huge cost of maintaining a significant military force there will become more and more of a burden.

The Falklands war? The lecture seemed to have missed out the actual war?

great lecture. It totally identifies every aspect of the question. I do hope it is resolved taking and considering everyone's interest. Which of course is very achievable if there is a will to compromise on all sides.

@danielarevalo6222

4 жыл бұрын

@Kit in this case compromise is paramount to future security, prosperity and goodwill of two democratic peace loving nations.

@danielarevalo6222

4 жыл бұрын

Kit I’m got no interest to sink into the endless politics that both sides love to entrench themselves. I can only see the big picture. That many see including British and Argentinian thinkers. That is as the world evolves Malvinas and many other things can becomes expedient. and negotiable. For better or for worse. I’m not going to especulate any further cause it has no value cause I don’t have a crystal ball. Malvinas will simply Change hands when it becomes a strong political advantage to do so. we see hints of this occasionally. It’s understandable that islanders would be fearful and concerned.. I do also totally understand their intransigence. Nothing is ever inevitable but I think you and I know that history shows that change dynamic, attitudes change and self interest is paramount. Today, the current policies work for both the British government and that’s good. You and I know that tomorrow this isn’t guaranteed. Thank you for your response. I do enjoy intelligent discussions

@peterstubbs5934

2 жыл бұрын

Everyones?????? Like who? Only the native islanders wishes are of value. They want fk all to do with the Argentine. They have SEEN with their own eyes what murderous brutality the Argentines are capable of, even on their own people let alone the Falklanders. They have experienced Argentine occupation and removed the Argentine faeces from their homes. Why should the British government consider any approach of ownership from a country that didnt even exist before the Brits were on the islands? 2 Para 74-97

@danielarevalo6222

2 жыл бұрын

@@peterstubbs5934 happy to debate but only with the informed and coherent

@nzgunnie

2 жыл бұрын

It was resolved in 1982. That Argentina doesn't like the resolution is not any concern.

For info Argentina itself was colonised by Spain in the 16th century....

What a superb lecture and a great Professor. So the question remains for future leaders of "Britain" what to do albeit after Brexit , the Falklands will be consigned to a political anecdote for some other administration to figure out?

@gillesguillaumin6603

6 жыл бұрын

Phill L. Yes ? How many times your "professor" did fight, and how many scars he has ? How long time he spent in hospitals ?

@rudolphguarnacci197

2 жыл бұрын

@@dougbhorne What's his point?

Argentina had more than a week to think about invading or not, at least three weeks prior, they were loading ships for an alleged exercise.

Thank you for the lecture. It was very interesting. However, one should note:- The General Belgrano was sunk by two torpedo's from the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. The Belgrano's escorts began evasive and counter-measures dropping depth charges. This is exactly the right thing to do in the given circumstances. The hunter (HMS Conqueror) became the hunted. There was no "running away" at that time or deserting the crew of the Belgrano. Once cleared, the survivors were picked up in a correct and proper manner. The incident was later to have found to have a significant effect, in so far as the Argentine Navy did not engage further in the campaign save as to its submarine fleet, which was still a significant threat to the task force. Many Argentine torpedo's being fired at the task force, but the "wires" failing to steer the torpedo's to target. Give them the credit they deserve. The Argentine military fought hard. It was no easy task.

I will refer to them as "las Malvinas" if it makes anyone happy, but that doesn't change the fact they are British.

@josedro

4 жыл бұрын

Falkland are British ... by force ( typical Empire language) only not by history

@otterspocket2826

4 жыл бұрын

@@josedro They are British by self-determination - a core principal of the UN charter on human rights. They are also British by history, by force and by whatever other standard YOU think it should be judged by. Meanwhile, Argentina's claim to even be Argentinian is less solid - the indigenous 'Argentinians' having been genocided and replaced by Spanish invaders centuries before Argentina existed. It is also on the same continental shelf as, and just 300 miles from, the Falkland Islands - some might say that Britain has a claim to sovereignty over it, but international law and that self-determination thing dictate otherwise. Maybe we should consult the handful of indigenous 'Argentinians' whose ancestors survived Spanish imperialism for their preferred option.

@josedro

4 жыл бұрын

@Adrian Heath Sir I suggest you read History and be honest how chronologically things work. "Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain's new economic and strategic considerations led it to voluntarily withdraw from the islands" source Wikipedia - Now Argentina get its official independence and internationally recognized on July 9 1816. In 1833 UK imperialist task force expelled its 100% disarmed Argentinians citizens. Now Military Junta stopped a Communist Revolution which would have led to a open Civil War. 30.000 is fake communist propaganda number. Real was 7.000. Same as British several Civil War (1642-1651) which led to Massacre at Drogheda. Yes Junta fell and year later called for general public election . Not like your allied Chile which its president Pinochet was highly appreciated by Baroness Maggie Thatcher right? coincidentally after the war people who lived illegally in the island British citizenship was granted . So maybe they have to be grateful Argentina attempt to get its island back

@josedro

4 жыл бұрын

@@otterspocket2826 Self determination yes - coincidentally after the war people who lived illegally in the island British citizenship was granted . So maybe they have to be grateful Argentina attempt to get its island back . Yes Spanish colonize south America as British armies did and killed thousands indigenous in US and Canada. South Africa OHH what about Edward Colston ?

@robertovolpi

3 жыл бұрын

@@josedro the Argentine troll with futile basis was to expect in a well made history lecture.

with the discovery of significant oil reserves then the Falklands will become self reliant and the £30k per head might reverse, the Argentine will have nothing to do with it. The islands are big enough to provide raw materials and I'm sure Chile would welcome the investment in their southern lands, are they not closer to the Falklands anyway?

@paulspindler5849

3 жыл бұрын

@@adrobestia262 Yeah I checked the distances on google maps, there's not much in it, but mainland Argentina is a little closer, I ignored Islands In terms of investment, yes they are desperate but if they keep on disputing the sovereignty then why would you locate such a vital facility in Argentina, you'd be better off in Chile somewhere in the Strait of Magellan, far more likely not to be blockaded, nationalised (like Repsol YPF) or be used to hold the Falkland islanders to ransom.

0:19 ... somewhat WHAT???? "insouciant"??? I'm going to use that word to impress my colleagues.

Very popular these days for British academics to sympathise with Britain's enemies...

The closing statements say it all.

@argentinamanda6442

8 жыл бұрын

MALVINAS

@likeitout

8 жыл бұрын

+Argentina Manda!!! What flag flies in Stanley? We both know the answer to that question.

@argentinamanda6442

8 жыл бұрын

likeitout Islas Malvinas e Antartida del Atlantico Sur capital Ushuaia

@EdMcF1

8 жыл бұрын

It suggests a smug disregard for principle or decency, in what was a fight against a genocide.

@Dude0000

4 жыл бұрын

Argentina Manda!!! FASCIST!!!

Didn't work with Hong Kong either... you can never negotiate in good faith.. with people who have no honour Quite a good lecture.. a few mistakes and a lot of over simplified parts...

@rudolphguarnacci197

2 жыл бұрын

How can an hour long lecture on this topic not be oversimplified? I'm waiting. Answer: it can't.

Argentina’s military is moribund and chronically under funded. The current UK forces in the South Atlantic could easily resist any attempt at invasion today that would barely be possible with existing and barely operational Argentinian naval capability. Rapid reinforcement would guarantee Argentinian failure.

@georgemorley1029

2 жыл бұрын

Precisely. They couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag these days.

40 years ago. Wow.

@Joe-fi2ir

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn't seem like its been 10 years ago. Time flies.

This chap has a wonderfully archaic vocabulary, it sounds as if he is speaking in 1916 rather than 2016. I'm not sure I agree with him, but It's rather fun to listen to his choice of words.

@tangosmurfen2376

3 жыл бұрын

I wish I could speak like that

@charlottejameson8924

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry but I don't find it archaic, erudite would be a better word.

@pmrose18

8 ай бұрын

At least it doesnt contain the words "like" in every sentence uttered and is completely comprehensible......innit!

The government was set on massive cutbacks, the Nott defence review ...and if the Argies hadn't jumped the gun and gone early, the 2 carriers wouldn't have been in the picture. One was to be sold to India, the other was due for the scrappers.

The comment below is spot on! this speaker seems to spout typical lefty anti British hype, typical of them to omit half the facts. As a so called professor he rates 1/10. as a anti Thatcher politicisation 8/10.

Well, you can't ignore the facts, however much you want to.

Very, very interesting and so British👌🏻

Not quite sure how Argentina could hypothetically be in control of Shetland in 1833 when Argentina didn't exist as a country until 1860

@Dude0000

4 жыл бұрын

Paul Marchant plus it’s a lot closer to the mainland. He’s a lefty academic...a citizen of the world. He above petty nationhood. Unless it’s a third world country. Then he’ll find a way to defend them.

@davidenlassierras501

4 жыл бұрын

Argentina exists since 1810.

@olivernicholson9666

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dude0000 You cannot seriously think Professor Bogdanor is a man of the left. He goes in for dispassionate political analysis, and he is certainly no gauchiste. This is meant to be a lecture about a political crisis in a series which covered matters like Denis Healey seeking an IMF bail out in 1976 ("The pound in your pocket"). He is not primarily concerned with military details. And of course he makes the odd slip.

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

You understand the concept of a successor state yes? The UK is itself a successor state and so I'd assume you agree that it's a solid principle.

Commenting as the lecture goes through. It doesn't matter whether anyone knows where they are or not. We were first to claim it de facto

50:56 - HMS Belgrano....do what???

Communications between Belgrano with the mainland had been intercepted which ordered the Belgrano to attack at all costs one of the British carriers with its exocet missiles. The rational being with one of the carriers being sunk, the fleet would be unable to maintain sufficient air cover and resulting in a likely recall of the invasion fleet. The communication intercept was actually transmitted to the Americans and they concurred with the order's interpretation by the British. Hence with the Belgrano being a threat to the British carrier, its sinking was order. The information regarding the intercepted communications was only recently declassified by the British government, but I don't recall the exact year.

@gandydancer9710

2 жыл бұрын

An entirely bogus justification. The Belgrano didn't have any Exocet missiles.

@edl653

2 жыл бұрын

@@gandydancer9710 Sorry, I believe you are incorrect. There are even an interview of the Belgrano's captain where he states that the sinking his ship was fully justified. "two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal". I don't have the full text of the interview, but he also stated that he was maneuvering his ship in the area heading towards the British and not moving away.

@gandydancer9710

2 жыл бұрын

@@edl653 That, and the captain's comment, are entirely irrelevant to what I said. You wrote, "Communications between Belgrano with the mainland had been intercepted which ordered the Belgrano to attack at all costs one of the British carriers with its exocet missiles." To repeat, this is an entirely bogus justification. And, in its details, false. The Belgrano didn't have any Exocet missiles. It had 6" guns and was outside the exclusion zone, many, many miles and presumably hours from being in range of any British ships. The Argentines had invaded the Falklands and ground fighting as part of the reinvasion was already underway, so if the Brits wanted to sink the Argentine fleet in its entirety -- never mind that it was still posing rather than fighting -- that would have been, as far as I'm concerned. "in order". That's no excuse for lies and spin, which Bogdanor and you are regurgitating here.

I dislike the underling premise of 'the basic problem of the Falklands'' ie that defence and logistics are costly and so undesirable. To have a country at all needs costly defence and infrastructure - and that costs would still exist whether the Falklands were British or not. As technology develops and the population of The Falklands increases the problems will decrease in many ways.

@allybally0021

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon The rot is very deep....

On the point of british capability to defend the Islands: Unless Argentine radically modernizes and builds up it's Military over the next decade, there is absolutely no way for them to even attempt this again. Anything they throw via Air would be cannon fodder for british Typhoons, and assembling the Invasion fleet alone would be impossible to hide. Britain would be reinforcing the Falklands before the first ship leaves the Harbour. And that's not even considering the massive implications on Argentines already terrible economy, were they going for an act of War like that.

Does anyone know why sinking the Belgrano was legal, but the destroyers was not? I've had a search and can't find anything. It seems to me that the destroyers could be considered a threat like the cruiser was. Moot point of course given the fleet returned to port, but it'd be interesting to know.

@seanreynolds8661

3 жыл бұрын

Nothing wrong with sinking enemy ships in a war zone. Even the Commanding Officer of the ARA General Belgrano argued that sinking his ship was perfectly legitimate for the British to do, adding that he would have done so if he were on the British side.

@gandydancer9710

2 жыл бұрын

It's hard to imagine why sinking the destroyers wouldn't have been perfectly legal as well, and far more useful as they had Exocets and the Belgrano did not. Bogdanor is unreliable about this incident, so maybe the claimed "legal advice" is as much fantasy as his claim that the Belgrano was bombed and that 300 of its crew drowned, neither of which is remotely close to the truth..

@whitepanties2751

Жыл бұрын

By the laws of reason and survival, the fact the Argentinians started the war made it legal for the British to sink any @#$%ing Argentinian ships in sight.

@rin_etoware_2989

Жыл бұрын

i can think of a few reasons why targeting the destroyers might be frowned upon, but i have no way of knowing if they were actually taken into account during the time, so a fair bit of salt. - it would probably be foolhardy for the destroyers to continue any attack towards the Falklands just as their main cruiser escort has been blown up (this is why the Belgrano was attacked by the way - the British intercepted a signal ordering every Argentinian ship in the area to launch a "massive attack"); - the destroyers also had the perfect opportunity at the time to pick up survivors from the Belgrano, so attacking them then would be hampering rescue efforts; - and when it was clear the destroyers have fled, well, they probably didn't want to attack fleeing ships, particularly when the entire point of the exclusion area is self-defence.

No picnic exocet argentina..

After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers on 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day. On 1 May 1982 the Argentineans launched their attack : The General Belgrano ( formerly the USS Phoenix CL-46 a survivor of Pearl Harbour )and her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern half of an Argentinean pincer attack on the British task force. The Northern group Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo that had once served in the Royal Navy as HMS Venerable. Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away. The Argentine Navy had organised a combined air strike against the British with eight A-4Qs, from ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, and two Super Etendards from Río Grande Air Naval Base attacking simultaneously. The heavily ladened naval Skyhawks needed a minimum wind to help them take off from the carrier, and unexpectedly the wind did not blow and both Super Etendards were unable to receive fuel from the KC-130H Hercules tanker and aborted their mission. The British had assigned the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo and located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorised to engage. After failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission. Meanwhile the Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack on the Task Force and was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo and the Cruiser General Belgrano had been spotted by Canberra PR9s of No.39 Squadron operating clandestinely out of Chile and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to a request from Admiral Terence Lewin, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on General Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror sank her @ 15:57 Falkland Islands Time using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinean surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy. On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield's priority was hunting for the Argentinean submarines when she was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar . On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day, HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned. If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles backed up by the guns of "USS Phoenix", all whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties. The moral of the story is that fleet was saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo ! upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg

@paulmanning8897

3 жыл бұрын

TLDR.

51:40 I thought communications were destroyed so it was not know they were hit...?

Britain claimed the Islands, by English captain John Strong, who, en route to Peru and Chile 1690. In 1764 there was the establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville - then the 1766 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by British captain John MacBride. Neither knew of each other. In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain discovered and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771. Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774 - when British left during American War of Independence, temporarily and left a cairn stating its continued claim. Argentina gained its independence from Spain in 1816 and decided to claim all that Spain had claimed. Britain, France and Spain had quite few conflict throughout this time - i.e. Gibraltar. It is a messy and complex history - but the British claim to the Islands long pre-dates the existence of Argentina.

@littleshep5502

2 жыл бұрын

I mean regarding the "decided to claim all that Spain had claimed", the treaty of friendship and recignition between Britain, and the United Province of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina), signed in 1825, actually lacks the islands, meaning by that point they didnt see the islands as theirs

Falklands... a handy piece of real estate..

@lewis123417

3 жыл бұрын

Just lucky everyone there is British

Why does he call it “Argentine”, when the name of the country is ARGENTINA?

Borges del cual soy su admirador era decendientes de británicos

we should have had and worked for better relationship with Argentina from the 1970.

An excellent, well-balanced view. Unfortunately, Mrs T went on to let the armed forces down.

@jaegerbomb4142

4 жыл бұрын

Think that was more to do with that knott fella

The Argentines had actually planned to invade in December 1982. If they had, Britain would have been incapable of retaking the islands. HMS Hermes would have been sold to India, HMS Invincible was set to be sold to Australia leaving on a new HMS Illustrious with a single squadron of Sea Harriers. Both amphibious assault ships HMS Fearless and Intrepid would have been scrapped. 2 Para would have been in Belize. And Argentina would most likely had a full squadron of Super Etendards operational on the ARA Vienticinco de Mayo.

@gastonnunez2528

2 жыл бұрын

No se invade algo que es propio mi estimado amigo ingles .... sus tropas no sabian donde estaban las islasm, es mas ,creian que argentina ocupo Irlanda .....

@tonyaughney8945

2 жыл бұрын

@@gastonnunez2528 I don't speak Spanish.

@gastonnunez2528

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonyaughney8945 aprende ;)

@tonyaughney8945

2 жыл бұрын

@@gastonnunez2528 I'm not English, I'm not your friend and you're still wrong.

@littleshep5502

2 жыл бұрын

@@gastonnunez2528 Exept the Islands dont belong to argentina, they belong to the Islanders. The troops did know where the islands were, as they were, you know, actually trained, rather than conscripted

On the whole I think this is a good lecture, however "HMS Belgrano" and "bombed"?

@johnbanks4761

3 жыл бұрын

when the lecturer cannot be bothered to get everything right..then i question the validity of everything as one should

@MrRugbylane

3 жыл бұрын

The torpedo had a bomb at the front of it. Its an important part

@robholloway6829

3 жыл бұрын

Torpedoes are technically underwater propelled bombs, and are referred to as such by the Royal Navy, so that's accurate. I can understand the mistake of saying "HMS" instead of "ARA" too, but it did grate.

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnbanks4761 John you must be nationality, or perhaps globally, renowned in whatever field you work in! You never make mistakes or misspeak apparently.

@johnbanks4761

2 жыл бұрын

@@Red1Green2Blue3 i dont lecture and i dont go on circuits making money from anything but if ibdid i would be 100 percent accurate in everything i say and do

No deaths at South Georgia? - are you sure? - and ''HMS'' belgrano'?? - 50 mins in - poor old bugger lost it then.

@theveryfirst

3 жыл бұрын

He means for South Georgia

This man precedes every sentence with the word "Now..."

@Myndir

6 жыл бұрын

Actually, he BEGINS sentences with that word.

@roddyteague6246

4 жыл бұрын

Better than beginning every sentence with So......

@charlottejameson8924

3 жыл бұрын

@@roddyteague6246 was about to make the same comment!

@PORRRIDGE_GUN

2 жыл бұрын

I never noticed it until you pointed that out, but now I cannot un-hear it.

The nearest landfall to the Falkland Islands is actually Chile. Will they be invading anytime soon?

I believe that an Argentine sailor on the Santa Fe did die as a result of that submarine getting machine gunned by a helicopter. In his book Across an Angry Sea, Cedric Delves writes of attending his services after the Argentine surrender - unless my memory fails. I recall the dead man's first name as Felix.

@chrisabler1925

3 жыл бұрын

The Santa Fe was attacked in the retaking of South Georgia.

@polkban

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. The sailor, after the surrender, was killed by a British soldier who was guarding him . The soldier misunderstood a maneuver inside the Santa Fe by the sailor and shoot him in the head.

@xjack2312

2 жыл бұрын

@@polkban Yes, that is correct. He went to correct the trim of the submarine and his marine guard thought he was trying to scuttle the boat. There was an enquiry carried out at the time on my ship (Antrim) which I believe the commander of Santa Fe sat on.

@rodrigorodrigo1055

Жыл бұрын

Félix Artuso. Lo mataron cuando era prisionero, porque el custodio no entendió las maniobras que hacía el marino en el submarino.

In the Falklands War, a democratic nation ruled by civilians defeated a genocidal dictatorship ruled by assassins. Thanks UK.

@LucianoRicci182

3 жыл бұрын

Let me remind you that it was your nation that 2 years prior to the war sold warships to our fascist (let me add genocidal) junta, and then ALLIED with chilean fascist (also genocidal) dictatorship to destroy your own ships. That's what I call a democratic nation! So much so that when asked about the conflict your own PM thought that the Malvinas were close to the coast of Norway.

@JG-ib7xk

2 жыл бұрын

@@LucianoRicci182 your country is a third world country that harboured nazis after the second world war. You have no moral high ground and and of your criticism of democracy can't be taken seriously

Tam Dalyell at Eton with Nicholas Ridley described him as condescending I think always talking down to people and trying to force them to accept his argument which he did at the meeting with Falkland islanders year before the invasion; he may have been correct but was condescending

@FranzBieberkopf

5 ай бұрын

Ridley had no idea how the other 99% live. During the Poll Tax disaster, civil servants approached him saying elderly people couldn't pay it. Ridley, being landed aristocracy level rich, said the older people could sell a painting to pay the bills. At first the civil servants thought he was joking-he wasn't. If he was that ignorant about the UK, imagine how ignorant he was og people 8000 miles away.

Why there a polish flag on the thumbnail ?

Is it true there’s oil around the Islands? If so, you can understand the ‘quarrel’. Apparently, just difficult to get to.

@JesterEric

2 жыл бұрын

Yes North of the islands but within the exclusive economic zone. Expensive to extract

@littleshep5502

2 жыл бұрын

There is oil, but Britain has no interest in it

I served in the war. Make The Falkland Islands an independent sovereign nation.

@zdzichus.3264

4 жыл бұрын

They cannot be a sovereign nation, because of their dependency on food and other supplies...

@themccarthyplan2020

4 жыл бұрын

@@zdzichus.3264 sovereign doesn't have to mean self sufficient though I believe they could be to a greater extent than they currently are

@mbell420

4 жыл бұрын

If they ever decided they want to be a independent country. They can be when ever they like. As of right now they don't want to be independent. They want to be a British over seas territory.

@hanoitripper1809

4 жыл бұрын

So did i. They want to stay british

@themccarthyplan2020

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon I love the smell of peat in the morning. It reminds me of victory

Well, it only 1:53 to know where this was all going. They are 420 miles from the mainland Comrade Professor, not 300 miles...thanx for checking.

@johncassels3475

3 жыл бұрын

Not quite. The closest part of Argentina to the most Westerly point of the Falkland Islands is, indeed, only about 500 km (300 miles). From the nearest Argentinian airbases to Port Stanley is approximately the distance you give. thanx for checking!

@cliffordcrimson7124

3 жыл бұрын

What?

“Belgrano was bombed…”. What!?!?!?

@loungejay8555

2 жыл бұрын

It was...by underwater propelled bombs, which is what torpedo's are.

Surely international waters are 12 miles globally , so Argentina have as much right to it as my left foot its 300 hundred miles from them out of their waters sam as they are out of ours so proximity means little

@ursodermatt8809

2 жыл бұрын

ever heard of the 2200m economic zone?

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

Terry Nolan international law expert gives his expert opinion.

@graytoby1

Жыл бұрын

@@Red1Green2Blue3 bro your so bitter you're commenting on everyone on this Video. What's wrong why are you so upset?

@Red1Green2Blue3

Жыл бұрын

@@graytoby1 😂 you're clearly projecting, get a tissue and dry those tears. I've clearly left an impression on you 😘

how on earth the heroic soldier's took the mountains from the argies they should have been impenetrable

@jaegerbomb4142

4 жыл бұрын

Commando spirit, simples!

@georgemorley1029

2 жыл бұрын

Advance carefully while keeping in cover. Throw grenades. Go in with bayonets. Repeat.

@shaunmcclory8117

2 жыл бұрын

If i had been living on one of those freezing wet miserable hilltops for weeks i would be thankful to lose it and get somewhere more comfortable, if i win i will have to stay there!

South Georgia was recaptured without British loss of life despite the best efforts of the SAS to ensure they sustained casualties.

@jaegerbomb4142

4 жыл бұрын

They did it on west Falkland once they found some sbs minding their own business. The confusion of war I guess.

@sichere

3 жыл бұрын

A beacon of light from the ether of the internet 👍

Por la recuperación de malvinas Gibraltar y el ulster. Vivan Argentina España e Irlanda

Ridley was a prat. You say "How was Britain to be aware". After the governments pusillanimous and dilatory attitude toward the Falklanders and the status of the Falklands, it should have been clear to a blind man that their was a reasonable chance of an invasion given the type of government in charge in Argentina, the political unrest, 100 % inflation etc - and the British government could and should have been clear from the start such an incursion by Argentina into the Falklands, would lead to military action.

'hms belgrano'?

WAR IS OVER...IF YOU WANT IT ! HAPPY CHRISTMAS, JOHN AND YOKO

@paulmanning8897

3 жыл бұрын

"Imagine no possessions"!!! Errr....Like all mine??

Who lived , naturally in the Argentine, before Spanish invasion, of the lands , what's the original name . Of Agentina. BY the original peoples .,? .did they live on the Falkland islands. ?.

The Belgrano was Torpedoed not bombed.

@jaegerbomb4142

4 жыл бұрын

This man knows very little about war, he only cares for sounding intelligent. Self qualified I would say.

@loungejay8555

2 жыл бұрын

Semantics. Torpedo's are "underwater propelled bombs."

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaegerbomb4142 You say he's only concerned about sounding intelligent yet you have a problem with him not using what you consider to be the correct terminology.. I think you're projecting.

a ustedes les enseñan en una cátedra sobre Malvinas acá cada argentino lo siente y lo lleva en la piel las Malvinas son argentinas

22:00 "alternative policy" Here is important to point out that Britain did not engage in "regime change", neither in the Falklands nor in Argentina. That would be the "colonialism" way. The conclusion is that Britain was no longer a colonial empire, had no colonial objectives.

When did the Argentines first inhabit the islands?

@littleshep5502

Жыл бұрын

1829

Dennis Healey calculated that the Falklands War made the cost of a leg of lamb astonomic. Tim Pat Cogan said that he wanted Margaret Thatcher to have to a state funeral . Because he wanted to see the newly liberated penguins of South Georgia to waddle behind the gun carriage. Adrian Mole's father confused the Falklands with the Shetlands.

Black buck Falklands war, the mighty vulcans 🖖

@pablofrediani2348

11 ай бұрын

los Mirage y los Pucara argentinos y otros y los exocet destruyeron muchos barcos y fragatas viva la argentina

Throughout the professor's lecture he made reference to " colonialism ". This being apparently a buzz-word to bring the US in. For myself, whether or not you approve of colonialism wherever it allegedly occurs, I cannot see the term applying to the Falklands so far as occupation of the Islands is concerned. Who exactly were being colonized ? May be all those sheep ? Oh and BTW the professor made a joke of someone saying that Lincolnshire is a colony. The real joke is that in Roman Britain the now city of Lincoln was known as LINDUM COLONIA. by which was meant that a Colonia was a place set aside for the benefit of retired legionnaires.

No mention in this talk referencing the owner of the Falkland Island Company, (FIC) in 1982. The name I saw over the door of the main store in Stanley was Dennis Thatcher. Might be nothing.......you decide.......

@zabdas83

8 жыл бұрын

what source do you have for that factoid?

@jestermoon

7 жыл бұрын

Mathew Bateman only what I saw above the door of the store in Stanley, 1983. No phone camera, old school, say what I saw.

@lethagraham4266

6 жыл бұрын

jestermoon and

@11Kralle

6 жыл бұрын

And Dennis Thatcher related to Denis Thatcher somehow?

@Myndir

6 жыл бұрын

You've scuppred him there.

Don't ever take any shit from anyone Great Britian. Remember Winston !

@Scree1972

4 жыл бұрын

Not so 'Great' Anymore unfortunately.

@neiloflongbeck5705

4 жыл бұрын

Will that be the Winston who further ruined Anglo-Irish relations by employing the Bkack and Tans?

What gets me is that he never says that the Falklands were taken from the Spanish Empire, not from Argentina, which did not exist at the time. So my thought would be, "If Spain don't want'em, where's the rub". Add to that by saying who really wants to be living under some South American Junta that kills thousands of it's own citizens for political reasons. It comes down to the fact that the citizens are Brits and want to stay that way. I also want to point out that this guys says horrid things about the islanders. I wonder why? Was he visiting and they didn't bring him his tea at the proper temperature? Case closed.

@josedro

4 жыл бұрын

Argentina declared its Independence from Spain July 9 1816 . 15 years later British Empire decided to invade ( By Force typical Empire language) Argentinian territory. So Falkland have been British by force since

@chrisaskin6144

4 жыл бұрын

And here's me thinking that Argentinian independence occurred on the 25 May (hence the name of the aircraft carrier), and not the 9 July??? Well you live and learn.

OK send the Falklanders back to Britain and the Argies back to Spain. And the New Yorkers back to Ireland. There. Now we're all happy.

British settlers were there before Argentina existed as country , so they're talking bollox .

@waynesmith4589

Жыл бұрын

@The Richest Man In Babylon Honoury member

GOTCHA!🤪

Two minutes into this and I'm already weary of being talked down to. I think I'll leave it there.

@user-oo8xp2rf1k

6 жыл бұрын

Teachers have to talk down. If ypur teacher isn't talking down you need a better teacher?

@jonathanwarner1844

6 жыл бұрын

I think many teachers would take issue with that.

@cacambo589

5 жыл бұрын

Is it like a knowledgeable person explaining something to an ignorant person?

@cacambo589

5 жыл бұрын

Sir Vernon's a bit smarter than you. Is that why you call him names like a bad-tempered schoolboy? Have you put a worm in his lunchbox?

@Dude0000

4 жыл бұрын

B A Ryan he’s not a teacher, he’s a professor.

When an academic, without any military experience, tries to come across as a military expert.....

@Red1Green2Blue3

2 жыл бұрын

When a random on youtube tries to come across as more intelligent than a highly decorated academic...

What makes this war so pathetic is that the Argentines initiated it at the worst moment, Britain was about to sell one of its aircraft carriers to India and the other was going to be turned into scrap, without these, the British Navy was doomed . But the most outstanding fact and the greatest irony of this mess, was that this "victory" allowed Margaret Thatcher to destroy the unions of the state companies and sell them to the highest bidder, although as always happens in these sales the British people never received a fair price and in the end lost, like the United States, its industrial base and thereby condemned its population to a slow economic death that all of us can see in real time in the TV today.

@samuelelsby1800

6 жыл бұрын

Julio Garcia As Andrew Marr has noted, Thatcher’s two major adversaries - Galtieri & Scargill made fatal strategic timing mistakes

@philbell3516

6 жыл бұрын

dont talk daft

@tamlandipper29

5 жыл бұрын

There's no way that the government of the day could have predicted how economically vital coal would become. Or how valuable national ownership of all those coal mines would be.

@garethfox7702

5 жыл бұрын

It was not Thatcher who was to blame for the delciine of Britains manufacturing base and heavy industry - It was globalisation. We could no longer produce coal, steel, ships etc as cheaply as other countries (particularly Asia and Pacific Rim countries), so it was more cost effective to import theses goods. For most of us that lived through the 60;s and 70;s and the Callaghan and Wilson Labour Governments, we can remember Britain was in a terrible economic mess, narrowly avoiding the humiliation of having to go for an IMF bailout. By the late 70's we had state workers such as teachers on a forced 3 day week, constant power cuts, rampant militant unionism with wildcat strikes, flying pickets and finally the Winter of Discontent, with rubbish lying uncollected in the streets and morgues overflowing as bodies lay unburied or cremated. I'm no lover of Thatcher, but she at least saw that Britain's future lay in service industries such as finance, banking and IT. This was not going to happen overnight but she oversaw the first decade of this transition. And yes there were hard times for many during this period. But now Britain is back up to the 5th largest economy in the world, largely due to Thatcherite policies that were even continued under the Blair Labour government. People forget that more coal mines, shipyards and steelworks closed down under the preceeding Labour governments than did under Thatchers Tory Administration. It was Scargill that finally sealed the miners fate as he used his position as head of their union to go on a personal crusade against Thatcher, which he lost. She at least was trying to keep the productive mines open but even this proved impossible as miners from other pits went on strike forming picket lines to stop non striking miners from attending work. Unfortunately our schools and universities are now run by teachers and lecturers that peddle left wing dogma rather than historical facts that are inconvenient to their socialist viewpoints. Little wonder that students who were too young to see the 70's for themselves believe the crap they are being fed.

What an objectionable supercilious individual this person is. Also a bit thick, “HMS Belgrano” what credibility can we give to anything else he says.