Thursday, June 4, 2009

This war could have been avoided by the UK

The Falklands War was an armed conflict fought between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the ownership of the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) South Georgia and Sanwitch Islands.

The conflict lasted 3 months and cost more than 1.000 lives mainly because most of soldiers from both countries committed suicides due to post-traumatic disorders.

This war was the result of a long-standing sovereignty claim put forward by Argentina in order to achieve an sovereignty agreement on the basis that they were invaded in 1833 by the British Empire that managed to expel Luis Vernet, the first Argentine designated governor who was already in charge of the islands.

In 1982, Argentina was being governed by a falling dictatorship that sought to divert public attention by using the cause stated above in order to avoid their loss of power and, at the same time, force Britain to start the negotiations she previously pledged to negotiate believing that this was not going to cause any armed conflict.

In April 2 of 1982 Argentine armed forces were dispatched to the disputed islands and seized the British garrison that protected them without causing any death. This fact was seen by Argentina as a legitimate reocupation of its own territory based on the Argentine Constitution and by Britain as an Invasion of a British Oversea Territory.

Sinking of the Belgrano, The Most Controversial Fact of the War:

Picture: ARA General Belgrano being sunk

On May 2, the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed the ARA General Belgrano Argentine cruiser as it was sailing away from the Falkland Islands, the British Task Force and the Exclusion Zone declared by the UK causing 316 Argentine deaths.

Fourteen hours prior to her sinking, Peru's president Belaunde Terry put forward the Peruvian Peace Proposals that primely suggested the withdrawal of both the Argentine and British forces and the introduction of a Neuter government constituted by Brazil, Peru, Germany and USA until a peaceful agreement is formally reached.

However, the administration of Margaret Thatcher made the following statements in order to justify the sinking:

1) HMS Conqueror followed the Belgrano for 24 hours.
2) The Belgrano was sailing towards the British Task Force at the moment of the sinking
3) The Belgrano carried Exocet Missiles according to Intelligence Assessments
4) The Peruvian Peace Proposals did not reach London until 3 hours after the attack on the Belgrano.

On May 24, 1982 (a few days before the General Election of 1983) the BBC broadcast a controversial interview with Mrs Thatcher and Diana Gould who asked her for justification of the sinking of the Belgrano. Mrs. Thatcher looks very affected by the questions.

Video: BBC Interview with Diana Gould



Video: A fragment of a deeper BBC investigation:



Arrest of Clive Ponting:

Picture: Clive Ponting being arrested

In 1985, Clive Ponting was arrested and charged for violating the Secrets Act by passing classified secret documents to Tam Dalyell about the sinking of the Belgrano, the documents revealed the following points refuting the government lies under the Thatcher administration:

1) HMS Conqueror has been following the Belgrano for 36 hours
2) The Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands and the British Task Force
3) It did not carry any kind of missiles system
Video: Tam Dalyell on the Sinking of the Belgrano


Consequently, Tam Dalyell, a member of Parliament later stated:

"Truth of the matter is that the threat was not the 44-years-old cruiser, it was in fact the [Peruvian] Peace Proposal because that would have deprived Mrs. Thatcher of the Militar Victory that the Falklands War was all about in the first place, it was British Dometic politics rather than any care for those Falkland Islanders"

In addition, the commander of the Conqueror, Christopher Wrestford Brown stated in his book, "Our Falklands War" that he had the Belgrano in his sight 36 hours prior to her sinking as she was refueling at sea. (This fact fits the descriptions given in the secret documents leaked by Clive Ponting)




"That ship was a danger to our boys"

Although Mrs. Thatcher has repeatedly stated that the sinking of the Belgrano, in spite of its heading, was meant to protect British Soldiers lives, the sinking itself triggered the Argentine Air Force (Fuerza Aere Argentina) to strike back sinking numerous British ships rather than saving British lives as she repeatedly stated for defending her decision.


Picture of the sinking of British ships:




Sources:
Troubled History of Official Secrets Act (BBC News)
1985: Falklands' row civil servant resigns (BBC News)
Our Falklands War: The Men of the Task Force tell their own Story ISBN-10: 0907771084
The Peruvian Peace Proposals

21 comments:

  1. What a load of balderdash. This is the most biased assessment of the Falklands War yet, with NO basis in fact. It is unadorned anti-British propoganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately not such rubbish as you wish to imply. Living at the time in West Germany I saw the announcement and also footage of General Hague stating that such a proposal from Peru was coming and there was great hope that a conflict could be avoided. This was hours before the sinking of the Belgrano. It is beyond me how this info could have been held back from the UK population at thattime.

      Delete
  2. Oh really? NO basis in fact? Tam Dalyell, Clive Ponting and the BBC are all liars?

    If you disagree with any of the points in this article then why don't you attempt to refute them with facts, rather than simply calling names.

    You're not doing your argument any favours!

    Oh, and it's propAganda.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With regard to the view of a "Belgrano War Crime" that's not how it's seen in the UK at the time or now. The purpose of the exclusion zone under international law is to protect neutral shipping not enemy warships. The Belgrano group was at sea, seen as a threat to the UK fleet & sunk, sadly with loss of many Argentine lives.

    The Argentine Chief of Naval Staff, Captain and Second-in-Command of the ARA Belgrano all agree its sinking was an act of war and not a war crime:

    La Nacion, Lunes 2 de mayo de 2005:

    "Tengo la obligación de hacer público mi total desacuerdo. No fue un crimen de guerra, sino una acción de combate; los 323 tripulantes que ofrendaron sus vidas no fueron asesinados: murieron luchando por nuestro país, que es la máxima entrega que puede hacer un militar.

    "La fuerza naval que integraba se había desplegado para realizar un ataque a la flota británica conformando una operación coordinada con otros grupos navales; el rumbo que tenía los alejaba momentáneamente de la flota enemiga, pues el almirante comandante estimó conveniente esperar un momento más adecuado. El Belgrano y los otros buques eran una amenaza y un peligro para los británicos."

    "Su ubicación fuera de la zona de exclusión no implicaba retirarse de la guerra. Todos los comandantes en el mar habíamos recibido la comunicación británica del establecimiento de dicha área. El mensaje establecía en su parte final: «El gobierno de Su Majestad se reserva el derecho de atacar a cualquier nave o aeronave, dentro o fuera de la zona de exclusión, que considere un peligro para sus fuerzas». Dejar la zona de exclusión no era dejar la zona de combate para entrar en un área protegida.
    "No fue una violación al derecho internacional; fue un acto de guerra y ésa fue la posición que como jefe de la Armada sostuve en 1995 ante presentaciones en distintos tribunales.
    "Los problemas de política interna no regían la conducta de quienes combatían. La dotación del Belgrano fue hundida consciente de sus riesgos."

    Enrique Molina Pico
    Almirante, ex jefe del Estado
    Mayor General de la Armada
    CI 4.293.994

    La Capital, domingo, 16 de octubre de 2005

    El segundo comandante del Crucero General Belgrano:

    Sobre la polémica creada por el ataque inglés cuando el buque estaba fuera de la zona de exclusión, el marino señaló que navegaron por fuera de esa demarcación impuesta en torno a las Malvinas por el Reino Unido. Pero aclaró que "la zona de exclusión es un diagrama geográfico importante en situaciones de bloqueo, pero no en un conflicto de guerra. No cuaja decir que no debían atacar".

    "Es un deber explicar aquel suceso para retomar la historia. Para mí no pasaron 23 años; ese día siempre lo tengo presente", sostuvo el capitán de navío retirado.

    Sobre la polémica creada por el ataque inglés cuando el buque estaba fuera de la zona de exclusión, el marino señaló que navegaron por fuera de esa demarcación impuesta en torno a las Malvinas por el Reino Unido. Pero aclaró que "la zona de exclusión es un diagrama geográfico importante en situaciones de bloqueo, pero no en un conflicto de guerra. No cuaja decir que no debían atacar".

    "Nosotros también podíamos entrar en combate. No teníamos misiles pero nos acompañaban dos destructores y el Belgrano contaba con cañones de 20 kilómetros de alcance", sostuvo Galazi.

    En cuanto a la capacidad del crucero, aseguró que "estaba dotado para participar en las operaciones. Al zarpar, cada jefe de departamento señaló que todo estaba preparado".

    Pedro Luis Galazio
    El segundo comandante del Crucero General Belgrano

    ReplyDelete
  4. “The sinking of the cruiser was an act of war. It was not a crime. It was a licit most unfortunate and lamentable action. Crime is war. We were in the front and we suffered the consequences”, Captain Bonzo was quoted at the time.
    “As of April 30 I was given orders to open fire and if the submarine should have been before me having emerged for repairs, I would have opened fire with the fifteen cannons until it sunk”.

    Hector Bonzo,
    Commander of the Cruiser ARA General Belgrano

    ReplyDelete
  5. The context explains everything, the ship was not a menace to the fleet, it was 400 miles away from them, it had no missiles, 20km reach cannons, the attack from the submarine was not legitimate defense(art.51 UN charter)the ship was heading to the continent.The secret of the fact shows that things are not as clear as Ms Thatcher said.
    The peace negotiations were going in the right direction before that, there was no "war" till that moment, it was being negotiated a peaceful solution, the generals didn´t wan´t a conflict with the Nato. This is about facts, the use of force was not necessary, and it was excessive, the purpose was to sink the negotiations, it s evident, the explanation of Bonzo is a self justification, but it is not legally correct, becasue of the excessive use of force, the exclusion zone decided by GB, and the art.51 previously mentioned.
    Maiop

    ReplyDelete
  6. UK set an exclusion zone to avoid any inconvenience during their journey to south atlantic.But then UK did not respect what they hd established themselves.If Arg would`ve sank a single ship during UK jorney to Malvinas across the Atlantic, it had been a Criminal act, with no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. the belgrano was not on her own she had escorts with her and they left the area without helping fellow seaman. also after this contact we never saw the argentine surface fleet again they had no defence against the hunter-killer subs and took their fleet to shallow water as protection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow !! Is pretty sad to read all of this here!Everything from UK is about politics! One of my friends from Merlo Bs As is one of the marines missing with "Crucero General Belgrano"
    I hope some day justice take a good turn!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fuga de cerebros masiva en la mayoría de los comentarios. En cada uno se percibe esa mentalidad rapaz propia de un imperio que arrasó a lo largo de la historia pueblos enteros y con ellos, su cultura, sus recursos y su dignidad. Estos ladrones, criminales de traje y corbata ven al mundo como si fuera una porción de torta y cuando pueden, meten mano. No tienen vergüenza ni respeto por los derechos humanos. Gracias por exponer los hechos y a ver cuándo empiezan a abrir los ojos algunos y a dejar de defender a estos asesinos de chicos. Saludos.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The lies told by Margaret Thatcher, Britain's worst Prime Minister have been exposed and gone down in History.
    The War was totally preventable and appart from the British ships sunk and seriously damaged, we are very fortunate that the Argentinean submarine San Luis' torpedo which hit the Hermes aircraft carrier, did not go off. This was 'covered up' and repairs made in dry dock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To set the fcts straight, if a torpedo hits a large ship and does not go off, nothing happens. Why would hermes need repairs if she isnt hurt? Second, we have now declassified te reasosn Thacher was fustrated in that Tv-inteview above, GCHQ had intercepted and decrypted all argi coms. And that made it clear what Belgrano's intentions were, her course away from the Falklands was nothing more than a tactical ploy. It should be remebered that she was supposed to attack in conjunction with ex-HMS Venerable. And that attack could have resulted large loss of life, as at least both the cruiser would have been sunk by hunter-killers. And the Royal navy could have been out of the fight!

      Delete
  11. Some documented additional details: a few years before occupying the islands in 1833, the United Kingdom formally recognised Argentina (independent from from Spain since 1816) as a new country, with a map that clearly marked the islands as part of Argentina (which was consistent as previously they belonged to Spain).

    As for the Belgrano, it is relevant, as shown in the map in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano ,
    that it was hundreds of miles south of the islands when it was sunk. In the last few days before that, at no point was it sailing towards the islands.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Face it we came we saw we kicked your ass and will do again if we have to, the Falklands are now and shall remain British, we are not a third world country or under a dictatorship, we are a country of free speaking people who belive in protecting our sovrenty and its citezens from any kind of opression, the only reason argentina want it is because of the minerals, our armed forces are the best in the world, invade if you want but you will lose and maybe next time we wont stop at the boarder and we will take the whole of argentina
    Rule Brittania

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We kicked your ass"...Hundreds of men committed suicide as a result of Thatcher's war crime. Thatcher effectively murdered them & the men who died on the battlefield. The only facing that needs to be done is by people like you who choose to ignore the truth...that Thatcher's government deliberately sacrificed hundreds of people in order to win an election. You are a traitor to Britain, just as Thatcher was.

      Delete
  13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thQpY_y5SDE

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lamentablemente estos argentinies todavía no entienden que las malvinas no les pertenecen y se acabó. Quienes afirman su contraparte están muy revanchistas por perder una guerra sin cuartel de la cual sabían de sobra que tenían muy escasas posibilidades de ganarla. Las guerras son así de realistas y es hora que aprendan de vuestra propia historia. Saludos.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have a question who wrote this blogg?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Perfect Casino: Top Offers & Bonuses at
    The Best worrione Casino Offers. Casino https://febcasino.com/review/merit-casino/ Bonuses wooricasinos.info & Promotions. With an emphasis on septcasino casino games, the gambling industry is 출장안마 expected to explode

    ReplyDelete