USS Iwo Jima to the Royal Navy

[Wreford-Brown]

Marcantilin makes a good point, but Argentina never questioned the background of the population when it approached the UN. If Argentina uses the 'imposed population' argument then Texas should belong to Mexico (1836, three years after the Falklands). I think this is unlikely to be ratified by the United Nations Security Council!

UN Resolution 2065 (1965) listed the Falklands as a colony and reminded members that under Resolution 1514 (1960) they had undertaken to 'bring to an end everywhere colonialisation in all its forms' but caveated it with 'only in the interests of its population'.

In 1981 the Falkland Islanders refused full UK citizenship, preferring instead to remain a protectorate. If next years vote retains this view, the UK will continue to defend its protectorate regardless of Argentinean posturing.

Where I live there have been a series of radio articles about the war centred on Royal Naval officers view that when the Falklands war started they were shocked, because until that time the Argentinean Navy had been friendly with the UK sending many officers to train with them. When the Belgrano was sunk, many RN officers were surprised because their Argentinean naval friends could have been on board. Hopefully there is a way out of this particular incident pit...

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by Wreford-Brown

interests of its population.

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

In the other hand, Argentine Navy officers work together (even on early 1982!) with Royal Navy to solve certain problems with Sea Dart missiles. I have a pic showing ARA Santisima Trinidad and HMS Sheffield alongside, on 1981. Sadly, months later, war happened and people who work together died.

Regards!

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

I absolutely agree - the vagaries of UN political speak leave too much wriggle room if politicians want to misinterpret what was said, and sometimes this can lead to war.

There are Iraqi and Afghan officers training in the UK alongside their UK counterparts - hopefully one day we'll see Argentine officers here as well.

[Jimbuna]

I'd be really interested in what the intel was and who from because the size and quality of the storm heading the Argentinians way (presuming the intel included such detail) should have sent a clear message for them to get out of the Falklands asap.

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I'd be really interested in what the intel was and who from because the size and quality of the storm heading the Argentinians way (presuming the intel included such detail) should have sent a clear message for them to get out of the Falklands asap.

The UK sent the wrong message:
When an Argentine nationalist landed on the FI in 1967 and tried to 'capture' the islands he was arrested but returned to Argentina. This led to the perception that the UK government considered the FI an Argentine matter and had little interest in its affairs.
In 1976 Argentina occupied South Thule and we didn't react. The next year, Argentina threatened to occupy FI, UK said nothing publically but sent a small task force and the threat disappeared.
We had removed HMS Endurance (an ice patrol ship) and announced that it was to be decommissioned.
We were due to close our British Antarctic Survey base at South Georgia.
The Islanders had been denied UK citizenship.
The UK government had offered to lease FI to Argentina for 99 years (although the offer was rescinded in 1981).

Taken individually, over the course of 15 years, none of these issues had raised an alarm but when put together they sent a relatively clear message that led Argentina to believe that the UK wasn't interested in FI.

In 1982 the only way to reinforce FI was to ship down, which was a long and arduous journey. Things are slightly different now, with UK keeping its best RAF fighters in FI and maintaining a large enough ground force to keep the airfields open for the two brigades we keep at readiness. FI is firmly kept on the radar.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Wreford-Brown

The UK sent the wrong message:
When an Argentine nationalist landed on the FI in 1967 and tried to 'capture' the islands he was arrested but returned to Argentina. This led to the perception that the UK government considered the FI an Argentine matter and had little interest in its affairs.
In 1976 Argentina occupied South Thule and we didn't react. The next year, Argentina threatened to occupy FI, UK said nothing publically but sent a small task force and the threat disappeared.
We had removed HMS Endurance (an ice patrol ship) and announced that it was to be decommissioned.
We were due to close our British Antarctic Survey base at South Georgia.
The Islanders had been denied UK citizenship.
The UK government had offered to lease FI to Argentina for 99 years (although the offer was rescinded in 1981).

Taken individually, over the course of 15 years, none of these issues had raised an alarm but when put together they sent a relatively clear message that led Argentina to believe that the UK wasn't interested in FI.

In 1982 the only way to reinforce FI was to ship down, which was a long and arduous journey. Things are slightly different now, with UK keeping its best RAF fighters in FI and maintaining a large enough ground force to keep the airfields open for the two brigades we keep at readiness. FI is firmly kept on the radar.

Two brigades-ten thousandish personnel eh? 10% of our total strength

I remember the points above but that leaves me wondering if Maggie was aware of the risks and the move by the Argentinians was predicted/hoped for because the situation certainly saved her political bacon.

I doubt if we'll ever know the truth.