The SECRET plot by Thatcher's Tory government to sell out the Falkland's to Argentina

nicko wrote:Sorry Irn,   that's just a proposal  by  a nobody in government at that time. ALL governments have people who put forward stupid proposals from time to time.   Another  poor attempt to smear the Tories.  [It didn't work though did it]  Mrs Thatcher saw to that.

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:Sorry Irn,   that's just a proposal  by  a nobody in government at that time. ALL governments have people who put forward stupid proposals from time to time.   Another  poor attempt to smear the Tories.  [It didn't work though did it]  Mrs Thatcher saw to that.

It was put forward by the Right Honourable, Mr Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State for the Foreign Office, with the full knowledge of Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher saw to it that 257 of the British military died retaking the Islands caused by the incompetence of her government.  

She had no choice, either retake the Islands or you're finished. At least Lord Carrington had the decency to resign over the whole sordid affair.

Thems the facts, nicko.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:Sorry Irn,   that's just a proposal  by  a nobody in government at that time. ALL governments have people who put forward stupid proposals from time to time.   Another  poor attempt to smear the Tories.  [It didn't work though did it]  Mrs Thatcher saw to that.

It was put forward by the Right Honourable, Mr Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State for the Foreign Office, with the full knowledge of Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher saw to it that 257 of the British military died retaking the Islands caused by the incompetence of her government.  

She had no choice, either retake the Islands or you're finished. At least Lord Carrington had the decency to resign over the whole sordid affair.

Thems the facts, nicko.

So you saying the invasion was Thatchers fault based on what exactly, this piece of paper, which funny enough has never come forward fro the Argentine's themselves, which would help their cause?

Behave that is pathetic Irn.

The argies would have invaded, because Galtieri had to do something where his favour was failing fast in the country, so to place the blame on Thatcher is appalling and ignoring the facts surrounding the invasion itself

To make out the deaths of people is down to Thatcher is disingenuous to say the least and you should bow your head in shame.

This was a proposal, which clearly never saw the light of day, as stated the Argies would have used this.




As head of his country, Galtieri introduced a number of reforms. The economy took a slight turn for the better by the introduction of classic monetarist measures – government spending was cut, government-owned industries were sold off and salaries were frozen. A limited relaxation was allowed on personal freedom. These quickly spiralled and anti-government demonstrations became common.

 

What Galtieri needed was something that would unite the country behind him, take the sting out of the calls for reform and play on the traditional patriotism of the Argentinean people. The ownership of the Falkland Islands had always been an issue in Argentina – a successful taking of the islands would, so Galtieri gambled, unite and rally everyone behind him. So it proved to be.



Those are the facts, not the invented nonsense you have just claimed.

Plus it helps if you show all the documents, like where sovereignty could be given back in 200 years with the Islanders approval:

http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/BAD0573864714A95838DC583BF8C50C0.pdf

I expect an apology to those of the families fallen an injured in this conflict who you have just insulted appallingly.

In your own time

nicko wrote:His post is very simple to explain,   he hates the Tories. I thought better of you Irn.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



So you saying the invasion was Thatchers fault based on what exactly, this piece of paper, which funny enough has never come forward fro the Argentine's themselves, which would help their cause?

Behave that is pathetic Irn.

The argies would have invaded, because Galtieri had to do something where his favour was failing fast in the country, so to place the blame on Thatcher is appalling and ignoring the facts surrounding the invasion itself

To make out the deaths of people is down to Thatcher is disingenuous to say the least and you should bow your head in shame.

This was a proposal, which clearly never saw the light of day, as stated the Argies would have used this.




As head of his country, Galtieri introduced a number of reforms. The economy took a slight turn for the better by the introduction of classic monetarist measures – government spending was cut, government-owned industries were sold off and salaries were frozen. A limited relaxation was allowed on personal freedom. These quickly spiralled and anti-government demonstrations became common.

 

What Galtieri needed was something that would unite the country behind him, take the sting out of the calls for reform and play on the traditional patriotism of the Argentinean people. The ownership of the Falkland Islands had always been an issue in Argentina – a successful taking of the islands would, so Galtieri gambled, unite and rally everyone behind him. So it proved to be.



Those are the facts, not the invented nonsense you have just claimed.

Plus it helps if you show all the documents, like where sovereignty could be given back in 200 years with the Islanders approval:

http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/BAD0573864714A95838DC583BF8C50C0.pdf

I expect an apology to those of the families fallen an injured in this conflict who you have just insulted appallingly.

In your own time

It’s you that should be apologising for defending the incompetence and the treachery that was going on in the Thatcher government before during and after the invasion of the islands. They were even prepared to do a deal with Argentina to cede sovereignty to them whilst their troops were still on the Island providing they withdrew on that premise.


Are you seriously suggesting that the Cabinet paper that I extracted that from was not a serious proposal? If you are then you have much to learn about what took place at the time.

Answer me this; why did Lord Carrington and the other FCO ministers, Humphrey Atkins and Richard Luce resign from her government?

I can't stay for now but I’ll pop back later at which time I hope you will have managed to come up with a good reason why they did just that.

Minister�½s visit to consult Falklands people

By Our Diplomatic Correspondent

Transfer of Falklands sovereignty proposed

By Michael Frenchman

nicko wrote:Thanks didge,   you put it much better than I could,   he is in thrall to labour though.

Irn Bru wrote:@ Didge

You don’t care why they resigned! Is that because you don’t know or are you just trying to sidestep giving an answer?

Anyway, thanks for all that you have copied out but you really needn’t have bothered because what you have managed to cobble together is nothing new and I’ve seen it all before. It does nothing to dispute what I have already said in that there was a plot hatched between the British government and the Argentine government to cede sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to Argentina under a lease back deal. I never once said that it was over and above the wishes of the Islander’s although that was considered by our government at one stage.
Gobbledygook yet again, it certainly does because it was known by the Falkland islanders themselves of negotiations, you are just talking out of your arse now because the evidence shows you are trying to make something out of nothing, a typical left wing loon to be honest. So your point has no relevance, ideas were put forward for all parties, which is natural when you are trying to resolve problems over sovereignty

The extract which I supplied in the OP is from a meeting that was held in secret in Geneva without the knowledge of the Islanders who were not aware that the proposal was being presented to the Argentine delegation. Go and read the minutes of that meeting to see that the Argentine delegation accepted that such a proposal was pretty much along the lines that they had been thinking and so they went along with it. What happened after that was that efforts by Nick Ridley would be made to try and convince the Islanders that a lease back deal is in their interests because there was no other option available that would bring the long held dispute to a conclusion other than ‘Fortress Falkland’ which the British would not sign up to on the basis that they couldn’t afford it. The extract you provided in your post about Nick Ridley doing the rounds on the Islands and speaking to some of the population just confirms that

I have all the minutes of all the discussions, and I even presented the links, where you can read them all from 1980 onwards, which shows you have done no research and just going off one document. The ones I showed followed on from yours. They show that all parties were well aware of what was being proposed.
Secret?







The 1981 defence revue had already put in place measures to reduce the Royal Navy by a third, including scrapping of one of the carriers, and a reduction in the surface fleet. That also included the withdrawal of HMS Endurance which was the only naval ship that we had in the region without replacing it. That decision in itself produced a furious reaction from the Falkland Islands Council and I’ll repeat it for you here
Irrelevant, so now your beef has nothing to do with the fact on the negotiations, but how the Royal Navy was reduced due to costs, what the fuck. So now you are saying that the British Government enticed them to invade.
Cannot stop laughing at such stupidity and conspiracy bullshit.


‘The people of the Falkland Islands deplore in the strongest terms the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from service and urge that all possible endeavours be made to secure a reversal of this decision.

Admiral Leach, the First Sea Lord, also sent  a note to Mrs Thatcher, copied to John Nott, the Defence Secretary, warning  that the proposed defence cuts, particularly to the Royal Navy, could have serious consequences: “War seldom takes the expected form and a strong maritime capability provides flexibility for the unforeseen. If you erode it to the extent envisaged I believe you will undesirably foreclose your future options and prejudice our national security.”
Irrelevant again, one ship is not and would have not stopped the invasion, that is comical to say the least.

Could they have been deterred? It must be remembered that in order to take action to deter Argentina militarily, given the vast distance between Britain and the Falklands, we would have had to have some three weeks notice. Further, to send down a force of insufficient size would have been to subject it to intolerable risk. Certainly, the presence of HMS Endurance - the lightly armed patrol vessel which was due to be withdrawn under the 1981 Defence Review proposals - was a military irrelevance. It would neither deter nor repel any planned invasion. (Indeed, when the invasion occurred I was very glad that the ship was at sea and not in Port Stanley: if she had been, she would have been captured or blown out of the water). Most important perhaps is that nothing would have more reliably precipitated a full scale invasion, if something less had been planned, than if we had started military preparations on the scale required to send an effective deterrent. Of course with the benefit of hindsight, we would always like to have acted differently. So would the Argentinians. The truth is that the invasion could not have been foreseen or prevented. This was the main conclusion of the Committee of Inquiry, chaired by Lord Franks , which we set up to examine the way we had handled the dispute in the run-up to the invasion. The Committee had unprecedented access to Government papers, including those of the intelligence services. Its report ends with the words: "we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982".

It fell on deaf ears as nothing was done and Defence Secretary John Nott also refused to reconsider the decision on HMS Endurance despite being warned on three occasions by Lord Carrington that this would be seen by Argentina as a lack of commitment by the British to support and defend the islands.
See above


The Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, also refused to supply additional funding for an air service to the islands in the event that Argentina would get difficult over the negotiations and withdraw the link that they had been providing over the years.
The 1981 Nationality Act also took away British citizenship from many of the islanders who would no longer have the right to settle in the UK  - that just made matters worse.
Bored, so this is nothing about the article you started the thread on but about you being a fuckwit about the Tories and hate the fact she retook them,
Get over your jealousy and stop insulting those who died



Nuff said then

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:Thanks didge,   you put it much better than I could,   he is in thrall to labour though.

nicko, Didge knows hee haw about what happened but lets see what comments he comes back with regarding the meeting that took place in 1981 regarding convincing the islanders that they were screwed or the telegram sent from Anthony Williams about all the warnings he sent to London.

nicko wrote:Thanks didge,   you put it much better than I could,   he is in thrall to labour though.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:@ Didge

You don’t care why they resigned! Is that because you don’t know or are you just trying to sidestep giving an answer?

Anyway, thanks for all that you have copied out but you really needn’t have bothered because what you have managed to cobble together is nothing new and I’ve seen it all before. It does nothing to dispute what I have already said in that there was a plot hatched between the British government and the Argentine government to cede sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to Argentina under a lease back deal. I never once said that it was over and above the wishes of the Islander’s although that was considered by our government at one stage.
Gobbledygook yet again, it certainly does because it was known by the Falkland islanders themselves of negotiations, you are just talking out of your arse now because the evidence shows you are trying to make something out of nothing, a typical left wing loon to be honest. So your point has no relevance, ideas were put forward for all parties, which is natural when you are trying to resolve problems over sovereignty

The extract which I supplied in the OP is from a meeting that was held in secret in Geneva without the knowledge of the Islanders who were not aware that the proposal was being presented to the Argentine delegation. Go and read the minutes of that meeting to see that the Argentine delegation accepted that such a proposal was pretty much along the lines that they had been thinking and so they went along with it. What happened after that was that efforts by Nick Ridley would be made to try and convince the Islanders that a lease back deal is in their interests because there was no other option available that would bring the long held dispute to a conclusion other than ‘Fortress Falkland’ which the British would not sign up to on the basis that they couldn’t afford it. The extract you provided in your post about Nick Ridley doing the rounds on the Islands and speaking to some of the population just confirms that

I have all the minutes of all the discussions, and I even presented the links, where you can read them all from 1980 onwards, which shows you have done no research and just going off one document. The ones I showed followed on from yours. They show that all parties were well aware of what was being proposed.
Secret?







The 1981 defence revue had already put in place measures to reduce the Royal Navy by a third, including scrapping of one of the carriers, and a reduction in the surface fleet. That also included the withdrawal of HMS Endurance which was the only naval ship that we had in the region without replacing it. That decision in itself produced a furious reaction from the Falkland Islands Council and I’ll repeat it for you here
Irrelevant, so now your beef has nothing to do with the fact on the negotiations, but how the Royal Navy was reduced due to costs, what the fuck. So now you are saying that the British Government enticed them to invade.
Cannot stop laughing at such stupidity and conspiracy bullshit.


‘The people of the Falkland Islands deplore in the strongest terms the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from service and urge that all possible endeavours be made to secure a reversal of this decision.

Admiral Leach, the First Sea Lord, also sent  a note to Mrs Thatcher, copied to John Nott, the Defence Secretary, warning  that the proposed defence cuts, particularly to the Royal Navy, could have serious consequences: “War seldom takes the expected form and a strong maritime capability provides flexibility for the unforeseen. If you erode it to the extent envisaged I believe you will undesirably foreclose your future options and prejudice our national security.”
Irrelevant again, one ship is not and would have not stopped the invasion, that is comical to say the least.

Could they have been deterred? It must be remembered that in order to take action to deter Argentina militarily, given the vast distance between Britain and the Falklands, we would have had to have some three weeks notice. Further, to send down a force of insufficient size would have been to subject it to intolerable risk. Certainly, the presence of HMS Endurance - the lightly armed patrol vessel which was due to be withdrawn under the 1981 Defence Review proposals - was a military irrelevance. It would neither deter nor repel any planned invasion. (Indeed, when the invasion occurred I was very glad that the ship was at sea and not in Port Stanley: if she had been, she would have been captured or blown out of the water). Most important perhaps is that nothing would have more reliably precipitated a full scale invasion, if something less had been planned, than if we had started military preparations on the scale required to send an effective deterrent. Of course with the benefit of hindsight, we would always like to have acted differently. So would the Argentinians. The truth is that the invasion could not have been foreseen or prevented. This was the main conclusion of the Committee of Inquiry, chaired by Lord Franks , which we set up to examine the way we had handled the dispute in the run-up to the invasion. The Committee had unprecedented access to Government papers, including those of the intelligence services. Its report ends with the words: "we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982".

It fell on deaf ears as nothing was done and Defence Secretary John Nott also refused to reconsider the decision on HMS Endurance despite being warned on three occasions by Lord Carrington that this would be seen by Argentina as a lack of commitment by the British to support and defend the islands.
See above


The Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, also refused to supply additional funding for an air service to the islands in the event that Argentina would get difficult over the negotiations and withdraw the link that they had been providing over the years.
The 1981 Nationality Act also took away British citizenship from many of the islanders who would no longer have the right to settle in the UK  - that just made matters worse.
Bored, so this is nothing about the article you started the thread on but about you being a fuckwit about the Tories and hate the fact she retook them,
Get over your jealousy and stop insulting those who died



Nuff said then

Alot of bullshit said which never showed any view in regards to your first claim, just some left wing load of conspiracy crap.
The worst part is your belief in an antarctic boat would stop an invasion with 2 x 20mm cannons




As seen from the real facts, they had intended to invade ages before:

1965 saw a United Nations resolution passed which requested that Britain and Argentina negotiate a solution to the sovereignty question with a view to finding a peaceful resolution to the problem. The next 17 years saw tortuous diplomatic negotiations as successive governments and negotiators on both sides sought to seek a compromise that was happy for the Argentines, for the British and, most critically of all, for the Falkland Islanders. It did not help the Argentinian cause for a string of military governments to seize control of the country and rule with horrendous human rights' violations. The so-called 'Dirty War' saw myriad opponents of the regime 'disappeared'. They were often tortured and some were even thrown from aircraft or helicopters into the South Atlantic. Falkland Islanders naturally assumed that they might expect to end up as victims of these fascist military regimes should the Argentines take control of the islands. These military dictatorships had ruled Argentina on and off since the time of Peron at the end of the Second World War. The British government found it diplomatically difficult to hand over 1,800 people who did not want to leave the protection of their mother country. There were various ideas floated for sharing or transferring elements of sovereignty. Even as late as 1980, the British government under the direction of Nicholas Ridley was trying to push the idea of a 'leaseback', where the islands would be given to Argentina and then leased back by Britain for a 99 year period. Ridley had entered into secret negotiations with his Argentine counterpart to see if they could come to a compromise that would please both sides. But even this idea was too unpalatable to the Falkland Islanders who did not wish to cede any sovereignty to the Argentines under any circumstances and certainly not to one ruled by Fascist military juntas. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, could see that the discussions were polarising opinion in the islands and making a deal less likely rather than more. Besides, he did not wish to put too much pressure on islanders who had access to a sympathetic lobby in Britain and especially amongst the Conservative establishment. Ridley was promoted out of his job and replaced by the more relaxed Richard Luce. Unfortunately, this relaxation in pushing the Falkland Islanders antagonised the Argentinians who were increasingly of the opinion that negotiations with the British were becoming pointless and were not going to see result in an eventual transfer of sovereignty. It did not help that Britain sent further confused messages to the Argentines when it came to demonstrating their continued long-term commitment to the islands. The early 1980s saw a period of deep economic stress in Britain. The newly elected Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was savagely cutting back spending across the board in Britain. Some of these cuts would send very mixed messages to the Argentinians who sensed that perhaps British opinion was moving away from supporting the Falkland Islanders. The British government announced that it was closing down the Antarctic Research station on the nearby island of South Georgia. John Nott, the Minister for Defence, announced sweeping cuts in the Royal Navy including the withdrawal of the Antarctic Research vessel HMS Endurance from service and making it clear that it would not be replaced. Perhaps the most baffling decision was the withdrawal of Full British Citizenship for the islanders. This had actually been introduced to prevent a massive influx from Hong Kong before its return to China, but the rules were applied to all the British dependencies and possibly helped convince the Argentinians that British commitment to the islands was beginning to wear thin. These signals helped the Argentine generals convince themselves that the British might not have the resolve to recover the islands by force should the Argentines be able to seize them. The British government was not the only government to see economic difficulties in the early 1980s. The Argentinian military government (the Junta) had presided over a collapsing currency, runaway inflation at over 100% and had been forced to introduce savage cuts of their own in Argentina. It was these cuts to services and benefits that saw Argentines take to the streets early in 1982. These demonstrations began to get out of hand, and the Junta sensed that it was losing popularity and even the ability to impose law and order. It was thought that they might be able to restore some of their credibility by playing to their institutional strength and launching an invasion of what they referred to as the 'Malvinas'.

Escalation of Tension over South Georgia

The trigger that would lead to the full scale invasion of the Falkland Islands was actually a tragicomic affair over the nearby island of South Georgia. An Argentinian scrap merchant dealer, Constantino Davidoff, had won a contract to clear up an old whaling station owned by the British company Christian Salvesen. The Argentine navy became aware of the opportunity that this presented and decided to make arrangements to facilitiate Davidoff's movements. They christened their plans 'Project Alpha' and had in mind an excuse to set up a presence in the islands to challenge British sovereignty. But for a British Scientific Detachment, the islands had been uninhabited since the departure of the whaling industries. The Argentines were attempting to replicate their establishment of a 'scientific station' on South Thule which had been manned since 1978. Davidoff was provided the services of an Argentine Naval ice-breaker, the Almirante Irizar to accomplish his task. The voyage provoked suspicion by the British who wondered why they did not receive notification of its journey until after it had departed Buenos Aires, why it refused to return radio calls and why it did not register its arrival at the British science station in Grytviken as was required. When the lead British scientist, who also acted as the island's chief magistrate, went to investigate the activities of Davidoff at Leith Harbour he found a wall painted with 'Las Malvinas son Argentinas' scrawled upon it. The British protested to the Argentines but kept the protests at the diplomatic level. Davidoff returned to South Georgia on board the Bahia Buen Suceso in March of 1982. Once again, there were irregularities in informing the British, in maintaining radio silence and in failing to inform the British upon their arrival. The British Antarctic Survey went to investigate after hearing gunshots - possibly from hunting the endangered reindeer on the island. They found a substantial party of 50 mixed civilian and military personel barbecuing reindeer and with an Argentine flag flying a hastily erected flagpole. British signs warning against illegal entry had been defaced and scattered upon the floor. A building holding BAS supplies had been broken into and BAS food, stores and equipment had been rummaged through. British scientists reported this fact to the authorities in Port Stanley. Governor Rex Hunt sent an urgent request for the Argentinians to take down the flag and to leave the island. The British also decided to send two dozen Royal Marines on HMS Endurance from the Falkland Islands to ensure that their instructions had been observed. The Foreign Office became involved in warning the Argentinians of the provocation of their actions. They summoned the Argentine Ambassador to 10 Downing Street and instructed their own Ambassador, Anthony Williams, to complain vehemently directly to the Argentine Government. In response, the Argentine government assured the British that the team would be removed and on the 22nd March the Bahia Buen Suceso indeed departed. What the British did not yet know was that 39 members of the Argentine team remained in place on the island. The Captain of the Endurance, Nicholas Barker, claimed that he heard the Argentine Navy radio congratulations to the Bahia Buen Suceso for a successful operation and noted increased Argentine aerial activity around the island. The BAS team soon discovered that Argentines were still at Leith despite requests for them to leave. The Endurance was ordered once more to sail to Leith to with their Royal Marines to investigate. Meanwhile, the Argentines despatched their own contingent of Marines to South Georgia to 'protect' the 'workers' there. The contingent was originally on its way to South Thule to drop the team on that British controlled island - which in itself was an illegal act designed to challenge British sovereignty over the South Shetlands. The ship carrying them, the ARA Bahia Paraiso, was diverted towards Leith to deposit the Marines there on March 24th. Two Argentine missile carrying corvettes, ARA Drummond and ARA Granville were also ordered to take up a position between South Georgia and the Falklands, presumably to intercept the Endurance in the event of hostilities breaking out. Clearly the situation was escalating. It was at this point that the Junta decided to bring forward their existing plans to invade the Falkland Islands. What they did not want was for the British to bring military assets to the region to deal with the escalating crisis in South Georgia but which might then be diverted to thwart any Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. In particular, they were apprehensive about suggestions that the British might send a submarine to the area to enforce Argentine evacuation and support the activities of Endurance. The British were indeed contemplating sending the submarines but it would be a while before any could arrive. This made timing a severe issue for the Argentine Navy. The Navy had always been the most hawkish of the three armed services when it came to military intervention over the islands, and that desire was not diminished now. If it was going to launch an invasion, it had to be done whilst the islands were relatively undefended. HMS Endurance was a research vessel with a couple of 20mm cannons - a submarine would be a far more severe threat to an invasion force. With demonstrations breaking out on the streets of Argentina, the military Junta took the gamble to launch an invasion - before any submarine might arrive in the area. They agreed to launch the invasion at a meeting on the 26th of March. Leave was cancelled as soldiers and sailors were told to report to various depots and ports. The invasion was on. Ostensibly, it was claimed that the ships were leaving for a major naval exercise but the fact was that they had taken live ammunition and supplies and had only one goal in mind. Meanwhile, back in Britain, Margaret Thatcher's government thought that it was still dealing with ownership of South Georgia and not the Falkland Islands in general. After Endurance confirmed the presence of Argentine forces on South Georgia and intelligence reports confirmed the departure of the Argentine Fleet, the Royal Navy was placed on standby and preparations were considered for a Task Force by Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse who was the Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy. The British were fortunate that a large part of their own fleet was already out at sea in the Atlantic Ocean taking part in an exercise not far from Gibraltar under the command of Admiral John 'Sandy' Woodward. On the 29th March, the British took the decision to send RFA Fort Austin to the South Atlantic to allow Endurance to stay on station longer. They also decided to send two submarines, HMS Spartan and HMS Splendid, but it was going to take a few more days to get them ready for the long voyage south. By a happy coincidence, the new detachment of 8901 was en route to taking up its post in the Falkland Islands. The 1981 detachment was still in post awaiting its relief from the new team. Arrangements were made to get the new 8901 team to Port Stanley without having to use the Argentine Air Service that operated out of Stanley Airport. RSS John Biscoe ferried the new 8901 troop from Montevideo to Stanley arriving on the 25th. The old detachment was ordered to stay in place until a resolution of the situation in South Georgia was satisfactorily achieved. Of course, some soldiers had been despatched to South Georgia under Lieutenant Keith Mills on the Endurance leaving a total of 67 troops on the Falklands themselves. Nevertheless, this was still clearly a tiny force against a fully fledged invasion force. 8901 had only ever been designated as a 'trip wire' force along the prevailing Cold War doctrine of the era. The idea being that they would offer resistance to prove dispute to any forced landing and to trigger an excuse for the despatch of a larger force. No one was under any illusions that the force could in any way prevent an invasion. Its purpose was to demonstrate sovereignty and illustrate a determination to defend the islands and give political justification for a future force to come to the aid of the islands. The British were still convinced that war was not inevitable at this point. They were under the impression that the Argentines were testing British resolve over the sovereignty of South Georgia and had not anticipated that the Falklands might be the immediate target. The Argentines made it clear that they would resist any forced attempt by the British to arrest or escort any Argentines on the island of South Georgia, but the British assumed this was another attempt along the lines of the South Thule occupation to dispute British sovereignty of this lonely island. The British assumed that if they avoided direct confrontation then the situation could be contained. However, they did order Endurance to land its small 22 man contingent at King Edward's Point but to await further instructions on how to proceed. They did not wish the force to accidentally escalate the situation further. What the British government did not realise was that the situation had already gone beyond any point that could be recovered by peaceful means alone.

The Argentine Invasion

The British did not discover that the Falkland Islands were the intended target for an Argentine invasion until March 31st. British Intelligence discovered that the Argentines had been gathering weather data for the Falkland Islands, an Argentine submarine had been deployed off the coast of Port Stanley, the Argentine 'exercises' had been broken off and the fleet was sailing towards the Falkland Islands, an army commander had been appointed the commander of an amphibious force and most distressing of all, the Argentine Embassy in London had been ordered to destroy all of its documents. Plotting the movements of the ships, British planners predicted that an invasion force could expect to land on the Falkland Islands in the early hours of April 2nd.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/southamerica/falklands/falklandswar.htm

Brasidas wrote wrote:As seen from the real facts, they had intended to invade ages before:

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:Thanks didge,   you put it much better than I could,   he is in thrall to labour though.

nicko, Didge knows hee haw about what happened but lets see what comments he comes back with regarding the meeting that took place in 1981 regarding convincing the islanders that they were screwed or the telegram sent from Anthony Williams about all the warnings he sent to London.

I know a left wing conspiracy load of crap when I see it, which ignores many of the facts.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

nicko wrote:Thanks didge,   you put it much better than I could,   he is in thrall to labour though.

nicko, Didge knows hee haw about what happened but lets see what comments he comes back with regarding the meeting that took place in 1981 regarding convincing the islanders that they were screwed or the telegram sent from Anthony Williams about all the warnings he sent to London.

I know a left wing conspiracy load of crap when I see it, which ignores many of the facts.

As you have all the files available to hand I would still like to see what comments you have in respect of the 1981 meeting about convincing the Islanders that they were screwed and the warnings coming from Anthony Williams. You must have something to say about that, surely?

80 Nov 25 Tu	Archive		Major	Archive (TNA)	Falklands: FCO record of Nick Ridley's visit to the Falkland Islands (Second Session with Councillors) [negotiations over future of the Falklands and sovereignty] [declassified 2012]
80 Nov 26 We	Commentary		Major	Commentary (The Times)	Falklands: “Transfer of Falklands sovereignty proposed” (Nick Ridley visit & leaseback)
80 Nov 29 Sa	Archive		Major	Archive (TNA)	Falklands: FCO record of Nick Ridley's visit to the Falkland Islands (Third Session with Councillors) [negotiations over future of the Falklands and sovereignty] [declassified 2012]

80 Nov 30 Su

Archive

Major

Archive (TNA)

Falklands: UKE Buenos Aires to FCO ("Falkland Islands: Mr Ridley's Visit") [results of Nick Ridley's talks with Councillors] [declassified 2012]

By Michael Frenchman

Brasidas wrote:No all you have done is made assumptions in hindsight, where you ignore the facts constantly presented to you. Nothing I have written contradicts.
A secret proposal is presented to the Argies, even though this is not even accepted by the Argies and then the Islanders anyway.
All the meetings were based around a negotiation to make all parties happy. The Government now pushes on Ridley and places someone more on board with the Islanders.
At no point did they intend to sell out anyone, as it was only proposals, all of which had to be agreed by all parties involved, the Argies, British and the Islanders.
The British did not think the Argies would invade, so looking to see what defenses it had after the actual invasion, is on your part poor to say the least.
You do not have the correct answers, just what you presume is the answer

You have no leg to stand on here.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:No all you have done is made assumptions in hindsight, where you ignore the facts constantly presented to you. Nothing I have written contradicts.
A secret proposal is presented to the Argies, even though this is not even accepted by the Argies and then the Islanders anyway.
All the meetings were based around a negotiation to make all parties happy. The Government now pushes on Ridley and places someone more on board with the Islanders.
At no point did they intend to sell out anyone, as it was only proposals, all of which had to be agreed by all parties involved, the Argies, British and the Islanders.
The British did not think the Argies would invade, so looking to see what defenses it had after the actual invasion, is on your part poor to say the least.
You do not have the correct answers, just what you presume is the answer

You have no leg to stand on here.

No, it's you that is making all the assumptions. I'm giving you facts based on the official documentation held in the NA.

I told you the Geneva meeting was held in Secret and you said it wasn't and now you are saying it was. You're all over the place. And you also said that the agreement for the lease-back in that meeting was 200 years. That's because that's as far as you read down because if you had read it all you would have seen that it was 99 years.

I'm still asking for your comments on the 1981 meeting and the Williams communications because they are important to this element of the discussion.

You have all the files to hand so lets see what you have to say about them.

You're still in the dock.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:No all you have done is made assumptions in hindsight, where you ignore the facts constantly presented to you. Nothing I have written contradicts.
A secret proposal is presented to the Argies, even though this is not even accepted by the Argies and then the Islanders anyway.
All the meetings were based around a negotiation to make all parties happy. The Government now pushes on Ridley and places someone more on board with the Islanders.
At no point did they intend to sell out anyone, as it was only proposals, all of which had to be agreed by all parties involved, the Argies, British and the Islanders.
The British did not think the Argies would invade, so looking to see what defenses it had after the actual invasion, is on your part poor to say the least.
You do not have the correct answers, just what you presume is the answer

You have no leg to stand on here.

No, it's you that is making all the assumptions. I'm giving you facts based on the official documentation held in the NA.

I told you the Geneva meeting was held in Secret and you said it wasn't and now you are saying it was. You're all over the place. And you also said that the agreement for the lease-back in that meeting was 200 years. That's because that's as far as you read down because if you had read it all you would have seen that it was 99 years.

I'm still asking for your comments on the 1981 meeting and the Williams communications because they are important to this element of the discussion.

You have all the files to hand so lets see what you have to say about them.

You're still in the dock.

Never claimed there was not a secret meeting all of which the proposals you presented above were presented to the Islanders and rejected .
You do what you need to do, I am not your lap dog son.
I am free as a bird, your whole conspiracy is quite joke really.
Again you ignore all the facts and I have spoken and easily dismissed your ridiculous claims.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Never claimed there was not a secret meeting all of which the proposals you presented above were presented to the Islanders and rejected .
You do what you need to do, I am not your lap dog son.
I am free as a bird, your whole conspiracy is quite joke really.
Again you ignore all the facts and I have spoken and easily dismissed your ridiculous claims.

   Never claimed there was not a secret meeting

   [quote="Brasidas wrote" I have all the minutes of all the discussions, and I even presented the links, where you can read them all from 1980 onwards, which shows you have done no research and just going off one document. The ones I showed followed on from yours. They show that all parties were well aware of what was being proposed.
  Secret?]

As you say you have all the minutes of the discusions  so I'm not asking for much, just you're comments on the 1981 meeting and the Willaims communications. They are important to this discussion but if you want to bail out then go ahead.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Never claimed there was not a secret meeting all of which the proposals you presented above were presented to the Islanders and rejected .
You do what you need to do, I am not your lap dog son.
I am free as a bird, your whole conspiracy is quite joke really.
Again you ignore all the facts and I have spoken and easily dismissed your ridiculous claims.

   Never claimed there was not a secret meeting

   [quote="Brasidas wrote" I have all the minutes of all the discussions, and I even presented the links, where you can read them all from 1980 onwards, which shows you have done no research and just going off one document. The ones I showed followed on from yours. They show that all parties were well aware of what was being proposed.
  Secret?]

As you say you have all the minutes of the discusions  so I'm not asking for much, just you're comments on the 1981 meeting and the Willaims communications. They are important to this discussion but if you want to bail out then go ahead.

So I never claimed there was not a secret meeting but asked you a question on "Secret" In regards how was a secret this proposal which the Islanders saw themselves. Never denied a secret meeting, so you had to lie out of your arse again.
Being as Islanders knew of this proposal, which you neglect at every turn.



This really digs the nail in your coffin:


http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/E94A07CA16AB4BFAAE20CCFB8AB1AE20.pdf


Anyway have a good evening, will look in tomorrow to see what else you want to talk about.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



So I never claimed there was not a secret meeting but asked you a question on "Secret" In regards how was a secret this proposal which the Islanders saw themselves. Never denied a secret meeting, so you had to lie out of your arse again.
Being as Islanders knew of this proposal, which you neglect at every turn.



This really digs the nail in your coffin:


http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/E94A07CA16AB4BFAAE20CCFB8AB1AE20.pdf


Anyway have a good evening, will look in tomorrow to see what else you want to talk about.

That's not new and I've already acknowledged that Islanders were to be consulted - you must have missed that. What I'm telling you is that there was a plot to cede sovereignty to Argentina and the efforts that were taken to convince them that they were screwed. I've already written all this already and you're just going over old ground because you're argument has hit the buffers and shown to have been making it up as you go along.

Doesn't change a thing about the  complete incompetence of the government in the way they dealt with the situation and how it led to the death of so many in retaking the Islands. That's the discussion taking place as it stands and you're trying to defend it. Have you given up on that one then?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



So I never claimed there was not a secret meeting but asked you a question on "Secret" In regards how was a secret this proposal which the Islanders saw themselves. Never denied a secret meeting, so you had to lie out of your arse again.
Being as Islanders knew of this proposal, which you neglect at every turn.



This really digs the nail in your coffin:


http://fc95d419f4478b3b6e5f-3f71d0fe2b653c4f00f32175760e96e7.r87.cf1.rackcdn.com/E94A07CA16AB4BFAAE20CCFB8AB1AE20.pdf


Anyway have a good evening, will look in tomorrow to see what else you want to talk about.

That's not new and I've already acknowledged that Islanders were to be consulted - you must have missed that. What I'm telling you is that there was a plot to cede sovereignty to Argentina and the efforts that were taken to convince them that they were screwed. I've already written all this already and you're just going over old ground because you're argument has hit the buffers and shown to have been making it up as you go along.

Doesn't change a thing about the  complete incompetence of the government in the way they dealt with the situation and how it led to the death of so many in retaking the Islands. That's the discussion taking place as it stands and you're trying to defend it. Have you given up on that one then?

Game over to the main claim of your thread. There clearly was no plot to sell out the Falklands, just ideas on how to resolve the issue. Clearly, what you want to talk about is how the Islands were undefended, based on hindsight after an event.


You have just admitted the Islanders were to be consulted and indeed we know that they were consulted over the proposal this whole thread started with. We know Ridley was moved on. Would the invasion have happened if the Submarine was there in time? Unlikely, but that is easy to say in hindsight, knowing that the Argies did invade. We also know some warned this could happen, which again was mistakenly not accepted, because many viewed Argentina had far bigger problems internally. The fact is Argentina has and had been threatening to invade for years off numerous different people in power. The other factor was the perilously poor state that Labour had left the country in, for the Tories to pick up the pieces. A less costly solution was to negotiate a deal that makes all parties happy.

So your view "The SECRET plot by Thatcher's Tory government to sell out the Falkland's to Argentina"

Is completely incorrect. What would be accurate:

"The SECRET proposal by Thatcher's Tory government to negotiate a deal over the Falkland's, where all parties were happy"

Now that you have mooted your own point, because as seen this proposal was placed before the Islanders. So there was no plot, there was an attempt to find a solution for all concerned.

Now if you want to go off in regard to defenses on the Falklands in hindsight of the invasion, be my guest. As no previous Government since the 1965 resolution was passed. Had placed a serious defense system for the Islands. So the present and all previous 3 Governments would be to blame for not properly equipping the Islands. There is a down side to doing this also, if you are meant to negotiating with each other. That you then go and fortify the Islands or have a well armed Royal Navy warship like a Destroyer or Frigate, in constant patrol. Is not going to lead to any successful negotiations by doing that. The Argies will view your intent to not negotiate with them, through such an action. Fortifying and spelling out Britain's intent to stay in control of the Islands.

So you really need to look at things further than just some papers Irn and factor in many elements. As I have just provided you. So as Britain was broke, trying to recover from a nightmare Labour Government. Now you could really blame Labour (if I wanted to) for why the then present Tory Government had very few options, constrained by costs. Though I am unlike you and not looking to point the finger at anyone here for the events that happened. As we know that the US started to set the IMF policy, and the Labour government discovered the money was running out. Which left the Tories having to use the most cost affective strategy. Which would be to help bring about a solution for all parties to be happy with. Arming the Islands, would have created a massive outcry from the Argies to the UN. Where they could claim that the British by such an action, have no intention of seceding the Islands. Now how would that look for Britain within the UN? If by such a move to defend the Islands, we would not be seen, as looking for a peaceful solution at all would we?

Once the invasion happened, Britain had no choice but to retrieve them. If they did not, prestige in the world would plummet for Britain. That is why your claim is poor and disingenuous. AS Britain would be seen as weak backing down from threats. Arms deals would no doubt fall through, as well as other business global deals, when the country needed to get back on its feet. Also no doubt Spain would have used such an opportunity to take Gibraltar, being as Britain has backed down from conflict over losing the Falklands. Yes sadly people had to die, you might want to point the finger in the right direction at the person responsible.

General Leopoldo Galtieri

Irn Bru wrote wrote: I never once said that it was over and above the wishes of the Islander’s although that was considered by our government at one stage.

Brasidas wrote:I knew you would fail to address any of my points and still stick to your misguided commie conspiracy shit.
You do that, nobody else is convinced with the crap you come out with, mainly because it is a tad of a joke and very disrespectful that such a person like yourself is so disingenuous to people of the past when there was only ever one reason for Falklands conflict.
The Argies themselves .

So you do as you please, I find people like you completely ridiculous to be honest how you insult the dead. You think more of political point scoring on the subject of the conflict. I find that disgusting to be honest which does insult those who fought in this conflict.

Anyhow you failed to prove anything and had the weakest most pathetic argument to date, which seems to be a normality with you of late.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I knew you would fail to address any of my points and still stick to your misguided commie conspiracy shit.
You do that, nobody else is convinced with the crap you come out with, mainly because it is a tad of a joke and very disrespectful that such a person like yourself is so disingenuous to people of the past when there was only ever one reason for Falklands conflict.
The Argies themselves .

So you do as you please, I find people like you completely ridiculous to be honest how you insult the dead. You think more of political point scoring on the subject of the conflict. I find that disgusting to be honest which does insult those who fought in this conflict.

Anyhow you failed to prove anything and had the weakest most pathetic argument to date, which seems to be a normality with you of late.

I have addressed every single point you have raised and all you are doing is waffling along making ir up to suit and and moving the goalposts.

Of course it was the fault of Argentina, I never said it wasn't so cut out that nonsense. What I'm telling you is that not enough was done to stop it happening in the first place; a point that has been going over your head right from the very start.

I'm also telling you that there was a plot to cede sovereignty to Argentina and convince the Islanders to accept it because they had no choice - there was no money and no commitment from the government to do it. That's the facts and I've given you all the evidence to support it and if you had read the files available you would know that. You do have them, don't you?

If Labour had been in power I have no doubt they would have done what needed to be done to stop the war starting in the first place meaning nobody would have died.

The fact that you defend the way it was handled is more disrespect to those that died than anything I have said so do the right thing and accept it and I'll say no more about it.

Brasidas wrote wrote:Sheer complete bullshit the claim to if Labour had been in power, making completely unfounded claims. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:Net you will be telling me some bullshit it was the Tories that took the Uk into war with Iraq and not Labour. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:Is that why Michael Foot stood up in the house of Commons calling on Britain to reclaim the Islands?
You see this is what it is all about to you, pathetic political point scoring and even worse now making the most idiotic claims to something nobody could even claim to make based on the fact they were not in power and previous Labour Governments had done fuck all to defend the Islands.

Brasidas wrote wrote:What did the previous Labour government do to defend it? :

Brasidas wrote wrote:The country as in dire states after the last incompetent Labour Government. It had to make cuts, the armed forces was one of them, again at the time nobody thought the Argies would invade. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:I just cannot show respect to someone who insults the dead in this conflict and blame the Tory government at the time, when the previous had placed no defenses there:

Brasidas wrote wrote:The other factor was the perilously poor state that Labour had left the country in, for the Tories to pick up the pieces. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:As I have just provided you. So as Britain was broke, trying to recover from a nightmare Labour Government. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:This is why on threads like this you are not worthy of any respect when you come out with babble like that and it shows your whole intent here was nothing about those who fought, but some childish infantile political view making up crap about what Labour might have done. :

Brasidas wrote wrote:You never addressed any of my points whatsoever and your whole ridiculous claims comes off poor assumptions on your part in hindsight of an event. All of which I showed the outcome would have been the same no matter who was in power. Your love of Labour has warped your mind to rationalize it seems on points of history. :

Operation Journeyman Anniversary – Nearly Twenty Five years ago a major British military and political event took place in the South Atlantic, which has been largely overlooked in the history books. Operation Journeyman saw a Royal Navy Task Force, deployed to the waters around South Georgia and the Falklands in November 1977 four and half years before the Argentine invasion of the Falklands in April 1982.   Fifty (50) Argentine “scientists” had occupied Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands and it was feared a wider Argentine invasion of other British Islands in the region might follow.

Operation Journeyman was conducted in intense secrecy. The first public mention of the operation was nearly five years later when the Foreign Secretary at the time (David Owen) suggested that similar prompt action could have averted the 1982 Falkland War.   The Operation Journeyman Task Force consisted of the Fleet Submarine DREADNOUGHT and four surface vessels.   The Frigates ALACRITY (Type 21) and PHOEBE (Leander) were supported by the Fleet Tanker RFA OLWEN and the Fleet Stores Ship RFA RESOURCE.

The Argentines rapidly became aware of the Task Force's presence but their forces remained on Thule, but the Prime Minister (James Callaghan) decided against the use of force to evict them but set up a 50 mile security zone and any ships entering would be told that they must identify themselves and state their plans.

The Rules of Engagement in 1977 make interesting reading ... "Commanding officers and aircraft captains are to respond to any aggression with tactful firmness and are to exhibit a determination to meet any escalation, though not to exceed that already carried out by the enemy.    All use of force must be governed by the principle of using only the minimum force necessary to achieve the aim.   .....  Such force must be used only until it was evident that the immediate aim is being achieved, and must in no way be retaliatory".   The submarine commander was told: "If you are attacked with [anti-submarine] weapons by [Argentine] forces, you are to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life."

The Foreign Secretary insisted that the mission was conducted in intense secrecy, even the crews did not know where they were going, other than they were being sent in exercise in the Atlantic,   The Argentine Government was privately warned by the UK that a nuclear submarine was in the area, but other countries were said to be unaware.   The "exclusion zone" (around the islands) became an issue Ministers fearing that it could be "politically escalatory, probably illegal and could set an unwelcome precedent", the matter was suitably fudged by Attorney General (Sam Silkin) who was only asked for his advice on the legal situation after the Task Force left.

At the time the Frigate PHOEBE was on a goodwill visit to Antwerp, having just completed a Joint Maritime Course Exercise off the north of Scotland, when a Top Secret signal was received ordering the ship to sail as soon as all crew had been recalled from shore, and that all the preparations necessary to store for war on our arrival in Plymouth should be put out in hand, the destination was top secret.

Keeping the DREADNOUGHT supplied was problematical as routine dictated that the submarine was only allowed to surface for about five (5) minutes a week, during which time the WASP helicopter from one of the Frigates had to lower supplies and deliver and collect the laundryin what was a very short space of time  (the PHOEBE had a Chinese laundry crew on board).      On one occasion the WASP helicopter was hovering over the conning tower of the DREADNOUGHT having just dropped off the laundry when a huge swell lifted the submarine just as the pilot was lowering the aircraft to pick up the next batch of washing.   The two collided and the forward starboard wheel of the helicopter became lodged in the conning tower.    The duty Flight Deck Officer on the PHOEBE later reported the conversation going on between the pilot and the Captain on the bridge.    The Captain informed the pilot that the submarine would have to submerge in one minute so he would need to detach himself somehow.   “Roger” came the calm reply. The next thing he heard on the radio was the pilot, singing “Three wheels on my wagon” as he turned to approach the ship to land on the heaving deck of the frigate, having pulled full power on the aircraft and left the wheel firmly lodged in the submarines conning tower.     With the help of a hatch cover and some coconut matting and considerable skill the helicopter managed to land safely but it was a close run thing.  

By mid-February 1978 the Argentine scientists had apparently gone and their base had been closed, so the Task Force which had spent just over three and a half months continuously at sea departed.   Thus success had attended the venture and a War had been averted just by the exercise the traditional "presence" of the Royal Navy in the area.

My thanks to Chris Cole, Commander RN (Retired) who was the Supply Officer of the PHOEBE for much of the above  

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister was James Callaghan at the time had been a serving Naval Officer.  He had joined the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve as an Ordinary Seaman in 1942 and  served in the East Indies Fleet, being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in April 1944.   Medical examination revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis, and on recovery, he was assigned to duties with the Japanese section of the Admiralty (in Whitehall) and wrote a service manual for the Royal Navy “The Enemy Japan”.     Whilst on leave, Jim Callaghan was selected as a Parliamentary candidate, but he returned to naval service, serving in the Indian Ocean on the Battleship QUEEN ELIZABETH.    In 1945 his naval career was curtailed as after “VE” day along with other prospective candidates he returned to the United Kingdom to stand in the general election.

David Owen is of course still an active member of the House of Lords and memorably was the first politician to call for an "exclusion zone" when the Arab Spring took hold in Libya in 2011.

Let us hope that the younger politicians now in charge of a our maritime power can be drawn lessons from the work of the Operation Journeyman Task Force and subsequent events.  Will Operation Journeyman be commemorated ?    Don’t hold your breath. :

http://britishmaritimepowerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/operation-journeyman-anniversary-nearly.html

Brasidas wrote:Fucking hilarious from the loony commie.
First of all I have said I would not blame the Labour Government for the conflict showing what a disingenuous left wing low life you really are Irn. I said unlike you I am not looking to blame any politics for the conflict. I was showing the facts to poor policies at the time by previous Labour Governments all of which no previous one had done anything to defend the Islands, which you claim they would have not allowed the Islands to be invaded. That is nothing short of pathetic and you have no evidence they would have prevented this other than the complete bullshit you keep spouting. You have presented fuck all facts but the deranged rantings of some fucked up commie so intent to demean the good name of a Great British Political leader you have spent your pathetic excuse of a life in some vain attempt to do so. It is not only comical it shows how pathetic you really are.


Your claim to them never allowing the Falkland Islands to fall in the first place is the biggest load of bullshit only a fucking deluded commie would come out with yet again based off no evidence. He still would have invaded no matter what political group was in power and no previous Labour Government had defended the Island so you are taking out of your arse.


It is nothing but comical your attempts to smear Maggie that not matter how much you try she is recogised as one of our best leaders and you do you know what I love most about her. How she took to task the wanker Unions for what they were. Lazy wankers. She took to task those wanker minors, who thought they could control our Governments. She tore them a new arse hole, and it was great. I love watching those pathetic miners get what was coming to them. She broke the back of the control Unions had in this country and brought about some sanity again in this nation, from where these pathetic commie unions thought they could control Governments. Well she wiped the floor with them, was that not great Irn ha ha ha ha. That was her greatest victory, sorting out those Miners. No doubt at the same time prolonging many of their lives.


Then we have Operation Journeyman as your next clueless point. As if this claim is evidence that the Islands would not have been invaded is again comical to say the least and again based on an assumption. You do know what an assumption is? I have no time for people like yourself who are clueless, who are as deluded and paranoid as Stassi. This is the problem with you left wing loons. That has to be the most comical assumption to date on your part, as if to claim it is evidence is again not understanding the resolve of Galtieri, who would have throw the last dice no matter what, being as he always intended to invade. We now know this in hindsight, at the tie they did not know this. So your claim is nothing short of a joke as it was more luck that anything else as the British  Navy was sitting ducks all of which you elude to stating of course: The fact you ignore that Maggie had sent a submarine off towards the Islands and the Argies new this and still invading knowing this Submarine was on route. The only way such an invasion could have been prevented would only have been if a like I stated early a permanent heavily armed Navy presence was in continual defense of the islands. So your claims is not short of horse shit and comical. A permanent naval presence would have only averted such an invasions showing again your poor understanding of history and strategy


It was at this point that the Junta decided to bring forward their existing plans to invade the Falkland Islands. What they did not want was for the British to bring military assets to the region to deal with the escalating crisis in South Georgia but which might then be diverted to thwart any Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. In particular, they were apprehensive about suggestions that the British might send a submarine to the area to enforce Argentine evacuation and support the activities of Endurance. The British were indeed contemplating sending the submarines but it would be a while before any could arrive. This made timing a severe issue for the Argentine Navy. The Navy had always been the most hawkish of the three armed services when it came to military intervention over the islands, and that desire was not diminished now. If it was going to launch an invasion, it had to be done whilst the islands were relatively undefended. HMS Endurance was a research vessel with a couple of 20mm cannons - a submarine would be a far more severe threat to an invasion force. With demonstrations breaking out on the streets of Argentina, the military Junta took the gamble to launch an invasion - before any submarine might arrive in the area. They agreed to launch the invasion at a meeting on the 26th of March.


In the article below Chris Cole, Supply Officer on “HMS Phoebe” at the time describes what it was like as one of those deployed on Operation Journeyman.


The day after sailing we commenced intensive training, testing every aspect of our responses to possible threats, carrying out major fire and damage drills and generally working the ship’s crew up into a fighting team. Although we had still not been told where we were going or why, the ship’s company deduced we were on a war footing. The main passageways had been filled with extra stores and they were not used to walking over cases of baked beans. In mid-Atlantic we rendezvoused with “HMS Alacrity”, RFAs “Resource” and “Owen” were to join us later, and somewhere beneath us was the nuclear submarine “Dreadnought”. At that stage the ship’s companies were briefed on our mission. We were told that Operation Journeyman had been ordered by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, as fifty Argentine “scientists” had landed on Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands, prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. Apparently the Argentines had set up a military base on Thule. Only the officers on the ships were briefed on the rules of engagement which were pretty defensive. They stated: Commanding Officers and aircraft captains are to respond to any aggression with tactful firmness and are to exhibit a determination to meet any escalation, though not to exceed that already carried out by the enemy. All use of force must be governed by the principle of using only the minimum force necessary to achieve the aim. Such force must be used only until evident that the immediate aim is being achieved and must in no way be retaliatory. The submarine commander was told that if attacked with anti-submarine weapons by Argentine forces he was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life.

In effect we were sitting ducks, but the Argentines weren’t to know that! We were to set up a 50 mile security zone and any ships entering the zone were to be asked to identify themselves and state their intentions.

Our main problem was maintaining a discreet presence on station for an indefinite period as nobody had told us when we would be returning to UK. We had enough supplies to survive for 3 months, which, with the help of the RFAs, could be extended by a further six weeks. After that, serious logistical problems could have arisen. Keeping the submarine “Dreadnought” supplied was more problematical as she was only allowed to surface for about 5 minutes a week, during which time our Wasp helicopter had to lower supplies and deliver and collect the laundry (we had a Chinese laundry crew on board) in what was a very short space of time.



Even worse labour had instructed the Navy to turn tail and run if attacked, thank fuck they were not in power when the Islands were invaded. They ordered the Navy to not even defend itself.
So much for your claim of Labour being able to defend the Islands.
What a massive own goal on your part
So as seen it was more bluff than anything else that averted this incidence showing you have not the first clue what you are talking about and you thought stupidly you have the upper hand when you know fuck all about Military strategy ha ha. What an idiot you really are by the that massive poor claim. As seen the Argies would have invaded no matter what, unless there was a permanent strong military Presence of which HMS Endurance was certainly not. The Argies knew that a Submarine was going to be sent and yet they still invaded, showing their resolve to do so. So again your assumption to base this being averted is nothing short of comical on your part and as seen a load of bullshit on your part.


So I suggest if you want to address my points you start to do so which so far you have failed to do so.

Game over to the main claim of your thread. There clearly was no plot to sell out the Falklands, just ideas on how to resolve the issue. Clearly, what you want to talk about is how the Islands were undefended, based on hindsight after an event.


You have just admitted the Islanders were to be consulted and indeed we know that they were consulted over the proposal this whole thread started with. We know Ridley was moved on. Would the invasion have happened if the Submarine was there in time? Unlikely, but that is easy to say in hindsight, knowing that the Argies did invade. We also know some warned this could happen, which again was mistakenly not accepted, because many viewed Argentina had far bigger problems internally. The fact is Argentina has and had been threatening to invade for years off numerous different people in power. The other factor was the perilously poor state that Labour had left the country in, for the Tories to pick up the pieces. A less costly solution was to negotiate a deal that makes all parties happy.

So your view "The SECRET plot by Thatcher's Tory government to sell out the Falkland's to Argentina"

Is completely incorrect. What would be accurate:

"The SECRET proposal by Thatcher's Tory government to negotiate a deal over the Falkland's, where all parties were happy"

Now that you have mooted your own point, because as seen this proposal was placed before the Islanders. So there was no plot, there was an attempt to find a solution for all concerned.


Now if you want to go off in regard to defenses on the Falklands in hindsight of the invasion, be my guest. As no previous Government since the 1965 resolution was passed. Had placed a serious defense system for the Islands. So the present and all previous 3 Governments would be to blame for not properly equipping the Islands. There is a down side to doing this also, if you are meant to negotiating with each other. That you then go and fortify the Islands or have a well armed Royal Navy warship like a Destroyer or Frigate, in constant patrol. Is not going to lead to any successful negotiations by doing that. The Argies will view your intent to not negotiate with them, through such an action. Fortifying and spelling out Britain's intent to stay in control of the Islands.


So you really need to look at things further than just some papers Irn and factor in many elements. As I have just provided you. So as Britain was broke, trying to recover from a nightmare Labour Government. Now you could really blame Labour (if I wanted to) for why the then present Tory Government had very few options, constrained by costs. Though I am unlike you and not looking to point the finger at anyone here for the events that happened. As we know that the US started to set the IMF policy, and the Labour government discovered the money was running out. Which left the Tories having to use the most cost affective strategy. Which would be to help bring about a solution for all parties to be happy with. Arming the Islands, would have created a massive outcry from the Argies to the UN. Where they could claim that the British by such an action, have no intention of seceding the Islands. Now how would that look for Britain within the UN? If by such a move to defend the Islands, we would not be seen, as looking for a peaceful solution at all would we?


Once the invasion happened, Britain had no choice but to retrieve them. If they did not, prestige in the world would plummet for Britain. That is why your claim is poor and disingenuous. AS Britain would be seen as weak backing down from threats. Arms deals would no doubt fall through, as well as other business global deals, when the country needed to get back on its feet. Also no doubt Spain would have used such an opportunity to take Gibraltar, being as Britain has backed down from conflict over losing the Falklands. Yes sadly people had to die, you might want to point the finger in the right direction at the person responsible.

General Leopoldo Galtieri


Again you have addressed fuck all you commie loon. All you have done is made countless assumptions based on hindsight of an invent. You are just some jumped up idiotic Commie out to demean Maggie and fail badly at it. You constantly want to Political score which as seen if you read properly I did not do and blame anyone for the conflict, yet you choose to read otherwise because you are commie scum. Never again will I respect such a such an idiot who tries to insult the dead with ridiculous claims, which only a wet softie  could come out with. What a left wing twat you are and is typical of the left wing, next they will be claiming it was Labour that won WW2 for us. In fact I have no doubt that Labour would have fucked up the invasion to retake the Islands and more would have died based off their utter incompetence. This is why we are lucky ithas been Tory Governments in power to major conflicts we have been involved in. If it was Labour no doubt we would be under the Nazi jackboot by now.


So on every level you are disrespecting the dead, which makes you a low life, making the worst bullshit claim and doing so on political point scoring all in defending your beloved Labour party who would have done nothing to have prevented this invasion without a permanent heavily armed naval presence.
So you just got schooled you simpleton ha ha, you trying to show me a lesson is comical to say the least.
I would not even score you on effort, but lets allow the lady to defeend herself against your woeful claims:





[extract from Margaret Thatcher The Downing Street Years (1993), pp173-85]
Nothing remains more vividly in my mind, looking back on my years in 10 Downing Street, than the eleven weeks in the spring of 1982 when Britain fought and won the Falklands War. Much was at stake: what we were fighting for eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic was not only the territory and the people of the Falklands, important though they were. We were defending our honour as a nation, and principles of fundamental importance to the whole world - above all, that aggressors should never succeed and that international law should prevail over the use of force. The war was very sudden. No one predicted the Argentine invasion more than a few hours in advance, though many predicted it in retrospect. When I became Prime Minister I never thought that I would have to order British troops into combat and I do not think I have ever lived so tensely or intensely as during the whole of that time.
The significance of the Falklands War was enormous, both for Britain's self-confidence and for our standing in the world. Since the Suez fiasco in 1956, British foreign policy had been one long retreat. The tacit assumption made by British and foreign governments alike was that our world role was doomed steadily to diminish. We had come to be seen by both friends and enemies as a nation which lacked the will and the capability to defend its interests in peace, let alone in war. Victory in the Falklands changed that. Everywhere I went after the war, Britain's name meant something more than it had. The war also had real importance in relations between East and West: years later I was told by a Russian general that the Soviets had been firmly convinced that we would not fight for the Falklands, and that if we did fight we would lose. We proved them wrong on both counts, and they did not forget the fact. ...
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands took place 149 years after the beginning of formal British rule there, and it seems that the imminence of the 150th anniversary was an important factor in the plotting of the Argentine Junta. Since 1833 there has been a continuous and peaceful British presence on the Islands. Britain's legal claim in the present day rests on that fact, and on the desire of the settled population - which is entirely of British stock - to remain British. The principle of "self-determination" has become a fundamental component of international law, and is enshrined in the UN Charter. British sovereignty has strong legal foundations, and the Argentinians know it. ...
Could they have been deterred? It must be remembered that in order to take action to deter Argentina militarily, given the vast distance between Britain and the Falklands, we would have had to have some three weeks notice. Further, to send down a force of insufficient size would have been to subject it to intolerable risk. Certainly, the presence of HMS Endurance - the lightly armed patrol vessel which was due to be withdrawn under the 1981 Defence Review proposals - was a military irrelevance. It would neither deter nor repel any planned invasion. (Indeed, when the invasion occurred I was very glad that the ship was at sea and not in Port Stanley: if she had been, she would have been captured or blown out of the water). Most important perhaps is that nothing would have more reliably precipitated a full scale invasion, if something less had been planned, than if we had started military preparations on the scale required to send an effective deterrent. Of course with the benefit of hindsight, we would always like to have acted differently. So would the Argentinians. The truth is that the invasion could not have been foreseen or prevented. This was the main conclusion of the Committee of Inquiry, chaired by Lord Franks , which we set up to examine the way we had handled the dispute in the run-up to the invasion. The Committee had unprecedented access to Government papers, including those of the intelligence services. Its report ends with the words: "we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982".
It all began with an incident on South Georgia. On 20th December 1981 there had been an unauthorised landing on the island at Leith harbour by what were described as Argentinian scrap metal dealers; we had given a firm but measured response. The Argentinians subsequently left and the Argentine government claimed to know nothing about it. The incident was disturbing, but not especially so. I was more alarmed when, after the Anglo-Argentine talks in New York, the Argentine Government broke the procedures agreed at the meeting by publishing a unilateral communiqué disclosing the details of discussion, while simultaneously the Argentinian press began to speculate on possible military action before the symbolically important date of January 1983. On 3rd March 1982 I minuted on a telegram from Buenos Aires: "we must make contingency plans" - though, in spite of my unease, I was not expecting anything like a full scale invasion, which indeed our most recent intelligence assessment of Argentinian intentions had discounted.
On 20th March we were informed that the previous day the Argentine scrap metal dealers had made a further unauthorised landing on South Georgia, again at Leith. The Argentinian flag had been raised and shots fired. Again in answer to our protests the Argentinian Government claimed to have no prior knowledge. We first decided that HMS Endurance should be instructed to remove the Argentinians, whoever they were. But we tried to negotiate with Argentina a way of resolving what still seemed to be an awkward incident rather than a precursor of conflict, so we subsequently withdrew our instructions to Endurance and ordered the ship to proceed instead to the British base at Grytviken, the main settlement on the island.







http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/109110

Brasidas wrote:The parts highlighted destroy your argument and show up your stupidity

Brasidas wrote:The fact is unless there was a permenant heavily armed naval presence the invasion would have happened.

Brasidas wrote:Even worse was your stupidity on the Operation Journeyman, where they were ordered to shit their pants based on labour orders.

Brasidas wrote:I read the rules of engagement which it was a mjor bluff, all of which there was no major intent to invade the Falklands at the time anyway because the Argentinians were facing high tension with Chile at the time, showing how woeful your knowledge is on the era and your lack of history full stop. They were there as a bluff and ordered to get the hell out of there if attacked to save lives. So the whole operation was one of bluff nothing more, which still does not help your problem that General Leopoldo Galtieri of invading the Islands and nothing would have detered him other than a strong naval prescence all of which you cannot escape. It would have had to be permenant which operation Journeyman was no such mesaure.

So yes it is good schooling you on this history. There had been plans to invade as far back as WW2 during the battle of Britain, when Argentina had plans to invdade. What you cannot account for in your woefful assumptions is the many factors I have proposed. The fact is Chile was the more pressing problem in 1977, who later sided with Britain because of their disagreements. Second only a permenant as seen naval presence would have averted an invasion. As seen the Argies would invade when this was easiest being Britain could not keep such a strong naval prescence indefinately. All of this goes above your pay grade of course and why your conspiracy theory is comical to say the least.

Such force must be used only until evident that the immediate aim is being achieved and must in no way be retaliatory. The submarine commander was told that if attacked with anti-submarine weapons by Argentine forces he was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life.

In effect we were sitting ducks, but the Argentines weren’t to know that!

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I read the rules of engagement which it was a mjor bluff, all of which there was no major intent to invade the Falklands at the time anyway because the Argentinians were facing high tension with Chile at the time, showing how woeful your knowledge is on the era and your lack of history full stop. They were there as a bluff and ordered to get the hell out of there if attacked to save lives. So the whole operation was one of bluff nothing more, which still does not help your problem that General Leopoldo Galtieri of invading the Islands and nothing would have detered him other than a strong naval prescence all of which you cannot escape. It would have had to be permenant which operation Journeyman was no such mesaure.

So yes it is good schooling you on this history. There had been plans to invade as far back as WW2 during the battle of Britain, when Argentina had plans to invdade. What you cannot account for in your woefful assumptions is the many factors I have proposed. The fact is Chile was the more pressing problem in 1977, who later sided with Britain because of their disagreements. Second only a permenant as seen naval presence would have averted an invasion. As seen the Argies would invade when this was easiest being Britain could not keep such a strong naval prescence indefinately. All of this goes above your pay grade of course and why your conspiracy theory is comical to say the least.

Such force must be used only until evident that the immediate aim is being achieved and must in no way be retaliatory. The submarine commander was told that if attacked with anti-submarine weapons by Argentine forces he was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life.

In effect we were sitting ducks, but the Argentines weren’t to know that!

No, you haven't read the rules of engagement. What you have come up with what you have picked up from little snipets from articles on the internet. Go to the NA and then come back and tell me what they say in detail.

And I liked this bit in your last reply

and nothing would have detered him other than a strong naval prescence

So as the early warnings coming from Argentina which were ignored pointed to an invasion why wasn't that put in place? Read what Sir Henry said about signals being sent to Argentina.

Oh dear, nothing was done was it and no contingency plan either?

The OP stands uncorrected and you are still in the dock.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I read the rules of engagement which it was a mjor bluff, all of which there was no major intent to invade the Falklands at the time anyway because the Argentinians were facing high tension with Chile at the time, showing how woeful your knowledge is on the era and your lack of history full stop. They were there as a bluff and ordered to get the hell out of there if attacked to save lives. So the whole operation was one of bluff nothing more, which still does not help your problem that General Leopoldo Galtieri of invading the Islands and nothing would have detered him other than a strong naval prescence all of which you cannot escape. It would have had to be permenant which operation Journeyman was no such mesaure.

So yes it is good schooling you on this history. There had been plans to invade as far back as WW2 during the battle of Britain, when Argentina had plans to invdade. What you cannot account for in your woefful assumptions is the many factors I have proposed. The fact is Chile was the more pressing problem in 1977, who later sided with Britain because of their disagreements. Second only a permenant as seen naval presence would have averted an invasion. As seen the Argies would invade when this was easiest being Britain could not keep such a strong naval prescence indefinately. All of this goes above your pay grade of course and why your conspiracy theory is comical to say the least.

Such force must be used only until evident that the immediate aim is being achieved and must in no way be retaliatory. The submarine commander was told that if attacked with anti-submarine weapons by Argentine forces he was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life.

In effect we were sitting ducks, but the Argentines weren’t to know that!

No, you haven't read the rules of engagement. What you have come up with what you have picked up from little snipets from articles on the internet. Go to the NA and then come back and tell me what they say in detail.

And I liked this bit in your last reply

and nothing would have detered him other than a strong naval prescence

So as the early warnings coming from Argentina which were ignored pointed to an invasion why wasn't that put in place? Read what Sir Henry said about signals being sent to Argentina.

Oh dear, nothing was done was it and no contingency plan either?

The OP stands uncorrected and you are still in the dock.

Hilarious again.

Brasidas wrote:First of all show me the invasion plans for 1977 by the Argentinians?
There was not any and again their problems were more with Chile.

You have access to the Argentine military war planning for the period!!! astonishing

Brasidas wrote:
Second why was the Submarine ordered to turn tail if attacked and not retaliate?
To save lives, so the whole operation was a bluff, because why you neglect is even the daft Labour Goverment at the time knew this small force if attacked would be in huge trouble against the full forces of the Argentinians. Hence why again the whole operation was a bluff, but then you only think two dimensionally and cannot see the flaws here.

Already explained and I'm awaiting your detailed RoE from the NA.

Brasidas wrote:The OP has been kicked out of the park as it was complete bollocks from the start. You are left with some desperate claim based on the war being averted which is complete babble on your part. The only way the invasion could have been stopped would have been a permenant strong naval presence or the Islands given to the Argies, neither of which would have happened.

History points to a stronger commitment to defend the Islands by force if necessary and a political will to do so would prevent it. Read what Sir Henry Leach said.

Brasidas wrote:
It is easy to argue in hindsight about warnings and then claim something should have been done, hence why your argument falls also flat.

But it wasn't in hindsight was it because as you said ignoring the early warnings coming from our man in Argentina were a mistake

Brasidas wrote:On every level you have as I always do give you a right drubbing on history, but then the English have always been good and giving the Scots a lesson.

Doesn't take long to draw that nasty 'little Englander' stuff out of you showing you are no better that the RW nutters that you claim to despise. You just make it really easy for me. Your knowledge on this subject only goes as far as your next search engine enquiry.

Your still in the dock.

Brasidas wrote:I guess Jock must be frantically searching google as we speak ha ha

risingsun wrote:I am Irish Sicillian, so how am I a nasty little Englander.
You being racist now to the English?

'JOCK'

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious so Jock did not answer any points and goes off one commander in hindsight

I guess that is game over another left wing failure.

I am Irish Sicillian, so how am I a nasty little Englander.
You being racist now to the English?

So there was no invasion plan in 1977 both sides playing a game of bluff, as the Argies had there main problems with Chile which nearly led to war in 1978, all of which the jock canbnot refute. Second the navy contingent in 1977 Operation Journeyman was clearly not strong enough and ordered to bail out if attacked and even did not remove the Argies from the Islands that had landed. Again he cannot refute the fact the Argies would have always invaded later, being they planned to do so after the Chile crises. Only a strong naval presence would have averted this which would have not been proable due to the logistics problems of maintaining such a force to permenantly defend the islands.


keep seraching google Jock, is all you are good for, some of us actually know history which I proved you do not.

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:I am Irish Sicillian, so how am I a nasty little Englander.
You being racist now to the English?

'JOCK'

Are many Scots called Jock?
What do the Black watch call themselves?

Next

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Hilarious so Jock did not answer any points and goes off one commander in hindsight

I guess that is game over another left wing failure.

I am Irish Sicillian, so how am I a nasty little Englander.
You being racist now to the English?

So there was no invasion plan in 1977 both sides playing a game of bluff, as the Argies had there main problems with Chile which nearly led to war in 1978, all of which the jock canbnot refute. Second the navy contingent in 1977 Operation Journeyman was clearly not strong enough and ordered to bail out if attacked and even did not remove the Argies from the Islands that had landed. Again he cannot refute the fact the Argies would have always invaded later, being they planned to do so after the Chile crises. Only a strong naval presence would have averted this which would have not been proable due to the logistics problems of maintaining such a force to permenantly defend the islands.


keep seraching google Jock, is all you are good for, some of us actually know history which I proved you do not.

Forget it chum. You claim you are English and your rants point in every way to the symptoms related to 'Little Englanders' You wear your badge with pride.

All your points have been answered in detail with historical documentation and with the views of Military chiefs  All you have is your opinions which are complete rubbish.

I'm still awaiting the RoE and your comments on the 1981 meeting. You have all the files to hand don't you.

I'll look back later which will give you sufficient time to dig them out. Don't let me down.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Are many Scots called Jock?
What do the Black watch call themselves?

Next

Eh?