Author Paul Cardin discusses the Falklands campaign

Wightsparker

War Hero
The cruiser on which 368 sailors including ,,over 100 conscripts were killed. The one which had been sailing away from the task force and towards the mainland for 14 hours yet Defence Secretary John Nott repeatedly described as steaming towards us, when later justifying the sinking. Luckily he was later corrected by Rear Admiral Woodward who described his own version of the 'threat' a whole decade later. Well done him!

But good to see you fearlessly lock onto the most important issue. Cheers for that.
And the Belgrano's captain, Hector Bonzo, said in an interview that the direction in which his ship was going was beside the point; his ship was a threat to the British and he recognised the point.

The ridiculous labelling of the cruiser as an aircraft carrier simply undermined the credibility of your post.
 

slim

War Hero

Chris P

War Hero
And the Belgrano's captain, Hector Bonzo, said in an interview that the direction in which his ship was going was beside the point; his ship was a threat to the British and he recognised the point.

The ridiculous labelling of the cruiser as an aircraft carrier simply undermined the credibility of your post.
Maybe it was turning into wind to launch the cabs...........o_O:confused:!
 
And the Belgrano's captain, Hector Bonzo, said in an interview that the direction in which his ship was going was beside the point; his ship was a threat to the British and he recognised the point.

The ridiculous labelling of the cruiser as an aircraft carrier simply undermined the credibility of your post.
Take the word of losing, murdering, torturing fascists, (eagerly writing their memoirs and vulnerable to diplomatic manipulation) on trust, do you? Not a v. clever sausage, then!!
 

Sumo

War Hero
Take the word of losing, murdering, torturing fascists, (eagerly writing their memoirs and vulnerable to diplomatic manipulation) on trust, do you? Not a v. clever sausage, then!!
And you ask us to take you on trust, when you have shown non, or are you talking about yourself and your a fascist?
 
It's always worth mentioning the following, re: reasons for the invasion. It simply was not a ONE-SIDED affair, as most UK state sponsored historians describe.

The year 1981 in the United Kingdom:
1. Unforgiving, monetarist economic policies, impacting millions of working people
2. 3 million unemployed
3. 18% inflation
4. Riots across all major cities of the UK
5. Unusually for a Conservative administration, income tax hikes
6. Hundreds of senior economic experts advising that the industrial and manufacturing base would be adversely impacted. In hindsight, we know British industry was decimated
7. By year-end 1981, Margaret Thatcher's approval rating was 23%, the lowest on record for any UK prime minister

Due to all this, Mrs. Thatcher needed (and began to engineer) a rapid about-turn in her fortunes.

Thatcher's and her ministers' 1980 and 1981 activities (much of it concealed for the next 30 years, fortunately for them):
1. Trade talks with the Argentine Junta, forging future co-operation
2. Arms deals with the Argentine Junta, up until 4 days before the invasion
3. Falkland Islanders branded foreigners inside the 1981 British Nationality Act and barred from settling in the UK
4. Nicholas Ridley dispatched on top secret mission to Geneva to meet Argentine deputy foreign minister. Subjects up for discussion: 99-year leaseback deal and joint sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, where flag masts in the islands would fly both the Union flag and the Argentinian flag. The government even put out a fake cover story, stating that Ridley had gone on holiday with his wife to sit by Lake Geneva, painting water colours
5. Sweeping defence cuts to UK armed services, including removal of HMS Endurance from its patrolling waters in the South Atlantic.
6. A cable sent from the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires to London remarked that most Argentinian newspapers had been reporting for some time that the British Government seemed to have lost interest in the Malvinas and the interests of the islanders

All of the above came together to encourage Galtieri into thinking that any invasion would remain uncontested. How wrong he was. It wouldn't have taken a great deal of research to provide us with the full story. Idle commentators tend to reinforce the settled mainstream and government narrative, which we should all know by now is woefully incomplete and inadequate. To raise questions is to display true respect for those who needlessly lost their lives in this foreseeable, avoidable war.
 

slim

War Hero
It's always worth mentioning the following, re: reasons for the invasion. It simply was not a ONE-SIDED affair, as most UK state sponsored historians describe.

The year 1981 in the United Kingdom:
1. Unforgiving, monetarist economic policies, impacting millions of working people
2. 3 million unemployed
3. 18% inflation
4. Riots across all major cities of the UK
5. Unusually for a Conservative administration, income tax hikes
6. Hundreds of senior economic experts advising that the industrial and manufacturing base would be adversely impacted. In hindsight, we know British industry was decimated
7. By year-end 1981, Margaret Thatcher's approval rating was 23%, the lowest on record for any UK prime minister

Due to all this, Mrs. Thatcher needed (and began to engineer) a rapid about-turn in her fortunes.

Thatcher's and her ministers' 1980 and 1981 activities (much of it concealed for the next 30 years, fortunately for them):
1. Trade talks with the Argentine Junta, forging future co-operation
2. Arms deals with the Argentine Junta, up until 4 days before the invasion
3. Falkland Islanders branded foreigners inside the 1981 British Nationality Act and barred from settling in the UK
4. Nicholas Ridley dispatched on top secret mission to Geneva to meet Argentine deputy foreign minister. Subjects up for discussion: 99-year leaseback deal and joint sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, where flag masts in the islands would fly both the Union flag and the Argentinian flag. The government even put out a fake cover story, stating that Ridley had gone on holiday with his wife to sit by Lake Geneva, painting water colours
5. Sweeping defence cuts to UK armed services, including removal of HMS Endurance from its patrolling waters in the South Atlantic.
6. A cable sent from the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires to London remarked that most Argentinian newspapers had been reporting for some time that the British Government seemed to have lost interest in the Malvinas and the interests of the islanders

All of the above came together to encourage Galtieri into thinking that any invasion would remain uncontested. How wrong he was. It wouldn't have taken a great deal of research to provide us with the full story. Idle commentators tend to reinforce the settled mainstream and government narrative, which we should all know by now is woefully incomplete and inadequate. To raise questions is to display true respect for those who needlessly lost their lives in this foreseeable, avoidable war.
Crawl back under the stone you crawled out from.
Now answer my question on yer Falkland medals.
Have you had the courage of your convictions to return them to the Government?
 

WreckerL

War Hero
Super Moderator
It's always worth mentioning the following, re: reasons for the invasion. It simply was not a ONE-SIDED affair, as most UK state sponsored historians describe.

The year 1981 in the United Kingdom:
1. Unforgiving, monetarist economic policies, impacting millions of working people
2. 3 million unemployed
3. 18% inflation
4. Riots across all major cities of the UK
5. Unusually for a Conservative administration, income tax hikes
6. Hundreds of senior economic experts advising that the industrial and manufacturing base would be adversely impacted. In hindsight, we know British industry was decimated
7. By year-end 1981, Margaret Thatcher's approval rating was 23%, the lowest on record for any UK prime minister

Due to all this, Mrs. Thatcher needed (and began to engineer) a rapid about-turn in her fortunes.

Thatcher's and her ministers' 1980 and 1981 activities (much of it concealed for the next 30 years, fortunately for them):
1. Trade talks with the Argentine Junta, forging future co-operation
2. Arms deals with the Argentine Junta, up until 4 days before the invasion
3. Falkland Islanders branded foreigners inside the 1981 British Nationality Act and barred from settling in the UK
4. Nicholas Ridley dispatched on top secret mission to Geneva to meet Argentine deputy foreign minister. Subjects up for discussion: 99-year leaseback deal and joint sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, where flag masts in the islands would fly both the Union flag and the Argentinian flag. The government even put out a fake cover story, stating that Ridley had gone on holiday with his wife to sit by Lake Geneva, painting water colours
5. Sweeping defence cuts to UK armed services, including removal of HMS Endurance from its patrolling waters in the South Atlantic.
6. A cable sent from the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires to London remarked that most Argentinian newspapers had been reporting for some time that the British Government seemed to have lost interest in the Malvinas and the interests of the islanders

All of the above came together to encourage Galtieri into thinking that any invasion would remain uncontested. How wrong he was. It wouldn't have taken a great deal of research to provide us with the full story. Idle commentators tend to reinforce the settled mainstream and government narrative, which we should all know by now is woefully incomplete and inadequate. To raise questions is to display true respect for those who needlessly lost their lives in this foreseeable, avoidable war.
Here conspiracy, there conspiracy...ooh ooh conspiracies everywhere :rolleyes:
 

Dredd

War Hero
Super Moderator
It's always worth mentioning the following, re: reasons for the invasion. It simply was not a ONE-SIDED affair, as most UK state sponsored historians describe.

The year 1981 in the United Kingdom:
1. Unforgiving, monetarist economic policies, impacting millions of working people
2. 3 million unemployed
3. 18% inflation
4. Riots across all major cities of the UK
5. Unusually for a Conservative administration, income tax hikes
6. Hundreds of senior economic experts advising that the industrial and manufacturing base would be adversely impacted. In hindsight, we know British industry was decimated
7. By year-end 1981, Margaret Thatcher's approval rating was 23%, the lowest on record for any UK prime minister

Due to all this, Mrs. Thatcher needed (and began to engineer) a rapid about-turn in her fortunes.

Thatcher's and her ministers' 1980 and 1981 activities (much of it concealed for the next 30 years, fortunately for them):
1. Trade talks with the Argentine Junta, forging future co-operation
2. Arms deals with the Argentine Junta, up until 4 days before the invasion
3. Falkland Islanders branded foreigners inside the 1981 British Nationality Act and barred from settling in the UK
4. Nicholas Ridley dispatched on top secret mission to Geneva to meet Argentine deputy foreign minister. Subjects up for discussion: 99-year leaseback deal and joint sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, where flag masts in the islands would fly both the Union flag and the Argentinian flag. The government even put out a fake cover story, stating that Ridley had gone on holiday with his wife to sit by Lake Geneva, painting water colours
5. Sweeping defence cuts to UK armed services, including removal of HMS Endurance from its patrolling waters in the South Atlantic.
6. A cable sent from the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires to London remarked that most Argentinian newspapers had been reporting for some time that the British Government seemed to have lost interest in the Malvinas and the interests of the islanders

All of the above came together to encourage Galtieri into thinking that any invasion would remain uncontested. How wrong he was. It wouldn't have taken a great deal of research to provide us with the full story. Idle commentators tend to reinforce the settled mainstream and government narrative, which we should all know by now is woefully incomplete and inadequate. To raise questions is to display true respect for those who needlessly lost their lives in this foreseeable, avoidable war.

How interesting. Please, do tell us more.
 

Sumo

War Hero
It's always worth mentioning the following, re: reasons for the invasion. It simply was not a ONE-SIDED affair, as most UK state sponsored historians describe.

The year 1981 in the United Kingdom:
1. Unforgiving, monetarist economic policies, impacting millions of working people
2. 3 million unemployed
3. 18% inflation
4. Riots across all major cities of the UK
5. Unusually for a Conservative administration, income tax hikes
6. Hundreds of senior economic experts advising that the industrial and manufacturing base would be adversely impacted. In hindsight, we know British industry was decimated
7. By year-end 1981, Margaret Thatcher's approval rating was 23%, the lowest on record for any UK prime minister

Due to all this, Mrs. Thatcher needed (and began to engineer) a rapid about-turn in her fortunes.

Thatcher's and her ministers' 1980 and 1981 activities (much of it concealed for the next 30 years, fortunately for them):
1. Trade talks with the Argentine Junta, forging future co-operation
2. Arms deals with the Argentine Junta, up until 4 days before the invasion
3. Falkland Islanders branded foreigners inside the 1981 British Nationality Act and barred from settling in the UK
4. Nicholas Ridley dispatched on top secret mission to Geneva to meet Argentine deputy foreign minister. Subjects up for discussion: 99-year leaseback deal and joint sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, where flag masts in the islands would fly both the Union flag and the Argentinian flag. The government even put out a fake cover story, stating that Ridley had gone on holiday with his wife to sit by Lake Geneva, painting water colours
5. Sweeping defence cuts to UK armed services, including removal of HMS Endurance from its patrolling waters in the South Atlantic.
6. A cable sent from the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires to London remarked that most Argentinian newspapers had been reporting for some time that the British Government seemed to have lost interest in the Malvinas and the interests of the islanders

All of the above came together to encourage Galtieri into thinking that any invasion would remain uncontested. How wrong he was. It wouldn't have taken a great deal of research to provide us with the full story. Idle commentators tend to reinforce the settled mainstream and government narrative, which we should all know by now is woefully incomplete and inadequate. To raise questions is to display true respect for those who needlessly lost their lives in this foreseeable, avoidable war.
All that shows was Maggy looking at options, not one said the failing Argentinian government should violently attack the Falkland's.
If all you say is remotely true in all detail, without a favoured slant/opinion, then the Argentinian gov would have had access years ago, but as with many dictatorship lead countries they had to control by force.
The facts are simple they attacked, got arse kicked, needles loss of life.

Will you be publishing your book on Putin and his military exercise any time soon?
 
Top