MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 1st 2023 - 16:11 UTC



ARA Belgrano was heading to the Falklands, secret papers reveal

Monday, December 26th 2011 - 17:23 UTC
Full article 76 comments

By Thomas Harding, The Telegraph Defense Correspondent. The following article referred to the major naval incident of the Falklands’ conflict was published Monday 26 December. Top secret papers are set to prove that the warship ARA Belgrano was heading into the Falkland's exclusion zone when it was sunk in May 1982, and not heading back to port as the Argentines claimed. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Marcos Alejandro

    This latest news is coming from the same country that went to war and killed tens of thousands in Iraq based on another big lie(WMD).
    Very reassuring...

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    very irrlevent, speed and direction of a beligerant warship make no difference, it only has to be beligerant and not surrendering or sinking and it can be attacked.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • malen

    not in their exclusion zone, avoiding all international laws, they killed 300
    what they want to show bringing this to the scene again?? it was and will be a very questionable actitud of your army.
    anyway there is a secret surrounding the Invencible.... that pilots here say it was attacked and then hided and repaired.......I would give a credit to that, you are very fond at twistting everything

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    They deigned.
    These secret papers are worthless.
    They are on panic.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    Total Exclusion Zone was for all foreign forces, of whatever nationality. Argentinian forces could be attacked anywhere. TEZ is primarly for merchant ships & other neutrals.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    I don't care if they were in reverse, they were a target and blasted, like rats.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @3 Still sticking with your delusions? If you had the brain (there's a joke) of a quarter wit, you would know that the British government informed your gang of lying criminals, through the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires, that it would take any action, anywhere, in defence of its forces. And it was 382 actually.

    Of course there is a secret about HMS Invincible. The truth is that, at the start, we actually had five of them. All with the same name. But those argie pilots sank them all. So we built another one. I think it took about 25 days. Not hard to build a 22,000 ton aircraft carrier when you know what you're doing. Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

    @4 In relation to argies, I wouldn't know how to panic. But I might piss myself laughing. Was it not 11,313 of your 'troops' that surrendered to 1,200 of ours? Note - must do better next time. Should have got at least 1100 off the Belgrano. And that number of surrenderers is too many. We should have just sent about 300 back to their 'country'. The rest could have gone overboard. Less than a thousand miles from Stanley to Mar del Plata. Good for swimming. Glug, glug, glug.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    They we servicemen who died fighting in their countrys war, that should be respected.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    They were rats and drowned like them.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    (#) 7 Amigo
    Have your grandfather told this story who was soldier in 1982 operation !

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Its all public record over here numb nut, not the big secret it is over there.

    Fcuk off and join the RG Army, we need some legitimate targets to shoot at, they may even allow you to share a rifle between four of you.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    To everyone on this site:

    Some of my British colleagues may not like what I am about to write, and may consider me naive, but I do not denegrate the rank and file of any nation's soldier who fell in battle. Argentinian or British or whatever, they were carrying out their orders and during war fatalities occur on both sides. In my view they should all be respected for that alone.

    Many of the Argentinian soldiers were poorly trained conscripts who were led by brutalising 'officers', people unworthy of the title. These despicable 'officers' did as much as the British to to destroy the Argentinian forces, certainly in demoralising their own ranks.

    What I have no time for, nor ever will, are the thugs who run Argentina at present, with the exception of the pathetic Wop who has the title 'defence minister' and will be the first to run back to Italy if it ever comes to another armed conflict.

    Indoctrinated from childhood in a fantasy by the fabled 'General Peron' what a fcuking moron, I find it difficult to see how a peaceful solution to the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) will ever present itself from the Argentinian side.

    It will require a full regime change and some years of peaceful relations with the peaceful inhabitants of the Islands before ANY progress would be possible.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    What a frightening soldier,who frightens all of us .

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Chris, I'm just trying to upset the prats, they aren't soldiers, and have no honour, so its impossible to appeal to any sense of honour; you just have to take the gloves off and rip them to shreds, as a former soldier myself I understand your feelings, however, we're not talking to soldiers here, just complete prats.

    Ed, you don't need to be frightened, just shot like the dog you are, please join up, you'll at least catch a bullet in place of a genuine soldier, one less keyboard warrior won't be a great loss.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bruce

    To everyone. Could you please think about what you are writing in these blogs. The servicemen on both sides were simply following orders and ALL deserve our respect. Some of the stuff on this trail of messages is making me feel sick.

    I'm giving up looking at this site for a week or two. It's becoming ridiculous. Please think before you post. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Please!

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    (#) 14 Amigo

    Sorry, I learned so many things in my life but never learned to be a servant,slave,soldier. I am a soldier of my life.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Bruce, you may like Malvinists, or have to put up with the crap, but I don't.

    I'm genuinely sorry if you're upset matey, but I have no time nor respect for Malvinists, they are less than dog shit as far as I'm concerned, they are the vomit you wish to bring up, just ignore my comments, they are not directed at real soldiers or ordinary Argentines, just the dregs of society, Malvinists, scum of the Earth.

    Merry Christmas to you Bruce.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    (#) 17 Amigo
    Well done , keep going talking with your equals.I leave you free.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Only because you've nothing worthwhile to say, but good riddance.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    3 malen
    Where would you hide an aircraft carrier between here and Southampton?
    And why does it help you to believe that it was damaged and repaired? There is no evidence at all for this. It's loony. I'm sure your pilots did attack it but they didn't hit it. If they had, don't you think one of the servicemen or journalists on board might have mentioned it since then?

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Old news. Indeed the cruise was going to the Malvinas, but their mission was aborted.
    At the time of the attack was going to the mainland.
    Therefore, Mr. Thorp, you lie. The Captain of the Conqueror, contradicts this information.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Papamoa

    The belgrano was a Legitimate target and was dealt with swiftly and correctly!!!

    Long Live the Falklands.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Sir Rodderick Bodkin


    Implying Ghurkas were any better, jackass.
    What an hypocritical fuckhead.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    14 Wireless

    I totally accept your view on the idiot Argies who post on here.

    Please read my post again: it refers to SOLDIERS not fcuking idiotic Argie bloggers.

    YES, it includes Argentinian soldiers who died in the Falklands (there are no Malvinas). They were the enemy but they did die in the service of their country. Surely as an ex soldier (is there such a thing as an ex British soldier?) yuo can respect that.

    If you want any further evidence of the total disrespect these Argies have for their own fallen soldiers, just look at what that moron 'ed' wrote in response to my piece:
    “What a frightening soldier,who frightens all of us .” PATHETIC.

    I rest my case.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    The exclusion zone was for the benefit of neutral shipping. Any Argentine warship in any place steaming in any direction was fair game. The Belgrano was exactly that.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @23 - Ghurkas are better than most when it comes to soldiering

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    All Argentines on here. Accept FACTS: Several Times over the years since 1983( I even say the Arg southern area commander on TV myself saying it)rg Naval High Command has clearly started that the Belgrano was on a holding pattern-steaming a triangle course-awaiting orders to attack as soon as the northern half of the Arg fleet had launched its carrier aircraft against the British carriers, and thus complete a pincer attack.
    You steam a triangle course that means for a few minutes your bow faces the Islands and for a few minutes it faces Argentina and for a few minutes it faces neither - it keeps changing dumbos!!
    She was a legitimate military target - as the Arg Admiral correctly quoted at the time - “ when you are at war it is your duty to sink the enemy,s ship - before - the enemy sinks you”, he said it well - a simple military fact of life!
    The British knew where the Belgrano was - they did not know where the Arg.Carrier fleet was- they correctly guessed the Argh plan - and decided to act to remove at least one half of the pincers!

    People die in war- its a sad fact but a reality! And on a ship it can often be a nasty drowning death- it happened to BOTH sides in 1982!

    What would be far more productive as we approacj a New Year if the Ogagas, Eds and all the other nutters concentrate on looking for a reasonable and realistic solution that gave Islanders and Argentines a solution that BOTH could accept and fitted in with Democracy- that I suggest is Independence - as a result of a legally binding and enforceable Agreement where UK withdraws military forces from the Islands and Arg simultaneously gives its “sovereignty claim” to the people of the Islands thus enabling them to become Independent and recognised as such by all S American nations.
    The Islands then join OAS, Mercosur and the Commonwealth.And of course all reference to the Islands is written OUT of Argentina,s Constitution.

    Dec 26th, 2011 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    Thank you J.A., the exclusion zone was ONLY for the benefit of nuetral shipping. And Argentina had been clearly warned in a message sent via the Swiss Embassy.

    The Captain of the Belgrano long ago admitted that his vessel was a legitimate target. If you start a shooting war, then all your ordinance is a legitimate target!

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    28 Lord Ton - Sorry what was the name of the captain of the Belgrano, again.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    2007 - May 2nd, in an interview with the Clarin newspaper, Hector Bonzo, Captain of the Belgrano in 1982, denies that the sinking of his vessel was a war crime; “ It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine's attack, are not a crime ... The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences. On April 30, we were authorised to open fire, and if the submarine had surfaced in front of me I would have opened fire with all our 15 guns until it sank.”

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    They were servicemen who died fighting in their countrys war, that should be respected.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Once again, Argentina has been proved the lie,
    But will their indoctrinated brain washed bloggers believe it,

    Like hell, for them, their is no truth west of the Pecos
    and no liars inside Argentina.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    Thought it was no God west of the Pecos. I think they know about liars inside Argentina. Or at least some of them do. Hope springs eternal.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    well one cant be perfect all the time,
    but i think they know what i meant, [i hope]

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Wireless aka Witless

    We can agree or disagree about the responsibility of the sinking of this particular ship or the war as a whole, however to disrespect the dead, on both sides, shows how desperate you are after all the bad news for you lately and another good reason for Argentina and South America to consider UK not welcomed anymore.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • johnfarrel2050

    Nobody believe in the UK lies, please don´t lie anymore!!!!

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    The world believes us JF - but don't worry, one day your brainwashing may wear off!

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fermin

    @Wireless: “They were rats and drowned like them.” O_O
    @Conqueror: “Glug, glug, glug.”


    What a GANG OF LOSERS, I find them as honorable as Galtieri or any other Argentinian dictator, or Mrs. Tatcher...

    I wonder if they can feel MEN and STRONG and PROSPEROUS without the idea of belonging to a Nation that won wars like the one in Malvinas.

    It is really sad that some people have their brain washed by nationalism like this. I get the impression that WAR is taken as something so BANAL on the BBC, CNN, and major mass media corporations around the world and people incorporates this lack of care for life, specially in Nations that have along story as warrior powers like the UK or the USA.

    There are another type of britons, what a pity that the social-economic system they work for is not broadcasting their speech also...

    What does this article want to show with this? That war was not so unfair? So horrible for soldiers involved in it? So motivated by the british grabbing of LatinAmerican natural resources and the need of social acceptance on the Argentinian military Junta?

    We need to fortify diplomacy and DEMOCRACY in this world, it is the solution to decrease the number of wars, were soldiers are not really even fighting for its own social classes prosperity.

    Marcos Alejandro in the first comment here wrote it: “latest news is coming from the same country that went to war and killed tens of thousands in Iraq” and we can add Libia this year also.

    Did british servants at the Royal navy in 1982 have a “Royal Life” when they got back home?¿ How can people talk about Peron like he had been a dictator and be ok with Monarchy and Colonialism and Imperialism? Funny... human behavior can be so far from rational more often than we usually think.

    So FUNNY and LOGIC at the same time that the british rightwingers defend a supposed “self-determination” giving green light to death, war, colonialism.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britishbulldog

    38 fermin---- Vermin you crack me up you really do.
    @Wireless: “They were rats and drowned like them.” O_O
    @Conqueror: “Glug, glug, glug.”

    The only thing I find DIS-GUS-TING was the Argentine invasion in the first place. When you go to war, you can expect your men to die, your ships sunk or your aircraft downed and the only losers that I can see are you bunch of psychotic psychopath’s who thought that they could invade our fellow citizens homeland and we would just let you get away with it.
    Moreover, I tell you know if you bunch of psychotic lying psychopaths ever try doing it again AND YOU WILL make no mistake about that no matter what you and the rest of your fellow vermin say, we will once more sink anything in sight, down anything that fly’s in our direction and kill as many of your soldiers as we can to defend the right of every islander to live on their HOMELAND that was never yours in the first place and never will be yours.
    Your country is the aggressor just like it was last time no matter how you dress it up and that vermin IS THE REAL DIS-GUS-TING THING ABOUT IT ALL.
    You can spout all the nonsense in the world like you usually do, we have the measure of you and your ilk makes no mistake about that.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Settle down, chaps.lts Christmas after all.
    Yes, in war people get killed.
    Yes,the Argentines started this & now they don't like the outcome.
    The Belgrano was an enemy warship & we had every right to sink it, no matter where it was.
    l believe the Argentines sent a team to Gibraltar to try to sink British ships, no?
    That is well out of the exclusion zone, don't you think?
    lts a pity that it has to be like this, but Argentines, its all in your hands.
    Back off,
    Drop your ridiculous claims,
    And we can all be friends again♥
    lf you don't agree, then take us to court,ICJ.
    lf you won't do that, then your only other option is War.
    Talking & whining will get you no-where.
    There you have it. Peace

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror


    I suppose I tend to agree, but then I agree with Britishbulldog that the invasion itself was DIS-GUS-TING. But what I also find DIS-GUS-TING is the insistence of South American blaggers in continuing to lie. As I believe I may have pointed out elsewhere, they have been lying for the best part of 200 years and don't seem to be able to stop.

    So get it right, blaggers, Britain has been in the Falklands (there is no Malvinas) since 1690. Long before that pitiful little country called Argentina was even thought of. There is no valid legal principle by which you were entitled to invade British territory in 1829. In 1833, Britain merely re-established its presence. In 1982, without any warning as between civilised countries, you invaded again. The United Nations told you to get out. You ignored it. (And you want us to pay attention to it now!) You performed some pretty DIS-GUS-TING acts like standing on the backs of Royal Marines ordered to surrender, penning over a hundred people in a hall for days with no food except bar snacks and leaving faeces in peoples' homes. And you want respect? Be grateful, we let 700 of your sailors survive. If we'd follow the practices of your Nazi idols, we would have shot them in the water. And we let over 11,000 of your pitiful 'troops' surrender to 1,200 of ours. Be very grateful for the way we conduct ourselves when faced with an attack from lying DIS-GUS-TING creatures.

    See whether you can be civilised enough to admit that you've been wrong and quit trying to bully 3,000 people. If you attack our citizens of the Falkland Islands, or the Islands themselves, again, I will be pressing my government to adopt a no mercy, no prisoners response. And the majority of British people will be doing the same.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    Lots of reactions to a book at a time when tensions a rising.No vessels of the flag of the British dependence in south American ports.
    All posturing rubbish talk read with great interest.Feel privileged to post on the same site as the creator and conqueror,the man with an open line to the brutish government.
    There is obviously some psychological unstable psychos on here,that think if they sound aggressive enough it becomes the truth.Now boys get some treatment or just get sensible.
    Only 89 years max

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    “not in their exclusion zone, avoiding all international laws”

    The Argentinian high command was told well before the war started that any Argentina naval vessel would be sunk in or our of the zone. There are no laws of any kind we broke.

    “anyway there is a secret surrounding the Invencible”

    No, there's a ridiculous conspiracy theory that makes no sense. It's a completely different thing.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    I'm reminded of the uber-reality of the scene in Cabaret (1972), when the young boy sings the song and causes all the otherwise sane people out for a Sunday afternoon drink to become instant warmongers.
    [“Tomorrow Belongs To Me” Written by John Kander and Fred Ebb.
    Sung onscreen by the Nazi youth with singing voice provided by Mark Lambert]

    Otherwise nice people become 'something else' when Mercopress, the Daily Mail, the News Of The World, etc, etc, press the wrong/right buttons.
    These pages are not a battle zone and today there is NO WAR.

    I look forward to the new year bringing us all together in tough but respectful discussion.
    We are - after all - educated people, people who know when we are being manipulated.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ElaineB

    Nothing has changed. The Falkland Islands remain the same. The UK government remains determined to protect the Falkland Islanders...... Nothing has changed.

    @44 : )

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • livin' in argentina

    12 ChrisR (#)
    nicely put.

    By losing the war Argentina gained Democracy. This was the best chance they had to finally end the hostility towards the Falklands and Britain. but they threw it away. No once again the Government brings up the Falklands. Why? Because the same old formula works. The people forget how bad they are treated and mismanaged and go on some nationalistic binge.
    This is truly tragic. Especially since Britain was so influential in the building of Argentina. We had terrific relations. Spoilt by a very small amount of people.
    I speak to Argentines and the older generation have respect for Britain and the achievements of Britain. It seems the later generations have the indoctrinated attitude. Again, a shame. Our good history together has been replaced with.....hate!

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    ''The principle, which is quite true in itself is that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily'' *
    (Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels. Hitler's first Reichspropagandaleiter der NSDAP, and then Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Deutchlands)
    * Often misquoted as 'Lie, lie, something will remain'.

    I posted a reasonable English version because probably there are not many here that understand German, albeit some of them may use and approve certain of the Nazi methods of masses' manipulation.

    The ARA Belgrano was ordered back, no matter what Chief Big Ear Thorpe may say now. Strangely enough, I wonder where did the Brits got quechua and/or guarani translators, as most communications on movements to be done immediately were exchanged in those languages, to avoid “instant deciphering”, especially those, as these, of high secret contents.

    Sorry, friends in “the other side”. I ought to put the above in black on white.

    Peace and Love!

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    Argie 47
    It doesn't matter what the Belgrado's orders were, or its speed and direction it was still a legimate target. It only matters now what Thorpe has to say, because Argentinians made/make such and issue of of which way it was sailing.
    Did it matter which way the Sheffield was sailing.
    Also the Brits did have 6 weeks to prepare for any languages used.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Britishbulldog

    47 Argiea (#)----Do honestly think that we would go to war and not be prepared in any language that would be used to try to thwart us in the humiliation of a thieving country that tried to humiliate us? You are not talking to amateurs when it comes down to war. You seem to forget that the country that sailed down into the South Atlantic broke the Nazi Enigma codes so a few unfamiliar words would have been child's play to us. Before you go to War, I would remind you to train your men for every likely situation like we do. Better still stay at home next time your Government whips you up into frenzy about the Falklands and tells you to invade the Falklands islands, it would be a lot safer for every one of you, like the last time you would not like to meet a 21 year old veteran who has fought in Afghanistan on a cold dark night like the last time it would be very unhealthy for you . Peace brother and lots of love. but only if you behave yourselves, if you dont it you wont see much love and you wont see much peace.

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    Yes it does matter 48#,yes it does matter for many reasons
    Try thinking of three and then you might be getting some sense instead of stimulus/response brain activity

    Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Do you mean to tell me that radio traffic, although in another language, was en clair?
    What a shower of Amateurs!
    And silly me thought that only we were bunglers.!
    Maybe the submarine should have surfaced & invited the Belgrano's crew aboard for café y galletas?
    What were your team going to do in Gibraltar? lnvite us to church, maybe.
    Go away & think some more.

    Dec 28th, 2011 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    51# you'll buy the book I guess.It will be useful for the future and your knowledge of the events of 1982.Or isn't it a worth historical contribution.Maybe it will be serialised by the enquirer.

    Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    In so far as the rules of war are concerned, it dosn't matter, we are talking about a war here. If you did not then, you should by now have realised what you got yourselve into. A war.

    Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    49 BritishBulldog: FU, MF. You're not a dog. Dogs are fair creatures. You are nothing but a talker, and talkers don't do.

    Dec 29th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    47 Argie
    All comments (mine included) about the last paragraph. one incident in a war, which was part of a bigger situation.
    None about the first paragraph about how to control a situation.
    I suppose that is the effect of emotion overriding reason, and the resultant loss of perspective.

    Dec 29th, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Grupo de Artilleria 3

    and the resultant loss of perspective..... No shit !!

    Dec 29th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Who is responsible for putting that picture of A tellytubby on the argie flag then.

    Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    If the British had intercepted radio traffic intelligence data that placed the rendez-vous point of Belgrano group close to the British task force it probably influenced Admiral Woodward's interpretation of the military intent and threat of the Belgrano. It explains his orders to sink the Belgrano, in terms of removing a naval threat to the British task force

    The wiki article discusses the controversy in some detail:

    It looks like the ARA had a credible chance to engage and defeat the British Task Force but after the sinking of the Belgrano did not risk prosecution of a decisive blow due to the danger of aerial or submarine detection and British counter-attack and instead relied on the less risky strategy of FAA air strikes and repulsion of the British liberation forces by the EA occupation forces

    The militaries of both countries seem perfectly competent and both carried out their operations highly professionally

    Dec 30th, 2011 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    “The militaries of both countries seem perfectly competent and both carried out their operations highly professionally” #58

    A refreshingly balanced assessment.

    The usual balance of manpower, specific array of armaments, equipment and logistics, intelligence, and aggressive spirit in the field determined the outcome, but it was by no means a foregone conclusion.

    Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    There was crucial need for this to happen in the UK.Politically the case wasn't seen as reflecting the public belief in the capability to win without losses to a country seen as badly equipped.War after all is politics in its effects and military in it's execution.The book does not reveal any state secrets does it.

    Dec 30th, 2011 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    58 Domingo

    Yours is a summary I agree with up to a point, I think your own eminent Social Scientist saw it for wha it was near to the end point.
    Carlos Escudé wrote:
    After the war, a lot has been said about the possibility that the result might have been different if Argentina would have been “luckier” in her military operations, sinking more British ships with bombs that hit their targets but never exploded. Such conjectures are very unconvincing for the simple reason that war is not a sport played on the gentlemanly defined limits of the playing grounds. If Argentina had, for example, sunk one of the British aircraft carriers, escalation would have been inevitable, with the remaining one attacking the Argentine mainland and most probably wrecking the Patagonian oil and hydroelectric industry. This would have had a devastating long term effect upon Argentina's economy, and an immediate and equally disastrous effect on political support for the war, as Buenos Aires would have been left without energy. As it was, war never got to Argentina, and the country can be considered extremely fortunate for that.

    But that was then.

    Britain at the moment is cutting back on her military forces - up to a point. If an armed conflict over the Falklands was to start the result for Argentina would be as Carlos Escudé correctly summized only instead of an aircraft carrier (we only have heli-carriers) it would be Astute Class Nuclear Attack Submarines for the simple reason we could not put the number of men in the field as we did in 1982.

    The military forces of Argentina would be no match for the devastating power unleashed by the submarines. Without a credible, large body of infantrymen available in the field at a very short notice, which in my judgement Britain could not do, how else could we respond to another surprise attack and guarantee success?

    Dec 30th, 2011 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    [][but it was by no means a foregone conclusion [][
    It depends on who’s, trench you were in.
    For if Argentina thought she could not,
    Then she would not?
    A case of
    She over estimated herself,

    And greatly underestimated the British.

    Dec 30th, 2011 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    @61: Ifs and buts, that never happened

    I suspect Great Britain deliberately restricted its overt military operations to the Falkland Islands, its other South Atlantic possessions and the high seas because it felt it could succeed in its objective, as accorded to it under UN Charter Article 51 as its right to self-defense, without resorting to widening hostilities to the Argentine mainland and necessitating further attrition of Argentina's military in its homeland too; albeit this exposed British forces to higher attrition in the short term by allowing Argentine-based threats to its forces safe haven. However not providing an excuse to widen or escalate the conflict limited the political risk of the conflict for regional and world powers and so provided a relatively simple mechanism for face-saving for all concerned once Argentina was defeated and surrendered their occupying forces to the British, enabling the preservation of the prevailing geo-political balance-of-power without further complications

    Nowadays the use of smart precision guided munitions is expected and common-place; their use is tolerated in surgical strikes, as opposed to wholesale employment and the geo-politics of the world are no longer bipolar + the non-aligned. So other military options might be tolerable or even desirable, who knows?

    However, in the event of any future conflict, I suspect the British would always limit hostilities to the repulsion of invading foreign forces and then table a cease-fire as soon as possible at the UN Security Council; the British have no interest in sustaining conflict when they can agree peace

    Luckily with all sides having suffered the consequences of conflict, I am sure politicians will agree to disagree without resorting to conflict again.
    If further negotiations are no longer possible, then agreement to obtain advisory opinions at the International Court of Justice is possible

    At least, these are my speculations, right or wrong or somewhere inbetween

    Dec 31st, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    A good rule of thumb for posting is to consider whether you and your family would be proud if you made the same comment on national television rather than anonymously on a news forum. Many above should hang their head in shame - and they know who they are.

    Many above should h

    Jan 01st, 2012 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    63 Domingo

    You make some good points. The one I have difficulty with however is the concept of not involving Argentina further.

    Argentina were the aggressor in the Falklands and their bases on the mainland provided respite for the aircrews, something the British did not have. I personally agree with Carlos Escudé in that if Patagonia had been raided it would have made Argentina think again before embarking on this ridiculous 'Malvinas' episode.

    But, as we asy, it is in the past and Britain no longer has the landpower resources: it will have to be submarines irrespective of any UN Charter Article 51 restrictions that may be in force then.

    Jan 02nd, 2012 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • shb

    In war you destroy the enemy.

    The Argentinians knew that the Belgrano was a legitimate target. If they had wanted a negotiated peace, without further loss of life they could have left their fleet in port. The Belgrano task group was the southern one of 3 separate task groups converging on the TEZ. Perhaps the Argentinians would prefer us to think that they were out for a quick cruise around the bay.

    The only thing I regret is that we did'nt nail the Veinticinco de Mayo as well on the same day (the sub lost contact with her), her skyhawk pilots proved to be good at anti ship attacks.

    If the Argentinians had wanted to avoid the loss of life they would never have invaded in the first place.

    We still have enough troops to hold the islands, but it would take a few days to fly enough down to make an invasion impossible.

    However the Argentinians no longer have the element of strategic surprise that they enjoyed in 1982, and there is enough of a garrison on the islands for them to have to plan for an opposed landing, which is a tricky operation.

    I agree that the subs are our best deterrent, and I hope that if a conflict does occur that they are let off the leash quickly enough to sink the vessels that the Argentinians would be using as transport vessels.

    Jan 02nd, 2012 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    The British will grow again in the future, we are a maritime nation, things wont always be this bad,
    We will return,
    In the mean time Cameron’s, super spies will be listening watching learning and preparing
    [we hope ]

    Jan 02nd, 2012 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    64# I'm afraid you suggestion will fall on deaf ears.Posters are more interested in finding articles which allows them to be correct in their opinions rather than finding truth.
    The book that this article is addressing is used here as a statement of the truth.Maybe it is but in historical terms I'm not sure it is even a primary source of data.But here of course that isn't the of any concern as it fits in to preconceived position.
    Stalin's show trials have two histories, the official and the anti Stalin version.Which is the true history.The sinking of the Belgrano was an act of war.It sank with a significant loss of life.Two facts which,I think are unchangeable.What is of interest I think is what can be learnt from it and what was the thinking,politically,to the sinking.The book needs to be read to ascertain it's contribution and not a paper article which has little contribution other than drawing attention to the book.

    Jan 02nd, 2012 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    68 Yuleno
    Which allows them to be correct in their opinions rather than finding truth.
    [and this is your opinion]
    1, have you read the book
    2, do you then, know the truth
    I have not read the book
    And the truth will always be distorted or opposed,
    Unless the captain [himself] stands up, and says
    This is what I did,
    This is what I was told to do,
    Then no one really, is any the wiser,
    But of course he cannot do this, can he,
    As for, can we learn from it, yes and no,
    [Has Argentina learnt anything]
    I think not, as she is doing the same sabre rattling as of 30 years ago,
    But this time dragging in others, to do things, where there is no going back]
    ]just an opinion, from not reading the book,
    But from my own experiences

    Jan 02nd, 2012 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2

    good postings. Thanks.

    Jan 03rd, 2012 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    69# The truth cannot come out until 30 years because that is when the documents in the UK will become available.As for Wikipedia it cannot know and the information it conveys is from newspapers,popular books and television reports.I'm sure you would not treat that as reliable.The more we learn about the murdoch saga the more one realises how we are being manipulated.
    The issue we do know about is the peruvian initiative which was being produced.This matter surely impacts on the war.Thatcher herself stated it only came to her attention after the order was given.Next year we might get more on this .

    Jan 03rd, 2012 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    The truth cannot come out until 30 years because that is when the documents in the UK will become available
    What about documents from the argentina archives,
    what was argentina orders to the captain,
    the british will only give our side, who thus gives argentinas side .

    Jan 03rd, 2012 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    Well well Briton you are prepared to believe Argentina are you?That is very encouraging to this thread having some contribution to a better understanding of all sides and relations between the parties.Well done and I look forward to this information being made available.

    Jan 03rd, 2012 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GeoffWard2


    Jan 04th, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    this was and is only common sense,
    they must have documents, therefor these [when] [if] released, can then be compared, for descrepencys, ,, was the radio operator, saved,
    did he confirm or deny ,, as you say, the truth will come out, then all those concerned will sleep a lot easier.

    Jan 04th, 2012 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Yuleno

    75# correct except for the last sentence which I think is over optimistic as there are not many who are open minded onthe matter.Still it would be welcome if you were entirely correct.

    Jan 04th, 2012 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!