The Falklands War, 1982 - Professor Vernon Bogdanor
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- An overview of the political turmoil that went on in Britain in the lead up to the Falklands War in 1982: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
In 1982, Argentina, which had long claimed the Falklands, invaded the islands and declared sovereignty over them. The Conservative government, led by Margaret Thatcher, sent a task force to recover the islands. Despite some public scepticism and considerable logistical difficulties, they were recaptured. Success in the Falklands helped exorcise memories of Suez. It played a major part in the Conservative landslide election victory of 1983 and so contributed to the success of what came to be called Thatcherism.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Re the Belgrano. Point to note: Ships have rudders and can be sailing north and yet 2 minutes later can be sailing south !! Hector Bonzo himself has admitted that when the Belgrano was hit, it was repositioning to carry out an attack on the Task force. Genuine RIP every sailor on the Belgrano, but rather you than a member of the Royal Navy.
There wouldnt have been so many losses, but the two escorts ran as soon as the torpedoes struck
@The Richest Man In Babylon Is that why the destroyers both started dropping depth charges. They also ordered chilean vessels trying to help away
I can say with authority that it was in a holding g pattern - to and fro waiting for their sub to get into position and make a pincer attack move. It had Tog go...and it did.
@The Richest Man In Babylon how do you know that?
@The Richest Man In Babylon the sequence of events and that destroyers dropped charges? I can assure you they fled with pace.
The Belgrano was torpedoed not bombed. Forcing the withdraw of the Argentine Navy was a greater success and more vital than the diplomatic and political reaction.
well, yes - but there was a simple fact: Argentinian carrier had only one engine running, and the winds in that area suddenly and surprisingly stopped... 'the fog of war'???
@@mariuszfidzinski7474 The Belgrano was not a carrier it was a cruiser. The Veinticinco de Mayo was the carrier, the northern part of the pincer, and that was been trailed by HMS Splendid.
It was reported torpedoed.......and it sank.
I'm fed up with idiots from other countries condemning Britain and demanding we relinquish our sovereignty over the Falklands. Why doesn't Spain give the Canaries to Morocco?Why doesn't the USA give Alaska to Canada or Hawaii to Kiribati?In reality there are a number of countries including Argentina that are eaten up by bitter jealousy and resentment due to their own failures as countries.the Falklands may be a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic, but their our rocks, and the UK must defend them at all costs.
It should be noted that Spain once ruled the Falklands as part of the Vicerealm of La Plata (modern Argentina), but that was a very long time ago. It is clear that the Argentines only want the islands, not the people; and the British have some obligations to the Falklanders.
In any case, Alaska was never Canadian (the US bought it from Russia in 1867) and Hawaii was independent until 1898.
Why doesn't Russia give back Ukraine to Ukraine. Oof! :D
@@camieabz Russia should do that, but a lot of Russian nationalists are of the opinion that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia and should be annexed accordingly.
@@johnries5593 And the British gave Alaska to the Russian as repatriation payment after the Crimean war.
comikdebris ???? Don’t understand where this comes from. Alaska was Russian by direct settlement. The UK did occupy a couple of islands during the Crimean war which were given back at the end of hostilities but certainly not as “reparations” victors do not pay reparations to the vanquished.
One inexcusable consequence of the war, the Argentinians weren't made to clear their minefields!
Indeed! The indiscriminate use of mines (no marked fields), whilst not a "War Crime", was in contravention to the accepted rules of war; much like their siting of artillery, the active assistance of their hospital ship's searchlights for fire-control.
@@danielw5850 Had to clear mines using sheep.
@@bradleysmith5781 The sheep aren't heavy enough to initiate the mines.
@@jwadaowYou need weigh about a lamb. Anything that weighs about a watermelon. Sheep aren't clouds, they can be heavy when they want to be.
Using POWs for forced mine clearance would be a clear breach of the Geneva Convention. Absolutely and totally forbidden. If we wanna be 'better than the bad guys', we have to live up to that. Sure, we could simply ignore the Convention - or find a legal excuse to do that. Exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did. Look how they ended up treating their POWs.
To me, the issue is cut and dried. A Fascist junta invaded a sovereign territory of the Falklanders of whom virtually all wanted to stay British. It had to be regained otherwise our reputation as a nation was shot.
RICHARD LAVERSUCH Zuog buffgh gdft oppjg bugf doijkg of dgts an couzlk
@ uh
I agree. The Argentines were the aggressors in this situations.
Argentina was well aware of the lack of interest the UK had in retaining the Falklands, and was well aware that if it just waited a couple of years they could have them by default. But they needed to distract and unite their unhappy people with a popular war. Once riding that tiger, they had no way of getting off - hence no negotiation, however favourable.
@@HankD13 The local people would not have allowed the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina. You can't betray or de-state people like that in the modern World. It would never have worked.
The Professor’s introductory history omits a lot of important detail. The true history begins well before 1833. There were British on the Falklands before permanent settlement and before Argentina was a nation. There were no indigenous people. The Argentines who were evicted were merely a garrison, not settlers.
Wrong Sir. in 1813 Argentina got its Independence from Spain Malvinas included . 20 years later UK invaded. Now you can argue all you want
@@josedro The Wikipedia article on the history of Argentina reveals your assertion to be nonsense. Even as late as 1840, the state of Argentina extended south only as far as about latitude 40°S. The Falkland Islands are at a latitude of about 51°S, more than 1000km south of the southernmost part of Argentina even in 1840.
@@josedro
so can you
@@n43510 You are talking Geography I am talking Spain belongings before 1810 and after. The New Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata Malvinas ( Former belonging to Spain ) then 23 later took by UK Empire
@@ursodermatt8809 What do you mean?
The Belgrano was torpedoed (not bombed). My dad, a naval scientist who had project managed the development of a British sonar system and then had been involved in the development of underwater warfare tactics commented at the time: The Begrano's escorts faced the classic dilemma of the escort ships when the capital ship has been torpedoed: To stay and rescue survivors, or to hunt the submarine which is now known for certain to be in the vicinity. Instead, the Argentine escorts did neither; they buggered off as fast as they could.
And then lied about not knowing there was a submarine, or that the belgrano had been torpedoed, to try and save face
Los escoltas lanzaron las cargas de profundidad, y comenzaron acciones evasivas (igual que el Conqueror)
ustedes hicieron un crimen de gerra viva argentina
There are British graves on those islands, older than Argentina itself.
Yes but their argument was that they were entitled to the islands because they were closer. How long you have been settled there is not the issue, it was that they felt like they were entitled to the Falkland's and they were aggrieved by that.
@steam driver There were British graves on the British isles before the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans or Saxons invaded. Warfare is mostly a claim on territory. What is your point? The Argentines tried to clam the Falklands after British were already established there. Their argument was that they live closer, so they felt entitled, which we know is a weak argument. When Britain was dependent on Naval supremacy, the Falkland's would have been strategically important, but maybe not so much now, though it is a strategic asset. The war was a matter of principle. You can buy a piece of the land, but not claim it all, without a war.
@steam driver why should we bury the issue, the status quo is perfectly fine, the falklands belongs to the islanders.
After the sinking of the Belgrano cucero, the Argentine navy fled to port. And he did not come out again until the end of the war.
We are VERY far from TRAPPED by the Islands. They are now ours by BLOOD!
I would never forgive any government that left my comrades sacrifice in vein.
"ours"? goodness me nationalism is a philosophy for the delusional lol
51:33 "The Belgrano was bombed and sank" - oops! Definitely torpedoed, _not_ bombed! His political analysis is spot on though.
It was certainly reported as torpedoed. It certainly sank. There is very little definite otherwise I suspect.
Also it was not sailing away from the Falklands, it was sailing a course parrallel to and just a few miles outside of the exclusion zone boundary. Also the Argentinian government have conceded that they had been informed of the change in the rules of engagement by the UK Government and that they were pursuing a pincer movement on the Royal Navy carriers.
Torpedoed by HMS Conqueror a submarine as I recall
Whether by bomb or torpedo, it was certainly NOT catching fish…
This seems a bit pedantic given that it's a lecture on political history, not military. I know you've semi-acknowledged that here, but it's a bit irrelevant given the context. The ship sank, and it did so though hostile (British) means.
I think the whole idea of leaseback is a fool's gold. Surely, once sovereignty is transferred, the Argentine government would see itself as an overseer and regard anything it didn't like happening in the islands as a justification to take control, the moral justification for British resistance having been removed?
OF course , we've seen how the junta , behaves ,
I’d be very interested in your views on the Argentine disappeared. You’d probably describe them as British miners.
Eventually it'll be on British intrest to give that island to Argentina and normalize relationship with Argentina. Bcz maintaining a military garrison and give them ration from 5000 miles from British tax payer won't be economically viable after sometime.
HMS Belgrano? Also it wasn't sailing away from the islands but a circular course around the islands just outside the exclusion zone and it wasn't bombed but torpedoed by HMS Conquerer.
After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day.
On 1 May 1982 the Argentineans launched their attack :
The General Belgrano ( formerly the USS Phoenix CL-46 a survivor of Pearl Harbour )and her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern half of an Argentinean pincer attack on the British task force.
The Northern group Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo that had once served in the Royal Navy as HMS Venerable and two destroyers..
Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away. The Argentine Navy had also organised a combined air strike against the British with eight A-4Qs, from ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, and two Super Etendards from Río Grande Air Naval Base attacking simultaneously. The heavily ladened naval Skyhawks needed a minimum wind to help them take off from the carrier, and unexpectedly the wind did not blow and both Super Etendards were unable to receive fuel from the KC-130H Hercules tanker and aborted their mission. The British had assigned the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo and located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorised to engage. After failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission.
Meanwhile the Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack on the Task Force and was counter attacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo
The Cruiser General Belgrano had been spotted earlier by Canberra PR9s of No.39 Squadron operating clandestinely out of Chile.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to a request from Admiral Terence Lewin, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on General Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror sank her @ 15:57 Falkland Islands Time using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinean surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy.
On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield's priority was hunting for the Argentinean submarines when she was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar .
On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day, HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned.
If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles backed up by the guns of "USS Phoenix", all whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties.
The moral of the story is that fleet was saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo !
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg
50:55: HMS Belgrano? Nothing frustrates me more than mistakes made by "intellectuals".
I agree …”bombed” and sank….FFS….it was torpedoed….armchair intellectuals/generals who’ve never been to war or fired a shot…
Its an horrendous mistake. Not even an apology !
wasnt there a similar incident in the 70s? solved by a phone call...' Nice aircraft carrier you have there, shame if something were to happen to it'
A well delivered lecture!
What if Canada laid claim to Greenland which is right on its doorstep?
All the legal arguments seem to me now to be moot, for the following reason. Argentina attempted to settle the matter by force of arms, and they lost. That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned.
My relatives blood is on that island Welsh gards that says it ours if they hadn't have invaded he wouldn't have died there. British land forever.
Nagger Holocaust - The difference is, the street is a part of a political jurisdiction whete the civil and criminal laws of the government apply. There is no conflict of sovereignty. In a republic (where I live), the people, collectively, are sovereign. Individual people are not sovereign.
you are probably not concerned. But the British government and British taxpayers are. It will cost more and more to defend the Falklands.
Furthermore, it is realistic to foresee an increase in South America public opinion in favor of the Argentinian, given the end of colonialism movement across the globe. This could mean no more goods or services provided from that continent.
I let you imagine if everything needed in the Falklands would have to be brought in from England, what the cost would be.
Thinking about exploiting any natural resource -oil or gas- against Argentina's hostility is just not conceivable.
@@germibestia Friend, try again whenever you want. But it'll be more than 649 next time.
@@nealokelly I am not Argentinian and, luckily, not British too.
So the fate of a useless remote island doesn't affect my life that much!
The UK economy is not at its peak, and only dreamers can hope for a brighter future in a medium term.
So the huge cost of maintaining a significant military force there will become more and more of a burden.
The General Belgrano was sunk by two torpedoes from the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. The Argentine junta continued to play chicken on the road with their young conscript forces until it was too late and a truck hit them.
As the prof says, the whole episode has made an acceptable solution impossible for at least a generation.
RIP all deceased from both sides.
"... young conscript forces...": those forces were interspersed with their marines and special forces; this "victim narrative" for Argentine is ill-served.
Also to add Britain settled and claimed the islands before Argentina was even a country.
Yes the settlement had to leave due to economic issues but Britain never renounced its claim on the Falklands when Argentina set up their own colony there.
with the discovery of significant oil reserves then the Falklands will become self reliant and the £30k per head might reverse, the Argentine will have nothing to do with it. The islands are big enough to provide raw materials and I'm sure Chile would welcome the investment in their southern lands, are they not closer to the Falklands anyway?
@@adrobestia262 Yeah I checked the distances on google maps, there's not much in it, but mainland Argentina is a little closer, I ignored Islands In terms of investment, yes they are desperate but if they keep on disputing the sovereignty then why would you locate such a vital facility in Argentina, you'd be better off in Chile somewhere in the Strait of Magellan, far more likely not to be blockaded, nationalised (like Repsol YPF) or be used to hold the Falkland islanders to ransom.
I was in the Royal Navy when Argentina invaded the Falklands, I had mates go down South, 3 were on ships that were sunk, fortunately they all survived and came home, we did what had to do, a desperate act by a corrupt and despotic military junta, we had no option. They were never going to leave, they rolled the dice and lost.. as were many lives on both sides
Excellent sir. Thank you so much.
I will refer to them as "las Malvinas" if it makes anyone happy, but that doesn't change the fact they are British.
Falkland are British ... by force ( typical Empire language) only not by history
@@josedro They are British by self-determination - a core principal of the UN charter on human rights. They are also British by history, by force and by whatever other standard YOU think it should be judged by.
Meanwhile, Argentina's claim to even be Argentinian is less solid - the indigenous 'Argentinians' having been genocided and replaced by Spanish invaders centuries before Argentina existed. It is also on the same continental shelf as, and just 300 miles from, the Falkland Islands - some might say that Britain has a claim to sovereignty over it, but international law and that self-determination thing dictate otherwise. Maybe we should consult the handful of indigenous 'Argentinians' whose ancestors survived Spanish imperialism for their preferred option.
@Adrian Heath Sir I suggest you read History and be honest how chronologically things work. "Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain's new economic and strategic considerations led it to voluntarily withdraw from the islands" source Wikipedia - Now Argentina get its official independence and internationally recognized on July 9 1816. In 1833 UK imperialist task force expelled its 100% disarmed Argentinians citizens.
Now Military Junta stopped a Communist Revolution which would have led to a open Civil War. 30.000 is fake communist propaganda number. Real was 7.000. Same as British several Civil War (1642-1651) which led to Massacre at Drogheda.
Yes Junta fell and year later called for general public election . Not like your allied Chile which its president Pinochet was highly appreciated by Baroness Maggie Thatcher right?
coincidentally after the war people who lived illegally in the island British citizenship was granted . So maybe they have to be grateful Argentina attempt to get its island back
@@otterspocket2826 Self determination yes - coincidentally after the war people who lived illegally in the island British citizenship was granted . So maybe they have to be grateful Argentina attempt to get its island back .
Yes Spanish colonize south America as British armies did and killed thousands indigenous in US and Canada. South Africa OHH what about Edward Colston ?
@@josedro the Argentine troll with futile basis was to expect in a well made history lecture.
I lived through all that and knew some but not all the political curves that had been negotiated. The military lessons can be added to these.
What a superb lecture and a great Professor.
So the question remains for future leaders of "Britain" what to do albeit after Brexit , the Falklands will be consigned to a political anecdote for some other administration to figure out?
Phill L. Yes ? How many times your "professor" did fight, and how many scars he has ? How long time he spent in hospitals ?
@@dougbhorne
What's his point?
Superb speaker.
For info Argentina itself was colonised by Spain in the 16th century....
Didn't work with Hong Kong either... you can never negotiate in good faith.. with people who have no honour
Quite a good lecture.. a few mistakes and a lot of over simplified parts...
How can an hour long lecture on this topic not be oversimplified? I'm waiting. Answer: it can't.
People of his ilk are amazing and humorous.
Argentina had more than a week to think about invading or not, at least three weeks prior, they were loading ships for an alleged exercise.
great lecture. It totally identifies every aspect of the question. I do hope it is resolved taking and considering everyone's interest. Which of course is very achievable if there is a will to compromise on all sides.
@Kit in this case compromise is paramount to future security, prosperity and goodwill of two democratic peace loving nations.
Kit I’m got no interest to sink into the endless politics that both sides love to entrench themselves. I can only see the big picture. That many see including British and Argentinian thinkers. That is as the world evolves Malvinas and many other things can becomes expedient. and negotiable. For better or for worse. I’m not going to especulate any further cause it has no value cause I don’t have a crystal ball. Malvinas will simply Change hands when it becomes a strong political advantage to do so. we see hints of this occasionally. It’s understandable that islanders would be fearful and concerned.. I do also totally understand their intransigence. Nothing is ever inevitable but I think you and I know that history shows that change dynamic, attitudes change and self interest is paramount. Today, the current policies work for both the British government and that’s good. You and I know that tomorrow this isn’t guaranteed. Thank you for your response. I do enjoy intelligent discussions
Everyones?????? Like who? Only the native islanders wishes are of value. They want fk all to do with the Argentine. They have SEEN with their own eyes what murderous brutality the Argentines are capable of, even on their own people let alone the Falklanders. They have experienced Argentine occupation and removed the Argentine faeces from their homes. Why should the British government consider any approach of ownership from a country that didnt even exist before the Brits were on the islands? 2 Para 74-97
@@peterstubbs5934 happy to debate but only with the informed and coherent
It was resolved in 1982. That Argentina doesn't like the resolution is not any concern.
Argentina’s military is moribund and chronically under funded. The current UK forces in the South Atlantic could easily resist any attempt at invasion today that would barely be possible with existing and barely operational Argentinian naval capability. Rapid reinforcement would guarantee Argentinian failure.
Precisely. They couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag these days.
Thank you for the lecture. It was very interesting. However, one should note:- The General Belgrano was sunk by two torpedo's from the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror. The Belgrano's escorts began evasive and counter-measures dropping depth charges. This is exactly the right thing to do in the given circumstances. The hunter (HMS Conqueror) became the hunted. There was no "running away" at that time or deserting the crew of the Belgrano. Once cleared, the survivors were picked up in a correct and proper manner.
The incident was later to have found to have a significant effect, in so far as the Argentine Navy did not engage further in the campaign save as to its submarine fleet, which was still a significant threat to the task force. Many Argentine torpedo's being fired at the task force, but the "wires" failing to steer the torpedo's to target. Give them the credit they deserve. The Argentine military fought hard. It was no easy task.
Good well rounded lecture.
Does anyone know why sinking the Belgrano was legal, but the destroyers was not? I've had a search and can't find anything. It seems to me that the destroyers could be considered a threat like the cruiser was. Moot point of course given the fleet returned to port, but it'd be interesting to know.
Nothing wrong with sinking enemy ships in a war zone. Even the Commanding Officer of the ARA General Belgrano argued that sinking his ship was perfectly legitimate for the British to do, adding that he would have done so if he were on the British side.
It's hard to imagine why sinking the destroyers wouldn't have been perfectly legal as well, and far more useful as they had Exocets and the Belgrano did not. Bogdanor is unreliable about this incident, so maybe the claimed "legal advice" is as much fantasy as his claim that the Belgrano was bombed and that 300 of its crew drowned, neither of which is remotely close to the truth..
By the laws of reason and survival, the fact the Argentinians started the war made it legal for the British to sink any @#$%ing Argentinian ships in sight.
i can think of a few reasons why targeting the destroyers might be frowned upon, but i have no way of knowing if they were actually taken into account during the time, so a fair bit of salt.
- it would probably be foolhardy for the destroyers to continue any attack towards the Falklands just as their main cruiser escort has been blown up (this is why the Belgrano was attacked by the way - the British intercepted a signal ordering every Argentinian ship in the area to launch a "massive attack");
- the destroyers also had the perfect opportunity at the time to pick up survivors from the Belgrano, so attacking them then would be hampering rescue efforts;
- and when it was clear the destroyers have fled, well, they probably didn't want to attack fleeing ships, particularly when the entire point of the exclusion area is self-defence.
The government was set on massive cutbacks, the Nott defence review ...and if the Argies hadn't jumped the gun and gone early, the 2 carriers wouldn't have been in the picture. One was to be sold to India, the other was due for the scrappers.
Not quite sure how Argentina could hypothetically be in control of Shetland in 1833 when Argentina didn't exist as a country until 1860
Paul Marchant plus it’s a lot closer to the mainland. He’s a lefty academic...a citizen of the world. He above petty nationhood. Unless it’s a third world country. Then he’ll find a way to defend them.
Argentina exists since 1810.
@@Dude0000 You cannot seriously think Professor Bogdanor is a man of the left. He goes in for dispassionate political analysis, and he is certainly no gauchiste. This is meant to be a lecture about a political crisis in a series which covered matters like Denis Healey seeking an IMF bail out in 1976 ("The pound in your pocket"). He is not primarily concerned with military details. And of course he makes the odd slip.
You understand the concept of a successor state yes? The UK is itself a successor state and so I'd assume you agree that it's a solid principle.
Very popular these days for British academics to sympathise with Britain's enemies...
0:19 ... somewhat WHAT???? "insouciant"??? I'm going to use that word to impress my colleagues.
I dislike the underling premise of 'the basic problem of the Falklands'' ie that defence and logistics are costly and so undesirable. To have a country at all needs costly defence and infrastructure - and that costs would still exist whether the Falklands were British or not. As technology develops and the population of The Falklands increases the problems will decrease in many ways.
@The Richest Man In Babylon The rot is very deep....
The Falklands war? The lecture seemed to have missed out the actual war?
On the whole I think this is a good lecture, however "HMS Belgrano" and "bombed"?
when the lecturer cannot be bothered to get everything right..then i question the validity of everything as one should
The torpedo had a bomb at the front of it. Its an important part
Torpedoes are technically underwater propelled bombs, and are referred to as such by the Royal Navy, so that's accurate. I can understand the mistake of saying "HMS" instead of "ARA" too, but it did grate.
@@johnbanks4761 John you must be nationality, or perhaps globally, renowned in whatever field you work in! You never make mistakes or misspeak apparently.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 i dont lecture and i dont go on circuits making money from anything but if ibdid i would be 100 percent accurate in everything i say and do
This chap has a wonderfully archaic vocabulary, it sounds as if he is speaking in 1916 rather than 2016. I'm not sure I agree with him, but It's rather fun to listen to his choice of words.
I wish I could speak like that
Sorry but I don't find it archaic, erudite would be a better word.
At least it doesnt contain the words "like" in every sentence uttered and is completely comprehensible......innit!
Excellent
After the British RAF raid on Stanley airfield with Vulcan bombers on 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day.
On 1 May 1982 the Argentineans launched their attack :
The General Belgrano ( formerly the USS Phoenix CL-46 a survivor of Pearl Harbour )and her Task Group 79.3 were the Southern half of an Argentinean pincer attack on the British task force. The Northern group Task Group 79.1 included the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo that had once served in the Royal Navy as HMS Venerable. Task Group 79.4 consisted of three A69 corvettes and following the air strike, were to launch Exocet MM38 missiles from over twenty miles away. The Argentine Navy had organised a combined air strike against the British with eight A-4Qs, from ARA Veinticinco de Mayo, and two Super Etendards from Río Grande Air Naval Base attacking simultaneously. The heavily ladened naval Skyhawks needed a minimum wind to help them take off from the carrier, and unexpectedly the wind did not blow and both Super Etendards were unable to receive fuel from the KC-130H Hercules tanker and aborted their mission. The British had assigned the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Splendid, to track down Veinticinco de Mayo and located her on the 23rd of April but were not authorised to engage. After failing to launch her aircraft the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo was forced to leave the area when one of her escort ships detected an approaching Sea Harrier on a reconnaissance mission.
Meanwhile the Submarine ARA San Luis launched an unsuccessful attack on the Task Force and was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo and the Cruiser General Belgrano had been spotted by Canberra PR9s of No.39 Squadron operating clandestinely out of Chile and
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to a request from Admiral Terence Lewin, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on General Belgrano outside the exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror sank her @ 15:57 Falkland Islands Time using three obsolete MK VIII torpedoes, resulting in no further attempts by the Argentinean surface fleet to engage the Royal Navy.
On the 4th May after the failed naval attacks, HMS Sheffield's priority was hunting for the Argentinean submarines when she was struck by an air launched Exocet missile that had been detected by HMS Glasgow and HMS Invincible. It failed to explode but still put the ship out of action and she sank later. HMS Sheffield had taken over the position from HMS Coventry who was having trouble with her Radar .
On 25 May the 15,000 tonne container ship, Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles and eventually sank. The ship was carrying 600 cluster bombs, fuel, ammunition, helicopters and other vital equipment including a temporary metal runway and over 2,000 body bags, and left the British campaign seriously short of supplies and only one Chinook. On the same day, HMS Coventry was attacked by two Skyhawks and hit by three bombs, capsized and was abandoned.
If the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo had successfully launched her Skyhawks and the Torpedo had detonated on impact Task Groups 79.3 and 4 would have caused havoc with multiple Exocet missiles backed up by the guns of "USS Phoenix", all whilst the British were dealing with battle damage and casualties.
The moral of the story is that fleet was saved by a breath of fresh air and a faulty German torpedo !
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/ARA.Belgrano.sunk.svg
TLDR.
Well, you can't ignore the facts, however much you want to.
50:56 - HMS Belgrano....do what???
Communications between Belgrano with the mainland had been intercepted which ordered the Belgrano to attack at all costs one of the British carriers with its exocet missiles. The rational being with one of the carriers being sunk, the fleet would be unable to maintain sufficient air cover and resulting in a likely recall of the invasion fleet. The communication intercept was actually transmitted to the Americans and they concurred with the order's interpretation by the British. Hence with the Belgrano being a threat to the British carrier, its sinking was order. The information regarding the intercepted communications was only recently declassified by the British government, but I don't recall the exact year.
An entirely bogus justification. The Belgrano didn't have any Exocet missiles.
@@gandydancer9710 Sorry, I believe you are incorrect. There are even an interview of the Belgrano's captain where he states that the sinking his ship was fully justified. "two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal". I don't have the full text of the interview, but he also stated that he was maneuvering his ship in the area heading towards the British and not moving away.
@@edl653 That, and the captain's comment, are entirely irrelevant to what I said. You wrote, "Communications between Belgrano with the mainland had been intercepted which ordered the Belgrano to attack at all costs one of the British carriers with its exocet missiles." To repeat, this is an entirely bogus justification. And, in its details, false. The Belgrano didn't have any Exocet missiles. It had 6" guns and was outside the exclusion zone, many, many miles and presumably hours from being in range of any British ships. The Argentines had invaded the Falklands and ground fighting as part of the reinvasion was already underway, so if the Brits wanted to sink the Argentine fleet in its entirety -- never mind that it was still posing rather than fighting -- that would have been, as far as I'm concerned. "in order". That's no excuse for lies and spin, which Bogdanor and you are regurgitating here.
No deaths at South Georgia? - are you sure? - and ''HMS'' belgrano'?? - 50 mins in - poor old bugger lost it then.
He means for South Georgia
The nearest landfall to the Falkland Islands is actually Chile. Will they be invading anytime soon?
The Argentines had actually planned to invade in December 1982. If they had, Britain would have been incapable of retaking the islands.
HMS Hermes would have been sold to India,
HMS Invincible was set to be sold to Australia leaving on a new HMS Illustrious with a single squadron of Sea Harriers.
Both amphibious assault ships HMS Fearless and Intrepid would have been scrapped.
2 Para would have been in Belize.
And Argentina would most likely had a full squadron of Super Etendards operational on the ARA Vienticinco de Mayo.
No se invade algo que es propio mi estimado amigo ingles .... sus tropas no sabian donde estaban las islasm, es mas ,creian que argentina ocupo Irlanda .....
@@gastonnunez2528 I don't speak Spanish.
@@tonyaughney8945 aprende ;)
@@gastonnunez2528 I'm not English, I'm not your friend and you're still wrong.
@@gastonnunez2528 Exept the Islands dont belong to argentina, they belong to the Islanders. The troops did know where the islands were, as they were, you know, actually trained, rather than conscripted
On the point of british capability to defend the Islands: Unless Argentine radically modernizes and builds up it's Military over the next decade, there is absolutely no way for them to even attempt this again. Anything they throw via Air would be cannon fodder for british Typhoons, and assembling the Invasion fleet alone would be impossible to hide. Britain would be reinforcing the Falklands before the first ship leaves the Harbour.
And that's not even considering the massive implications on Argentines already terrible economy, were they going for an act of War like that.
The closing statements say it all.
MALVINAS
+Argentina Manda!!! What flag flies in Stanley? We both know the answer to that question.
likeitout
Islas Malvinas e Antartida del Atlantico Sur capital Ushuaia
It suggests a smug disregard for principle or decency, in what was a fight against a genocide.
Argentina Manda!!! FASCIST!!!
Falklands... a handy piece of real estate..
Just lucky everyone there is British
Commenting as the lecture goes through. It doesn't matter whether anyone knows where they are or not. We were first to claim it de facto
No picnic exocet argentina..
Why does he call it “Argentine”, when the name of the country is ARGENTINA?
An excellent, well-balanced
view. Unfortunately, Mrs T went on to let the armed forces down.
Think that was more to do with that knott fella
I believe that an Argentine sailor on the Santa Fe did die as a result of that submarine getting machine gunned by a helicopter. In his book Across an Angry Sea, Cedric Delves writes of attending his services after the Argentine surrender - unless my memory fails. I recall the dead man's first name as Felix.
The Santa Fe was attacked in the retaking of South Georgia.
Yes. The sailor, after the surrender, was killed by a British soldier who was guarding him . The soldier misunderstood a maneuver inside the Santa Fe by the sailor and shoot him in the head.
@@polkban Yes, that is correct. He went to correct the trim of the submarine and his marine guard thought he was trying to scuttle the boat. There was an enquiry carried out at the time on my ship (Antrim) which I believe the commander of Santa Fe sat on.
Félix Artuso. Lo mataron cuando era prisionero, porque el custodio no entendió las maniobras que hacía el marino en el submarino.
51:40 I thought communications were destroyed so it was not know they were hit...?
The comment below is spot on! this speaker seems to spout typical lefty anti British hype, typical of them to omit half the facts. As a so called professor he rates 1/10. as a anti Thatcher politicisation 8/10.
Britain claimed the Islands, by English captain John Strong, who, en route to Peru and Chile 1690. In 1764 there was the establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville - then the 1766 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by British captain John MacBride. Neither knew of each other. In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain discovered and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771. Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774 - when British left during American War of Independence, temporarily and left a cairn stating its continued claim. Argentina gained its independence from Spain in 1816 and decided to claim all that Spain had claimed. Britain, France and Spain had quite few conflict throughout this time - i.e. Gibraltar. It is a messy and complex history - but the British claim to the Islands long pre-dates the existence of Argentina.
I mean regarding the "decided to claim all that Spain had claimed", the treaty of friendship and recignition between Britain, and the United Province of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina), signed in 1825, actually lacks the islands, meaning by that point they didnt see the islands as theirs
we should have had and worked for better relationship with Argentina from the 1970.
Is it true there’s oil around the Islands? If so, you can understand the ‘quarrel’.
Apparently, just difficult to get to.
Yes North of the islands but within the exclusive economic zone. Expensive to extract
There is oil, but Britain has no interest in it
Very, very interesting and so British👌🏻
Surely international waters are 12 miles globally , so Argentina have as much right to it as my left foot its 300 hundred miles from them out of their waters sam as they are out of ours so proximity means little
ever heard of the 2200m economic zone?
Terry Nolan international law expert gives his expert opinion.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 bro your so bitter you're commenting on everyone on this Video. What's wrong why are you so upset?
@@graytoby1 😂 you're clearly projecting, get a tissue and dry those tears. I've clearly left an impression on you 😘
Tam Dalyell at Eton with Nicholas Ridley described him as condescending I think always talking down to people and trying to force them to accept his argument which he did at the meeting with Falkland islanders year before the invasion; he may have been correct but was condescending
Ridley had no idea how the other 99% live.
During the Poll Tax disaster, civil servants approached him saying elderly people couldn't pay it.
Ridley, being landed aristocracy level rich, said the older people could sell a painting to pay the bills.
At first the civil servants thought he was joking-he wasn't.
If he was that ignorant about the UK, imagine how ignorant he was og people 8000 miles away.
Well, it only 1:53 to know where this was all going.
They are 420 miles from the mainland Comrade Professor, not 300 miles...thanx for checking.
Not quite. The closest part of Argentina to the most Westerly point of the Falkland Islands is, indeed, only about 500 km (300 miles). From the nearest Argentinian airbases to Port Stanley is approximately the distance you give. thanx for checking!
What?
40 years ago. Wow.
Doesn't seem like its been 10 years ago. Time flies.
Why there a polish flag on the thumbnail ?
“Belgrano was bombed…”. What!?!?!?
It was...by underwater propelled bombs, which is what torpedo's are.
Who lived , naturally in the Argentine, before Spanish invasion, of the lands , what's the original name . Of Agentina. BY the original peoples .,? .did they live on the Falkland islands. ?.
Ridley was a prat. You say "How was Britain to be aware". After the governments pusillanimous and dilatory attitude toward the Falklanders and the status of the Falklands, it should have been clear to a blind man that their was a reasonable chance of an invasion given the type of government in charge in Argentina, the political unrest, 100 % inflation etc - and the British government could and should have been clear from the start such an incursion by Argentina into the Falklands, would lead to military action.
This man precedes every sentence with the word "Now..."
Actually, he BEGINS sentences with that word.
Better than beginning every sentence with So......
@@roddyteague6246 was about to make the same comment!
I never noticed it until you pointed that out, but now I cannot un-hear it.
how on earth the heroic soldier's took the mountains from the argies they should have been impenetrable
Commando spirit, simples!
Advance carefully while keeping in cover. Throw grenades. Go in with bayonets. Repeat.
If i had been living on one of those freezing wet miserable hilltops for weeks i would be thankful to lose it and get somewhere more comfortable, if i win i will have to stay there!
South Georgia was recaptured without British loss of life despite the best efforts of the SAS to ensure they sustained casualties.
They did it on west Falkland once they found some sbs minding their own business. The confusion of war I guess.
A beacon of light from the ether of the internet 👍
I served in the war. Make The Falkland Islands an independent sovereign nation.
They cannot be a sovereign nation, because of their dependency on food and other supplies...
@@zdzichus.3264 sovereign doesn't have to mean self sufficient though I believe they could be to a greater extent than they currently are
If they ever decided they want to be a independent country. They can be when ever they like. As of right now they don't want to be independent. They want to be a British over seas territory.
So did i. They want to stay british
@The Richest Man In Babylon I love the smell of peat in the morning. It reminds me of victory
WAR IS OVER...IF YOU WANT IT !
HAPPY CHRISTMAS, JOHN AND YOKO
"Imagine no possessions"!!! Errr....Like all mine??
In the Falklands War, a democratic nation ruled by civilians defeated a genocidal dictatorship ruled by assassins. Thanks UK.
Let me remind you that it was your nation that 2 years prior to the war sold warships to our fascist (let me add genocidal) junta, and then ALLIED with chilean fascist (also genocidal) dictatorship to destroy your own ships. That's what I call a democratic nation! So much so that when asked about the conflict your own PM thought that the Malvinas were close to the coast of Norway.
@@LucianoRicci182 your country is a third world country that harboured nazis after the second world war. You have no moral high ground and and of your criticism of democracy can't be taken seriously
'hms belgrano'?
Borges del cual soy su admirador era decendientes de británicos
The Belgrano was Torpedoed not bombed.
This man knows very little about war, he only cares for sounding intelligent. Self qualified I would say.
Semantics. Torpedo's are "underwater propelled bombs."
@@jaegerbomb4142 You say he's only concerned about sounding intelligent yet you have a problem with him not using what you consider to be the correct terminology.. I think you're projecting.
When did the Argentines first inhabit the islands?
1829
22:00 "alternative policy"
Here is important to point out that Britain did not engage in "regime change", neither in the Falklands nor in Argentina. That would be the "colonialism" way.
The conclusion is that Britain was no longer a colonial empire, had no colonial objectives.
a ustedes les enseñan en una cátedra sobre Malvinas acá cada argentino lo siente y lo lleva en la piel las Malvinas son argentinas
No mention in this talk referencing the owner of the Falkland Island Company, (FIC) in 1982. The name I saw over the door of the main store in Stanley was Dennis Thatcher. Might be nothing.......you decide.......
what source do you have for that factoid?
Mathew Bateman only what I saw above the door of the store in Stanley, 1983. No phone camera, old school, say what I saw.
jestermoon and
And Dennis Thatcher related to Denis Thatcher somehow?
You've scuppred him there.
Dennis Healey calculated that the Falklands War made the cost of a leg of lamb astonomic. Tim Pat Cogan said that he wanted Margaret Thatcher to have to a state funeral . Because he wanted to see the newly liberated penguins of South Georgia to waddle behind the gun carriage. Adrian Mole's father confused the Falklands with the Shetlands.
Por la recuperación de malvinas Gibraltar y el ulster. Vivan Argentina España e Irlanda
Throughout the professor's lecture he made reference to " colonialism ". This being apparently a buzz-word to bring the US in. For myself, whether or not you approve of colonialism wherever it allegedly occurs, I cannot see the term applying to the Falklands so far as occupation of the Islands is concerned. Who exactly were being colonized ? May be all those sheep ?
Oh and BTW the professor made a joke of someone saying that Lincolnshire is a colony. The real joke is that in Roman Britain the now city of Lincoln was known as LINDUM COLONIA. by which was meant that a Colonia was a place set aside for the benefit of retired legionnaires.
What gets me is that he never says that the Falklands were taken from the Spanish Empire, not from Argentina, which did not exist at the time. So my thought would be, "If Spain don't want'em, where's the rub". Add to that by saying who really wants to be living under some South American Junta that kills thousands of it's own citizens for political reasons. It comes down to the fact that the citizens are Brits and want to stay that way. I also want to point out that this guys says horrid things about the islanders. I wonder why? Was he visiting and they didn't bring him his tea at the proper temperature? Case closed.
Argentina declared its Independence from Spain July 9 1816 . 15 years later British Empire decided to invade ( By Force typical Empire language) Argentinian territory.
So Falkland have been British by force since
And here's me thinking that Argentinian independence occurred on the 25 May (hence the name of the aircraft carrier), and not the 9 July??? Well you live and learn.
Two minutes into this and I'm already weary of being talked down to. I think I'll leave it there.
Teachers have to talk down. If ypur teacher isn't talking down you need a better teacher?
I think many teachers would take issue with that.
Is it like a knowledgeable person explaining something to an ignorant person?
Sir Vernon's a bit smarter than you. Is that why you call him names like a bad-tempered schoolboy? Have you put a worm in his lunchbox?
B A Ryan he’s not a teacher, he’s a professor.
Don't ever take any shit from anyone Great Britian. Remember Winston !
Not so 'Great' Anymore unfortunately.
Will that be the Winston who further ruined Anglo-Irish relations by employing the Bkack and Tans?
British settlers were there before Argentina existed as country , so they're talking bollox .
@The Richest Man In Babylon Honoury member
What makes this war so pathetic is that the Argentines initiated it at the worst moment, Britain was about to sell one of its aircraft carriers to India and the other was going to be turned into scrap, without these, the British Navy was doomed . But the most outstanding fact and the greatest irony of this mess, was that this "victory" allowed Margaret Thatcher to destroy the unions of the state companies and sell them to the highest bidder, although as always happens in these sales the British people never received a fair price and in the end lost, like the United States, its industrial base and thereby condemned its population to a slow economic death that all of us can see in real time in the TV today.
Julio Garcia As Andrew Marr has noted, Thatcher’s two major adversaries - Galtieri & Scargill made fatal strategic timing mistakes
dont talk daft
There's no way that the government of the day could have predicted how economically vital coal would become. Or how valuable national ownership of all those coal mines would be.
It was not Thatcher who was to blame for the delciine of Britains manufacturing base and heavy industry - It was globalisation. We could no longer produce coal, steel, ships etc as cheaply as other countries (particularly Asia and Pacific Rim countries), so it was more cost effective to import theses goods. For most of us that lived through the 60;s and 70;s and the Callaghan and Wilson Labour Governments, we can remember Britain was in a terrible economic mess, narrowly avoiding the humiliation of having to go for an IMF bailout. By the late 70's we had state workers such as teachers on a forced 3 day week, constant power cuts, rampant militant unionism with wildcat strikes, flying pickets and finally the Winter of Discontent, with rubbish lying uncollected in the streets and morgues overflowing as bodies lay unburied or cremated. I'm no lover of Thatcher, but she at least saw that Britain's future lay in service industries such as finance, banking and IT. This was not going to happen overnight but she oversaw the first decade of this transition. And yes there were hard times for many during this period. But now Britain is back up to the 5th largest economy in the world, largely due to Thatcherite policies that were even continued under the Blair Labour government. People forget that more coal mines, shipyards and steelworks closed down under the preceeding Labour governments than did under Thatchers Tory Administration. It was Scargill that finally sealed the miners fate as he used his position as head of their union to go on a personal crusade against Thatcher, which he lost. She at least was trying to keep the productive mines open but even this proved impossible as miners from other pits went on strike forming picket lines to stop non striking miners from attending work. Unfortunately our schools and universities are now run by teachers and lecturers that peddle left wing dogma rather than historical facts that are inconvenient to their socialist viewpoints. Little wonder that students who were too young to see the 70's for themselves believe the crap they are being fed.
Belgrano... survived Pearl Harbour,,,,, didn't survive the RN
What an objectionable supercilious individual this person is. Also a bit thick, “HMS Belgrano” what credibility can we give to anything else he says.
Los ingleses no tienen motivo para estar en el Atlántico Sur. Solo alcanza con ver un mapa...y muchos mapas concernientes a su historia de invasores de territorios ajenos...Por herencia, argumentos históricos, Geografía las ISLAS MALVINAS PERTENECEN A TERRITORIO ARGENTINO. La ONU ya ha intimado a que el gobierno ingles se siente a discutir la soberanía de las Islas...y tarde o temprano lo van a tener que hacer...
You lost. The soldateska you sent was kicked out by real men. Cope harder.
And now Malaysia is invading Singapore because it is next door
What?
@@ThroneOfBhaal And now Italy wants England back because they owned it for 400 years, not that Argentina ever owned the Falkland Islands
I wonder if the Professor voted in or out for Brexit?
I despise these leftie Quislings
He's an academic, it's obvious that he's a liberal leftist, and a remainer
There's a rumour that he wanted the QE to be called HMS Karl Marx...👶
@@rpm1796 - lol!
I don`t.