Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Sinking of the General Belgrano - Falklands War Documentary
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2024
- Go to squarespace.co... to get a free trial and 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
Falklands War series:
[1] Invasion of the Falklands • Argentina’s Shocking I...
[2] Recapture of South Georgia • Britain's Incredible R...
[3] Sinking of General Belgrano • Sinking of the General...
[4] Attack on HMS Sheffield • Exocet Attack on HMS S...
[5] Raid on Pebble island • Daring SAS Raid on Arg...
[6] Battle for San Carlos - • Argentina's Aerial Ons...
[7] Battle for Stanley - • Britain's Final Assaul...
To help support the creation of more videos, consider supporting on Patreon:
/ historigraph
#FalklandsWar #Historigraph #Belgrano
Come join the historigraph discord: / discord
Buy Historigraph Posters here! historigraph.c...
This video was sponsored by Squarespace.
► Twitch: / historigraph
► Second Channel: / @historigraphextra5461
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
Sources for the Falklands War Series (so far):
Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins, Battle for the Falklands
archive.org/de...
Martin Middlebrook, Operation Corporate
Martin Middlebrook, Battle for the Malvinas
Mike Norman, The Falklands War There and Back Again: The Story of Naval Party 8901
Kenneth Privratsky, Logistics in the Falklands War
Sandy Woodward, One Hundred Days
Paul Brown, Abandon Ship
Julian Thompson, No Picnic
John Shields, Air Power in the Falklands Conflict
Edward Hampshire, The Falklands Naval Campaign 1982
Hugh McManners, Forgotten Voices of the Falklands
Cedric Delves, Across an Angry Sea: The SAS in the Falklands War
Rowland White, Vulcan 607
Vernon Bogdanor, The Falklands War 1982 lecture • The Falklands War, 198...
Arthur Gavshon, The sinking of the belgrano archive.org/de...
Gordon Smith, Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 by Land, Sea and Air
www.naval-histo...
Hansard- api.parliament...
Recording of Thatcher's statement to the commons is from • Falklands Invasion
Music Credits:
"Rynos Theme" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons...
"Crypto" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons...
"Stay the Course" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons...
Other music and SFX from Epidemic Sound
Go to squarespace.com/historigraph to get a free trial and 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
Falklands War series:
[1] Invasion of the Falklands czcams.com/video/BUYp3Wqz00A/video.html
[2] Recapture of South Georgia czcams.com/video/4mCZBpX4pxs/video.html
To help support the creation of more videos, consider supporting on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/historigraph
The British govt response should have been, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"
Rear Admiral Allara's first name was Jorge.
Enemy warships in an international armed conflict are obviously legitimate targets. Submarine warfare appears legal since at latest 1945. Britain's self-declared war zone is only self-limitation, and thus non-binding under international law. Britain would, as far as INTERNATIONAL (as opposed to national) law.
It might have been illegal under BRITISH national law but certainly was legal under INTERNATIONAL law.
YES. The Law of War says so, the British say so, the Argentines say so... Why is this even up for discussion.???
Legality in war is a stupid concept. "You're not allowed to sink our ships outside of where you said you would" is akin to a child crying about the fairness. War isn't fair. It isn't Humane. It isn't clean. Civilians will die. It sucks and it would be nice if it were not so but it is.
Hector Bonzo deserves some credit in the fact that he didn't shy away from admitting it was legal and he would've done the same, he could've blamed the British being evil for why his ship sunk, but he didn't, he admitted it was justified.
Credit to the Argentinian captain to have the tact of actually admitting that was a legitimate act of war and not just “a drunk sailor fall over the anti ship missiles and cause the ship to spontaneously caught fire and sink” like certain paper bear playing “special operations”
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 Too true, people need to learn to just admit the damn truth because the lies are so obvious
Agreed.
@@d.olivergutierrez8690 Lol, great comment.
He actuallaly said he was repositioning to attack again, if the opportunity rose
Its worth mentioning that the Captain of the Belgrano didn’t harbour any resentment for the sinking, he fully understood that war was war and he would’ve done the same thing.
He is a true captain. He understood what he was ordered into and accepted the potential outcome. I find nothing controversial about what he said. He simply spoke the cold hard truth: war is hell and you cannot and should not expect any mercy...
I think it was in fact mentioned.
Did you even watch the whole video
I was in the boiler room of a frigate on the way to the Falklands when we were informed that the Belgrano had been sunk. It was a sobering moment, not only that the conflict had just seriously ramped up, but also the knowledge that inevitably many Argentine sailors had just met their maker.
The only "triumphalism" was shown by the news rag the Scum ooops sorry the sun . !
That is one of many things or customs I truly appreciate about the RN sailors...they don't celebrate the sinking of enemy combatants.
@@devildogcrewchief3335 there is a certain bond between seafarers, regardless of which country's flag we sail under, military or civilian. We all know the sea is a cruel mistress, and the loss of a ship is so much more than steel and cargo. It is the loss of home, country and the confidence that whatever Neptune has to throw your way, professionalism and blind luck will bring you home.
The brotherhood between the opposing county's navies is astounding. My grandad used to tell me how in WW2, enemy ships which were not on active patrol but for instance returning to port for supplies or maintenance, would salute each other...Always confused me thinking that the enemy must be destroyed at all costs.
Glad you made it back Luv. I was probably one of the few people in America that looked at the situation when Argentina attacked and believe that Britain could do the impossible and take the islands back. That being said I was very worried about the lack of air cover that they would have. The harrier is a very good aircraft. There is no question about that. There is one proviso it was never designed as an air-to-air platform. If the United Kingdom had not scrapped the ark Royal and still had F4 phantoms and e2 Hawkeyes, naval losses would not have happened or would have been significantly reduced. The F4 phantoms original design was Fleet defense. Once again I'm glad you made it home! I hope you don't have to deal with any bad dreams. God bless you for doing your duty. I'm very strong feelings regarding the United Kingdom because my mom or mum was born in the United Kingdom in 1925. Her home was in harrow Middlesex. She survived the German blitz on London as a nurse. So God save the King and may Queen Elizabeth II rest in peace.
In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror's actions were a "betrayal" was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war. In an interview 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."
In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari was released which described the sinking of General Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters".
whatever to try to erase the traces, typical british actions of old school ..hahaha
Captain Bonzo was a good man. Our countries may have been enemies but I'm still sorry to hear of his passing
@@Anubis-zu7wtwhat a cope lmao
@@Anubis-zu7wt What part of "legal act of war" do you not understand?
I've never understood why the sinking of General Belgrano was so controversial, and after watching this video i still don't understand. Nations at war shoot back. Great video Historigraph
and congrats on 180K subscribers
The Falklands war wasn't a declared war, so they can't just invade Argentina or their navy.
@@foolroblox3231 the Falklands War was a war hence why you and everyone else calls it that, and besides Argentina was the aggressor
I think a lot of it was the Argentinians and the general public spinning the exclusion zone as "the playing field" and that action outside of it was somehow prohibited, when the exclusion zone was merely a "we'll definitely strike you if you're within this zone so keep out unless you're here for a fight" to keep out neutral entities and civilian craft. It really helped the Argentinians with regards to the PR mileage they got out of the sinking.
@@devvy_01 "Nations at war shoot back"
_Russia hated that_
From what I can understand, the general public believed this to be a more “””controlled” type of conflict, against two western aligned countries, and as such, believed they would follow rules of engagement and conflict.
When the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, the public thought that it was against the rules, like shooting airsoft guns outside the playing area, and believed the British used a cheap tactic against a foe who did not expect it.
Not saying anyone is right or wrong, but I believe that’s how it was perceived at the time
The exclusion zone was intended to be a warning to keep civilian supply ships out of the area. There has never been a war where enemy military vessels are exempt from attack. That is, unless you want to consider hospital ships under the red cross or red crescent a "military" vessel. The Belgrano was under no such protection.
I know right. War is war, so sinking enemy warships is expected.
Well the Germans did during ww1
Well, there are ships in neutral ports which aren't to be attacked while there, simply to avoid harming the neutral party.
This obviously isn't that, though.
@@gimmethegepgun e.g. Graf Spee in Montevideo in WW2. However such vessels cannot use a neutral port to hide. They are required to be pushed out by the neutral country IF that country wants to maintain its neutral status. Harbouring an active warship during conflict IS an act of war.
@@tuff9486 Tell that to Simon Weston.
My dad was a retired naval scientist who had worked for the Ministry of Defence in the development of tactics for use by submarines. He commented at the time that, after the Belgrano had been attacked, the commanders of its escort ships were faced with their classic dilemma: whether to stay and rescue survivors or whether to hunt and attack the submarine which must be somewhere in the vicinity.
In the event, the Argentinian escort ships did neither. They buggered off at full steam to the safety of their ports.
Added 9 December 2022: Martin Middlebrook in his book "The Argentine Fight for the Falklands" (based on his interviews with Argentinian naval officers) states that the destroyers Hipólito Bouchard and Piedra Buena were unaware that the Belgrano had been attacked, let alone sunk. One of the destroyers had felt an impact, although no explosion, which they had assumed to be a torpedo. They continued steaming West, dropping depth charges. It eventually became obvious that something had happened to the cruiser when she could not be contacted nor detected by radar. The cruisers returned to where they thought the Belgrano might have been but by then it was dark with strong winds and nothing was found.
Yes, I'd read that somewhere too.
They left their fellow sailors behind? Why?
@@thalmoragent9344 The usual explaination is that they didn't realise that Belgrano had been hit until a lot later. I'm not sure how true that is though.
@@Akm72
Ah, I see. So since it essentially wasn't attached to the Task Force, the Cruiser was left out there till later on since not even the British bothered to help out men at sea. Kinda messed up no one did anything for so long
@@thalmoragent9344 The only British ship within 100 nmi was the Conqueror and she was getting the hell away at the time.
The problem seems to have been that the Belgrano's radios got knocked out when the torpedoes hit so she was never able to send a message telling the escorts that she needed help.
She wasn't on a pleasure cruise. The Belgrano was an enemy warship and therefore a legitimate target.
I had an uncle in the colombian navy, he visited the belgrano before it sank. If I remember right, the one thing he noticed was that the argentinians had a habit of jamming the bulkhead doors open because they were inconvenient for getting around...he thought it was probably a critical issue that led to its rapid sinking considering how fast it went down.
No doubt knowing they were now a target for RN
Well, having the bow blown off and an explosion from the other torpedo bursting through the aft deck would have caused massive flooding at both ends. Presumably the engine room was lost very quickly, along with power to any pumps. Bulkhead doors might have saved it for a while, but if they couldn't pump out sinking would have been a matter of hours instead of minutes.
We never invited them to invade British territory. Never Fxxk with the British. They play for keeps.
Your uncle was right.
All bulkhead doors are open when not in General quarters and if your uncle was visiting they surely were not in General Quarters.
I just want to mention that in this war, the Argentine Navy and Army were the ones pushing for the invasion but were the ones that chickened out of the fight: the Army deployed their best troops at the borders with Chile and used more "expendable" conscripts. It was the Air Force that did the most damage to the Brits, and that was after being snubbed by the other branches
Yes, the British acknowledged how the Argentinian air attacks were pressed home with the up most bravery.
My understanding is that the Navy was not expecting the invasion to occur and were not ready for it - which seems reasonable, they had been regarded highly in Argentine society but lost alot of influence afterwards. The Argentinian Airforce did inflict the most damage but they did give up on air superiority and when you consider what they were up against should really have done better. Note that the Entendard's and exocets were Argentinian Naval aircraft.
@@tomriley5790 done better, why?
Anyone thinking the British chickened out in the Argentine war, or any other War have no idea what the British are capable of. Our special forces were designed after the British SAS. Our Navy operates on standards established by the British two centuries ago. Don't f*** with the British, or America will be on your ass.
Sending their best to the Chilean border and conscripts to the Falklands was strategically sound.
If Britain hadn't retaliated and the islands became Argentinian, the conscripts would have been perfectly adequate to assist in the transition. If Britain sends troops to retake the islands, the best the Argentinans had to offer would be no match for their British counterparts.
So why risk your best troops and invite an invasion from an antagonistic neighbor? Better to send pawns to be taken than to risk your knights.
Those poor boys though. Some were only 17 and practically raw recruits. They were being told to stand in the face of arguably the finest professional soldiers in the world, with inferior equipment to boot.
It must have been terrifying, especially when the British switched to night operations and the Argentinians had no night fighting equipment or training.
Was the sinking of the Belgrano legal? Yes.
Am I still gonna watch this video?
Absolutely.
legal maybe, but enjoy the deaths of both sides like a vulgar butcher???
My respect for Hector Bonzo is high indeed. A true warrior gentleman to speak to the reality of war in such a starkly noble way. Great vid:)
I don't know why people act like war is supposed to be "honorable". There's no honor in a war. When you invade someone, expect retaliation
The ship was also a genuine military target as it was following a royal navy submarine intending to relay the position of royal navy assets for airstrikes
I think it was basically a failure in the “perception war” for the British. They should’ve called it the liberation war and never even came up with an exclusion zone. It’s pretty much tying a hand behind your own back for no reason.
Well, as long as you are not going for purely civilian targets I agree.
Geneva convention exists
Heck trying to sanitize war is a major problem in itself. War is ugly and sanitizing conflict may cause future generations to glorify it or go in not really comprehending the consequences
I've always never understood how some people think her sinking is illegal or a crime. She's a powerful warship despite her age, tough and armed with a lot of heavy guns. It's a war, and she's a military vessel. It's not like she was half-way around the world in the middle of a good will tour when war broke out and obviously too far away to participate. That's the only scenario in my mind where her sinking could have been debatable.
Well, 'powerful' is a debatable. The General Belgrano was a WW2-era light cruiser, and it really didn't have a prayer. The British were always going to sink her long before she entered gun range, one way or another. The real threat was the Argentinian carrier (ironically a British-built carrier) , and how the Belgrano was a distraction.
@@Cailus3542 Outside of 6 inch gun range (about 10 nmi) the Belgrano was largely useless except maybe as a command ship. However, if she could get close enough she would suddenly become the most powerful warship in the South Atlantic and as such she shouldn't be discounted.
It was certainly shocking as up to that casualties had been light.
Self loathing Guardian readers.
@@Akm72 Air defense would have been broadly capable.
100% correct !!!
I'm from Argentina and the story related on the video is 100% correct.
I was 16 in 1982 (today I'm 56) and in my "youngs16" the war impact me so much. Since then, I read more than 50 books about the 1982's war, and I assisted many conferences about this topic here, in Argentina. All the items explained on this video are 100% correct, a really good job of the historian in charge of this investigation.
Habla de la invasión inicial de 1830…
Just another year and you would have been conscripted.
@@fl3669 No veo dónde dice eso. Todo el video trata acerca de la (casi) batalla aeronaval del 1 y 2 de mayo, batalla que se frustró por circunstancias inesperadas (insólita ausencia de viento a esa latitud), que impidió el despegue de los A4 del "25 de Mayo" y, tras el hundimiento del Belgrano, el repliegue de la flota que no tenía medios de defensa contra submarinos de propulsión nuclear.
@@chuckysmaria6466 Yes. That's the primary reason why I lived the war so intensely and, in the postwar era, I read a lot of books about this war.
Another reason of the british decision to sunk the Belgrano was one of the air force's strikes of May 1st:
At afternoon of this May 1st, 3 RN ships were guning Stanley's airport (it was the first - and the last - daylight naval gunnery against Stanley). The section "Torno" (3 Mirage V "Dagger") arrived surprisingly from the north at very low level and high speed, striffed the ships with 30mm guns and launched bombs (apparently bombs didn't hit, but easily it could be the contrary). They were a RN destroyer and 2 frigates, that leave the area inmediatly. It was the first of the (later in the war) many airstrikes against the fleet. I think in Northwood, at the begining of May 2, were very worried about the hight risk challenge of the entire TF mission (they know they could have lost a couple of ships if Torno's bombs had hitten) and, then, they give "green light" to Conqueror because, at this time, the Belgrano was the only target the RN has at his disposal to minimize the fleet's risks.
@@fl3669 No invasion; the penguins invited the Brits for tea.
I was 9 at the time of the Flaklands war and my dad was there, serving on board HMS Bristol in the ops room. It didn't occur to me at the time that he might not come back from that war, but thankfully he did. I'll always be proud of him 😎.
There seems to be a lesson in the sinking of the General Belgrano and the Moskva.
If you aren’t willing to take the consequences you shouldn’t have started the war.
When you put on the uniform you cannot just be ready to kill, but you have to be ready to die.
Says the country that invades a country, burns it to the ground, and then proceeds to lose said war. Or actually, let’s just call it a “withdrawal of our troops”.
So true
Also goes for resisting the police...
I'm not so sure the Argentine military has complained about sinking ARA General Belgrano. The fuss was (and continues to be) made by weak politicians (Argentine, British and some Europeans) looking for reasons to hide their own inadequacies.
The captain of the belgrano in an interview confirmed they were only moving away to turn back and enter the exclusion zone at a better time and Britain at that point had already said it no longer considered the 200 miles to be legitimate
The Belgrano wasn’t packed with day trippers out for a seaside break. War is war, Argentinian forces, unprovoked had already invaded the Falklands and were now sending troops and war machinery to consolidate their occupation. The World press seemed to target us with more criticism about the sinking of the Belgrano that they did the Argentinians illegally invading The Falklands and starting the war. Fair play to Hector Bonzo for his published view of the action. The mortality figures on that day were very unfortunate but the whole war was avoidable and many lives were lost on both sides.
Well said
The best description I've ever heard of the Falklands war, and why the Argies lost: The Argentine military had never fought a major war . The British military had known 1 year of peace in 100 years.
@@floydvaughn9666to a degree, but they sent Argentinian conscripts into face the British Army. Only a desperate despot would pick a fight with a more powerful enemy in order to bolster their own domestic popularity. Galtieri was quick to send unprepared and under equipped men to their inevitable deaths.
Well said and I agree with you...
@@floydvaughn9666 yeh, and that is shown with how their larger military force was overwhelmed by outnumbered, and in some areas of gear being outdated whilst others albeit more advanced, and a much more skilled force
Literally the definition of “fuck around and find out.”
Never considered the sinking of the Belgrano controversial. Anyone able to understand the basics of the situation has to see it as inevitable consequence of starting a war. Argentina chose to start a war with Britain, and actions like that have serious consequences. The Belgrano and the carrier groups were on a mission to inflict damage on the British Task Force - real world decisions, real world consequences. It was always the right thing to have done.
Play stupid games 🎮, Win stupid prizes
🚀🚢⚰ ⚰ ⚰ ⚰
@@Craig-wp3pz like the queen? 👌
@@Modman1288 getting to 96? , whilst holding down a full time job??, despite your family disgrace and internal bickering??, I am not a fan of the Royals, but even I gotta say, well done 'Liz 👏 👍
Ps
It was actually Maggie, not Liz who made the decision about the Belgrano incase that's why you're sore?
🏰 👸 👑 ❌ ☎️ 👩💼 ✔ 🪂 ✈ 🚀 🚢
@@Modman1288 what?
You didn't hear us bitching about the Sir Galahad. All we did was complain about the mistake a senior officer made leaving those men aboard the ship at night.
I find this discussion about the legality of sinking an enemy warship amusing.
If 2 countries are at war, any military asset of the opposing party is a legitimate target, provided it has not been decommissioned and left unmanned in a neutral country.
If a warship remains at service (or if it's being readied to enter service), then it is a legitimate target, no matter where it is.
An "exclusion zone" only applies to civil vessels and vessels of nations that are not a part in the conflict; it's a warning: "If you enter the exclusion zone you may be mistaken for an enemy vessel, so stay out!"
But an actual enemy vessel outside the exclusion zone may not be mistaken by an enemy vessel -- it *is* an enemy vessel!
@Jhon Doe This has nothing to do with politics, it's pure military reasoning: if X is an enemy military asset, X is a potential target, no matter where X is.
You're entirely correct - IF two countries are at war. And Britain and Argentina were not at war - no declaration of war was made. That may seem like a technicality to those getting shot at, but it does seriously affect the legality of this sinking. And therefore whether or not it could be considered a war crime.
Not at all. Declarations of war are not a prerequisite for countries to be considered "at war", legally speaking.
If you can cite an internationally recognized treaty that says that I'd love to read it.
It honestly reminds me of the odd American who likes to pretend America still hasn't lost a war because Vietnam was a "conflict", not a declared "war". Makes me laugh every time.
@@arthurfisher1857 Yeah, it's definately a murky issue, hence the continued debate on such matters. Can't cite a treaty, but I can give you an example: the entry of the US into WWII.
Sure, the US declaration of war on Japan is pretty clear cut. But the German declaration of war on the US is not so clear cut. Hitler was under no obligation to Japan to declare war on the US. In fact, in his mind he didn't.
Instead what he did was to CONFIRM that a state of war existed between Germany and the US. Because he (rightly) considered the actions of the US in the months prior to Pearl Harbour to be those of a beligerent nation. Supplying Britain with arms, food, war supplies etc. And attacking U-boats under specific conditions.
You see how murky this topic can get if you look too closely at it.
@@xJavelin1 It really isn't murky at all in this case, however. Britain and Argentina were at war by *any* reasonable definition. British and Argentine forces were literally shooting at each other.
We were at war with Argentina, a war started by Argentina. The General Belgrano was a warship of the Argentine navy. In a war an enemy warship is surely a legitimate target.
War never ends while a british "person" is standing in Argentinian soil
@@MrBruh-yb9qi Yes it does. It's over, move on.
@@jgw9990 I will move on when the british crown proves to be useful (which means never)
@@jgw9990 Every "argie" (as you call us) will move on when you find bitches (also never)
@@MrBruh-yb9qi I would suggest "standing on" is more accurate, unless they are in a hole or some other ground related hollow.
Such a sad loss of life for both sides. However, if you start a fight, you have to expect to get hurt
As an argentinian i have to say this video explains the situation that happened back in '82 with accuracy and simplicity (rare valuables nowadays). In fact when i was younger and more warmonger i used to believe this was a war crime and even claimed that it should have been answered with what later i learned it would have been war crimes. But further studying the actions and most importantly, the command orders (this is absolutely a KEY factor) i understood the hows and whys of both sides actions.
Captain Hector Bonzo (which i consider to be exceptionally professional) recieved sealed orders thst changed the rules of engagement the day before, allowing him to open fire on anything that he considered a worthy target, meaning that the cruiser changed from an armed people transport to a fully operational war unit. It had conscripts? Well yes, in terms of age only. The crew was very well instructed and acted very professionally too and were almost anxious to pull the trigger. As captain Bonzo said "we were not in a pleasure cruise, we were a surface unit of the Argentine Navy, we were on a war mission, we were ready to land strikes on brithish task force as well as ready to recieve blows too".
War is cruel and nasty but that does not mean everything nasty and cruel is a crime. What i do believe that a legit war act was used politically by the politicians and poorly defended by them when they had to face the cameras, leaving the military forces alone to carry the guilt and responsability for the acts they had to do during a war that politicians were responsible for (but never expect a political vulture to take full responsability for its own acts... Politicians, what else could we expect from them).
Kudos for the video!
And sorry for the long post, i cant add a potato pic but only mention it.
That is a good post, for us on the British side, we knew it was a threat due to the HMS Conqueror actually intercepting its orders, which told it to skirt the exclusion zone and engage the taskforce, although despite it being an active, armed, warship, that hasnt stopped some in Argentina declaring it a hospital ship for whatever reason
Or could the Argentinian navy turned back because, the talks between USA Panama, and Argentina had finished and Argentina was given 3 days to vacate or the USA would intervene.
@@littleshep5502 indeed, i knew about those declarations not long ago and it should have been a scandal or something similar to declare a heavy surface unitnto be fulfilling a hospital task is simply an insult to human intelligence but once again, those who said things like thar were politicians and the people who blindly believe what they are told. My best guess is that those who were responsible for taking the command and ordering the cruiser to go there which ultimately resulted in the sinking were trying to desperately find anything that could be used to unload the guilt off their shoulders. One should think what would happen if the cruiser destroyed the british fleet... The Belgrano would still be a humble unaed hospital ship? Nah, it would be a unit that destroyed the enemy thanks to the glorious commanders that had such a strategic mind that planned everything with perfect accuracy. But reality doesnt always follow the desires.
Anyway, as we say here, drawbacks of the job.
@@thelifesaver1092 but even without that, the cruiser was not just cruising. They already had green light to open fire so its logical that they shoukd also expect to be under attack
@@johnmaximusconstantine2743 Yep, the wheels of politics turn. A government then who couldnt admit losses (hence the rather amusing claim of them sinking every ship Britain had brought at least twice), and a govornment now that tries to paint itself as a victim in the war despite them having the odds to win
I never knew the torpedoes fired by Conqueror were WW2 ammunition. Interesting to find out the Royal Navy still had them
The General Belgrano was formerly the USS Phoenix, a survivor of Pearl Harbour. The heavy armour and torpedo bulge protection a WWII era cruiser like that has needs a heavy punch to breach. So using a WWII era weapon specifically designed to puncture that protection makes sense. Plus the budget for the Royal Navy nosedived after WWII, so they probably had more WWII era munitions around than modern ones. May as well put them to good use...
Fair play, the cruiser was a WW2 ship, so using a spearfish would have been unsporting.
@@xJavelin1 There was another issue. The Mark 8 was a dumb munition with no tracking or guidance function and a short range and was the UK’s standard submarine torpedo into the 1970’s.The much longer range wire guided and sonar based homing torpedo the tigerfish was unreliable in trials with a tendency to lose its wire on launch and fail to acquire the target. The choice of the old mark VIII was based on the range and the fact that the Conqueror’s Captain felt that a spread of Mark VIII’s was more likely to achieve the kill than a couple of tigerfish.
@@xJavelin1 I seem to recall reading at the time that they only wanted to sink the Belgrano, the Tigerfishes were homing torpedoes that had three times as many potential targets that they didn't want to sink so the 'dumb' torpedo that wouldn't deviate from the set intercept course was the best option. I also seem to remember reading that one of the destroyers (Pola?) was found to have dent in its' hull indicating that it had probably been hit by the third torpedo after its' fuse had run down - again, possibly something that couldn't have been done on the newer torpedoes.
The "munition" would be the explosives, which certainly would not have been of WW II vintage. As to the hardware, that was probably relatively new too. Just the design would have been WWII. But there are others with a delight in tracking down such details who may be able to enlighten us.
Argentina calls it a threacherous act of armed aggression while the whole reason this happened was because they commited a treacherous act of armed aggression themselves
Argentine hypocrisy at its finest, amirite?
Except it was Britain who invaded the islands first, in 1830.
@@fl3669 Firstly, the history is much more complicated than the islands were Argentinian and we invaded them. They were uninhabited and then discovered independently by the French and then British. They were then claimed and settled intermittently by the British French and Spanish through the 1700s. Argentina's claims to the islands predate the formation of an Argentinian state because they were claimed by Spain not Argentina, and they only ruled over the islands for a few years in the 1830s after they had been totally abandoned for decades. They were then raided by the US and abandoned, briefly resettled by Argetnina and they retaken by the British. Since the 1830s the islands had only been ruled by the British so there had been generations of people living there by the falklands war.
So the Argentinian claim is very dubious at best, but even so look how many other more recent territorial disputes get less attention than this. The US invaded Mexico in the 1840s, Russia invaded Manchuria in the 1880s, Argentina nicked half of Paraguay's territory in the 1860s. After 200 years, you're kicking a dead horse. Argentina's claims aren't any better than when China discovers some ancient map that they use to justify why they can pinch territory off their neighbours. Just let the people who live their decide the fate of their home.
@@RealUlrichLeland argentina inhabited and controlled the islands from 1820-1833. Britain abandoned every claim to the island in 1774 when they were expelled by the Spanish and decided to not pursue any action on the basis of not wanting a full scale war against Spain.
@@fl3669 They weren't claimed by Argentins until 1820 when a privateer from the US claimed them for Argentina specifically and not Spain. But they were uninhabited until 1823 when small scale fishing operations began. Proper settlement only really began in 1826 and only became official in 1829. Then in 1831 the US raided over fishing rights leaving the islands depopulated again. If you think it's ok for Argentina to invade 200 years after they last ruled the islands then why wasn't it ok for Britain to retake the islands when they had last ruled them only 58 years ago and the islands population had only lived there for six years at most?
I worked offshore out of Rio Grande. A couple of Argentinians I worked with were on Belgrano. They told me the seals around the watertight doors were rotten and perished. Simple lack of maintenance.
It was a WW2 cruiser well beyond its anticipated operating life. No suprises.
The British did not kill those sailors, their own government did, they just used the British to do it.
Wouldn't have mattered either way the bow got blown completely off.
My younger brother was involved in the Falklands conflict as an explosives clearance diver. The Belgrano sinking probably reduced the length of the conflict due to the Argy navy going back to port.
stategically defeating the rest of the navy at ONE stroke
Maybe sinking the Belgrano shortened the war and thus saved many times the lives in the long run
Very much so.
As it played out, it was fortunate that the submarines were unable to locate the carrier. It's conflict-long return to port was an effective mission-kill, without the need to kill hundreds of sailors to achieve it.
Right like 2 atom bombs saved murican lives.
That the Argentinian Navy ran away after only ONE sinking shows that they weren't ready for war. Running away like that is shameful, especially when compared to better navies in the past and under worse odds.
I was a teenager at this time and had a terrible row with my dad over the sinking of the Belgrano. He was a Labour Party supporter and believed Thatcher had done it to escalate the conflict as a means of increasing her popularity, which had been rock bottom before the invasion of the Falklands. This was a common view amongst the British Left at the time. All we can say for sure is that Thatcher most certainly would have lost the next election but for the Falklands War but I would not suggest for a minute she deliberately escalated the conflict to avoid a negotiated outcome. More likely it was just one of those serendipitous events that come along just at the right time to save a government. The conflict very definitely divided the country along Left-Right lines.
Coincidentally, the Ukraine war might be doing the same thing for BoJo.
Well I am sure most people in Argentina would have agreed with your father
It is highly unlikely that Thatcher would have lost the 1983 General Election regardless of the Falklands. The formation of the SDP in 1981 which split the Labour vote and then the far left manifesto (unilateral nuclear disarmament, large tax increases, more nationalisation etc) adopted by The Labour Party in 1983 pretty much guaranteed another Tory victory.
@@yorkiephil7744 Good point about Labour's policies in the 1983 General Election. I just checked on Wikipedia and as well as Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament their manifesto also apparently said they would take Britain out of the EEC (the forerunner to the EU). How times have changed!
if anything, I think sinking that ship was the right decision for GB irrespective of politics. That thing was a giant threat and sinking it would save British lives, which, when you are the British government, is the correct thing to do. As Patton said "the goal of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other basterd die for his" (not direct quote).
As a Dutchy looking in, I don't think a single Brit did anything wrong here. This whole "controversy" seems awfully fake to me and purely for political goals.
In a war you don't wait for your enemy to find you, you take your enemy out before they can get you. The General Belgrano could have caused a lot of problems for the British had not HMS Conqueror not sunk her. The Brooklyn class cruisers could lay down a lot of fire from those 6 inch guns. I believe their rate of fire was 15 rounds per gun per minute. The Brooklyn class cruisers were armed with twelve 6 inch guns if I remember correctly.
It's actually fifteen 6" guns: 5 triple gun turrets and they and the Cleveland class had a theoretically 6s reload, although sustained fire over longer periods would be slower.
@@deaks25 Thank you. I couldn't remember if it was 12 or 15 guns they were armed with. Still would not want to be on the receiving end of those guns.
@@Eric_Hutton.1980 That would be a 4 second reload. It wasn't possible. MAYBE , just maybe they could fire 10 rounds a minute, but they wouldn't be able to sustain that rate of fire. Especially with guns that were over 40 years old.
@@Eric_Hutton.1980 That would be a 4 second reload. It wasn't possible. MAYBE , just maybe they could fire 10 rounds a minute, but they wouldn't be able to sustain that rate of fire. Especially with guns that were over 40 years old.
They would have used anti ship missiles far sooner.
From the moment that hostilities began, with the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands, everything that was Argentinian, was fair game for the British, anywhere on the planet.
Invasion?
@@matiasb1931 yes, the Argentine invasion. Invasion - the military takeover and occupation of land that doesn't belong to you and where the people don't want you.
@@matiasb1931 Well what else would you call it?
I just cant understand why this question is still been discussed, Argentina and Britain were at war the Belgrano was a warship so it was a legitimate target, some people say it was sailing away from the Falklands so was not a threat, ever heard of turning around, even the captain of the ship does not understand why the question is still discussed.
"The West bad" - lefties since the communist victory in WW2
@Danny Tallmage
TEZ was not an arena or football field. It's a zone where all ship (enemy or neutral) will be considered hostile. Leaving TEZ doesn't automatically make an enemy ship not an enemy ship.
@Danny Tallmage The exclusion zone was to tell civilian vessels to not enter if they don’t want to be fired upon, it was never meant as the only zone where Britain could engage Argentinian Warships.
@Danny Tallmage it's not England,its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England is just one of four countries in that union
@@lloydnaylor6113 England and Britain was used synonymously up until after ww2 and the Scottish nationalists started whining
The General Belgrano was a former US Navy light Cruiser called the USS Phoenix. My uncle served as a signalman on that ship. He was onboard on Dec 7 1941 in Pearl Harbor, a story i heard only after I joined the Navy in 1979
She deserved a better fate
Phoenix had a grandstand view on December 7th. She received only one 20mm round through a fire director and blew out the lining of one of her 3" guns, that was it, so she survived well and took down (or aided in doing so as there was a lot of fire going everywhere) three Japanese warplanes.
Great content as always. Really interesting to hear the cruisers captain saying it was a legal act of war. He is a very honest and honorable man
I was on a ship with my Regiment in the armada en route to the Falkland Islands. This warship posed a real threat to our fleet. However, it is a decision that was not taken lightly. It is deeply regrettable the loss of lives on board that ship. It is with the greatest of respect for Captain Hector Bonzo that I salute him for his words regarding this event.
Wow wasn't expecting a new video so quickly after the last one. Great work as always. Love the detail in the animations and your research is stellar.
A treacherous act of armed aggression. The Argentinians were suffering from the same sort of selective amnesia Putin has. Wasn't the invasion of the Falklands a British territory (at peace) treacherous???
Pretty much every despots reasoning: “We attacked a nation and they fought back so they’re the bad guys.”
They also had invaded South Georgia and landed people on the South Sandwich islands, South Georgia being the first to be brought back under British control.
In the entire history of Argentina from colony until the modern day they have never owned it. France and Spain have far better claims to the islands and they don't care
A very good analogy. Argentina was lucky that the UK did not pursue War Crimes/Breech of the "Geneva Convention".
@@trevorhart545 I think Argentina was lucky the British didn't take it further and bomb the Argentinan mainland
Maggie had some balls which is more than these Lilly lived MPs of today !! Well done Maggie !!
Who knew that sinking an enemy ship during a war would be so controversial😂
It's a shame about the dead end injured Argentines, but the cruiser was a warship any war zone, which was threatening the British fleet. It was completely fair game.
It was tragic what happened to the Belgrano but by no means were the British in the wrong for sinking her.
If you support terrorism... Don't complaint when they come for you.
@@lisandrochavez7169 you dont even know what you are talking about
@@generalbennet1554 I know EXACTLY what I am talking about...
I guess you never suffer from terrorism or even being robbed.
@@lisandrochavez7169 no no YOU REALLY dont know what your talking about i live in a country which has been bombed and has had quite a few terrorist attacks but that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SINKING OF THE BELGRANO get your head out of your ass take a look at yourself and go and touch some grass or make friends.
@@generalbennet1554 you do ?
Re: the Belgrano sinking:
It strikes me as crazy and maddening that a nation which initiated aggression (Argentina), has taken Enemy Prisoners of War (EPWs) from disputed territory under force of arms and raised its flag over (part of) that disputed territory, and is now moving strategic fleet assets against the remaining part of that disputed territory in an obvious pincer movement to trap the British naval force, then loudly calls on the 'protection' of the "Exclusion Zone," claiming that the mere fact that the heavily-armored battlecruiser was moving away from the British at the time of the attack offers it some protection against deadly force.
Even more maddening that some nations of the world bought this utter nonsense and accused the British of 'warmongery' and 'barbarism in combat.'
Even more that some British agreed with this bullSSSS.
If you take up arms and move offensively, you may not later say that offensive assets you moved toward your enemy occupied some unilateral 'protected status.'
Argentina moved offensive naval assets against British naval assets. One was sunk. Don't move offensive naval assets against the British.
this political conflict dates back long before 1982
When youre at war it doesn't matter where your enemy is located , you attack.
Actually it does, it called 'rules of engagement'
None were broken here though.
@@user-qf7dl2ki4t rules of engagement doesn't mean where you're located 🤣
@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 well that would very much depend on the specific rules wouldn't it 🤷
@user-qf7dl2ki4t no, there are certain rules of engagement we have. Not one of them states we cant attack because of where the enemy was located. Same has been for every war from Vietnam, Korea, ww2, ww1 etc etc
@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 yes because there's one fixed set of ROE and they are the only ones used! They certainly aren't drawn up for each individual conflict to suit the theatre.....
AKA tell me you k ow nothing about warfare without telling me you k ow nothing about warfare.
The only thing that shocked me about the sinking of the General Belgrano is that it didn't occur earlier. Once a foreign nation puts boots on the ground inside your borders, you are at war whether it is declared or not; whether you wish it or not. In war, you neutralise enemy combatants and assets wherever you find the opportunity and the enemy least expects it, not with the permission of the enemy and not where he expects you and has a special surprise waiting for you (if his generals are any good).
I agree. I don't know why it wasn't sunk as soon as it was sighted. That's what submarines do.
They should have waited until more of their navy appeared and then slammed fish into them all
The captain of the Belgrano said this action was justified
ARA General Belgrano (C-4), ex-USS Pheonix (CL-46), was the last surviving navy ship from the Pearl Harbor attack. (USCGC Taney still survives as a museum ship in Baltimore, MD.)
I had an uncle who served on the Phoenix, from before Dec. 7th until the end of the war. Unfortunately on the way back to New York, he was killed in an engine fire while working on a liberty launch.
The absolute cheek of a septic spouting their pointless acronyms, on an English gentleman's video, no less.
The "Exclusionary zone, was a warning to all neutral ships and aircraft. If you entered the area, you might be mistakenly attacked.
Only just finished the South Georgia video :D
Also been reading Harrier 809 and Hastings & Jenkins' The Battle for the Falklands the past few days. Absolutely inundating myself with Falklands content lol
Read Bicheno's Razors Edge, great book and was a key source for me in an essay I wrote abut the war.
Foofoo......cuddlypoops......sorry about this, but......BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That absotively, posilutely cracks me up!!!! The ages that pooped....er.....POPPED....into my head!!!!!!
*laughs myself to death*
Great video, still a mystery to me why the British government and press spent so much time acting like they did something wrong. It’s a mystery to me how the ROE was not expanded from the start. However considering the incompetence on the Thatcher government and it’s many failings in the run up to the conflict it’s not surprising.
Main reason is they where unsportsmanlike in sinking belgrado. They wanted the Argentine forces a fighting change. That’s all
@@andmos1001 precisely why it's called war and not a football match
It's just as well it was Thatcher, any other prime minister of the era would of bottled the whole thing.
@@andmos1001 Argentina was led by a fascist Junta invading a sovereign territory and killing some of its people. What honour are you reffering to?
Gotcha! The Sun's headline announcing the sinking of the Belgrano. Hardly the headline of a story of doing something wrong. Also the Argintinians were aware on 23/4/1983 via the Swiss Embassy that all Argentian ships or aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance, in the South Atlantic that were considered a threat would be attacked.
In addition to the sad story of the loss of life, I was also sad that the General Belgrano nee USS Phoenix (CL-46) was a Pearl Harbor surviver, and a ship built in Camden, New Jersey, at the New York Shipbuilding Corp. yard.
And was sunk by a WWII-era torpedo....kind of fitting, in a way.
Is that rock 8000 miles from home really worth the human cost?
@@guntherultraboltnovacrunch5248 Yes..
@@guntherultraboltnovacrunch5248 the Exocet missiles could have caused a greater body count.
@@guntherultraboltnovacrunch5248 yes, if you allow a agressive invasion of one of your islands then it doesn't really look good does it. Others may get the idea that they can do the same.
The third torpedo actually hit another ship but it was at its limit and didn’t go off. The Argentines only realised when they repaired the ship and their was an indent of a torpedo.
There
@@luddite2702 what's with the constant grammar police . When you going to start remembering English is not everyone's first language .
@@RichMcc I hate dyslexics.. By the way English is not my first language either but at least my grammar and spelling are reasonable. Go raibh maith agat.
@@luddite2702 ... Dyslexia is where you have difficulty READING.
@@ThumperMinerUnion no it is not. It affects grammar and spelling especially also. Get some education.
The cruiser's missiles had a range of twenty miles. That sounds impressive for that time period. However, the main guns of the battleships of World War 2 had a range greater than that. For a captain of a naval ship, having an enemy ship that close, demands immediate action. Knowing that the cruiser could be within firing distance by morning, and knowing his sub couldn't guarantee it could track the enemy ship, the admiral had no choice but to sink it. He could have been courtmarshaled for not protecting his ship.
Still there is a choice.. Do not present it as if he had none.
What choice did he have? Leave himself open to attack on the grounds that killing is bad?
He had the responsibility of protecting the crewmen of his fleet. Not to leave them open to danger because he didn't feel like attacking the enemy.
In an alternate universe, the Belgrano wasn't sunk and so Britain lost a carrier to an Argentine attack. It was his purpose in being there to prevent that universe from coming to be our own - And he did.
@@ryanhodin5014 That is a choice as well. May it be one one would prefer not to make but a choice of still is. And claiming it is not is simply a lie.
@@ryanhodin5014 Agreed. You said it much better than I did. Thanks.
Did the Belgrano have ship to ship missiles ? I read it was two (British) Sea Cat anti aircraft missiles.
Her 6 inch main armament had a maximum range of around 12.5 miles.
This attack SAVED more lives than it cost! It forced the Argentines to keep their fleet in harbour, imagine how many would have died if it had been the aircraft carrier instead!
A great point which I haven't seen made too often. If the Argentine navy hadn't retreated then the ensuing conflict at sea could have been an absolute bloodbath.
haha i guess that's like saying that the US dropping a-bombs on japan actually saved lives because otherwise all the japanese would have done what no people had ever done in human history before, commit mass suicide attacks.
The conquerors log book was huge part of the controversy. It went 'missing' but part of that was probably down to Conquerors subsequent mission to 'aquire' a towed array from a Polish Intelligence trawler. I forget the op name but bloody hell thats a hell of a story and deeply classified until a few years ago. RIP all those lost in that war brought about by a criminal Junta.
0:25 You're wrong to state that the Belgrano's sinking was controversial. It wasn't. Britain, while at war, sank an enemy warship. An act that is only illegal if said ship has surredered or is in a neutral port.
Ever since the day it happened, I’ve never understood the hand-wringing over this sinking of a enemy warship conducting military operations.
They weren’t out there just to enjoy the weather.
In 1939 the German sub U47 sunk at anchor HMS Royal Oak at Scapa Flow. We were at war & unfortunately for the Royal Navy, German sub both through at sunken very capable Battleship when most ratings were asleep. It's still there & over 800 who died. War is hell & it didn't need an exclusion zone or a quick phone call to see if if was okay!.
I think the outrage over sinking of the Belgrano, is rooted in this misconception that, if you put more restrictions on your own forces, like how to fight, where to move and when not to, will somehow make war more "humane".
It may be the most virtuos thing to do, but in reality, it only benefits the enemy. All the while, it makes an already difficult "job" even more difficult, for your own forces.
And those that made the decision to sink it, acted on intel that was available right then and there. They didn't had the benefit of hindsight like the those that have criticized their decision. As far they were concerned, the most important thing was to protect the Royal Navy Task Force, and the men onboard the ships.
Lets also not forget that a more civilized war tends to last longer. What do you want? Horrific violence and death for 1 year, or slightly less horrific violence and death over 10? A bit of collateral may be terrible, but IMO it's so much worse to subject an entire generation of people who are now adults to have lived their entire childhood in war. (Iraq/Afghanistan)
Losing a warship, under modern warfare conditions, is inevitable. Look at the Russian loss of the cruiser, Moskva, in the Black Sea. If the Argentine Navy was unwilling to take a single loss, then it is difficult to understand what the entire task force mission was supposed to accomplish to begin with. Apart from Argentine submarines, the Navy left the Argentine Army to fend for itself.
Ironically, the head of the Argentine navy was the one that lobbied most strongly for invasion.
Movska only received media this in the port of sevastopol
A great example of decisive action foreshortening a war and probable loss of life.
The British Navy has always excelled at one-punch engagements that put the enemy navy in a box and, what's left of it, back to their ports.
1) Trafalgar - Ensured the end of Napoleon's ambitions at sea and the demise of his Continental System
2) Copenhagen - Kept the French Allies from thinking about any raids or sorties against British trade
3) Heligoland - While messy, kept the German cruiser and destroyer fleets bottled up in port for years
4) Jutland - The largest naval battle in Europe and the heaviest weight of naval firepower used in battle ever, ended the German's hope of controlling the waters around Europe
5) Bismarck - Sank the unsinkable German monster (of their own propaganda) and forced the relocation of the remaining KM assets into German ports for the remainder of the war, thereafter they were picked off by the Royal Navy and the Royal Airforce
6) Cape Matapan - the Royal Navy in the med blasted the Italian's newest and most capable heavy cruiser division into pieces, the RM sailed back into port and didn't conduct any further naval action in the med.
7) General Belgrano - covered in this video
Given the firepower of the Brooklyn class; fifteen 6" guns that the Japanese of WWII once nicknamed "the six inch machine gun" made the Belgrano a very serious and significant threat on it's own. It outgunned everything the British had in the area, and so after the Argentine carrier, it was probably THE most important naval target.
Sure the Belgrano wasn't sailing towards the Task Force but it was at sea, active in the theatre and had the range to reach the task force. Frankly, it would've have been arrogant, ignorant or down right incompetent to NOT engage it.
To assume your enemy is not going to utilise an asset it has actively operating in the combat theatre is pure stupidity.
I also think that part of being a competent commander is to respect you enemy and their capabilities. Just because Argentina is not a traditional 'first rate' military, does not mean they posed not threat, they very much did, and the British treated their forces accordingly.
Such a huge loss of life is tragic and I don't blame Argentina for still being upset by it, but it was not illegal or unwarranted.
The 6'' guns of the Brooklyn class I believe had an absolute maximum firing range of 24km with an effective range of 18km. Meanwhile the ship-launched exocets of the two DDs had ranges of about 40. Don't get me wrong, the Brooklyns were great ships for the time, but any gun-based system would always be a disadvantage by this time. It *would* be a threat *if* it got into range and *when* it had its own guns ranged properly on the RN task force, but that's a lot of hypotheticals.
I suspect it was mainly there as protection for the DDs since it did have Sea Cat, or maybe in anticipation of providing gun-based fire support to the ground forces. That said, I don't want to completely discount the combat ability... as you say, that's a lot of guns - *if* they get in range.
@@sgtrpcommand3778 You do make a valid point, there is a lot of "if" on this and missiles of course outrange guns but if in my mind, the RN couldn't afford to lose track of the Belgrano as it did with the Argentine carrier, especially as WWII era ships do tend to be faster than 1980's period ships, so if contact was lost, she could have been difficult to reacquire/chase down, and if I remember rightly HMS Conqueror was in danger of losing contact with the Belgrano.
@@deaks25 I believe you are right, though can't remember the source of that info.
@@sgtrpcommand3778 Keep in mind radar and missiles weren't working quite as well as everyone expected them to.
Well said Sir.
For those whom are 'undecided' about the Falklands conflict, I suggest researching the Argentine action at Moody Brook barracks, and hiding munitions behind the Red Cross in Port Stanley.
i suggest researching the British action , making Argentine prisoners carry boxes of ammunition which explode losing their lives, violating the Geneva Agreement,beating Argentine prisoners that turn out to be dead in Goose Green and other unworthy acts...
War crime and a half if I ever seen one. Using the Red Cross like that.
I detested Thatcher, but I believe she took the right course of action over the Falklands and had no problem with the sinking of the Belgrano. It was a warship intent on waging war and in wars lives are lost.
Me too. Life long labour supporter, and I took cakes in to work to celebrate her death (I come from a coal mining area and no one even raised an eyebrow), but she was exactly right to send the taskforce. America was right to support it and France was a disgrace in supplying fascists with exocets and attempting to increase Argentina's supply during the war.
Not to mention that they didn't offer information about the 'override' that is reputedly built into them so they can't attack French assets - but I don't know how true that claim is.
On reflection, France's attitude to The Falklands, history with NATO, track record on Lamb and fishing... hmm perhaps Liz Truss was right (that's not something I ever expected to say). (written 27/8/2022, google Liz Truss comments on France)
It wasn't her decision She merely OK'd a military decision.
I thrived under Thatcher low taxation and low redtape , this was all disapated when Bliar got in and reversed it.
We will never be united until we stop being partisan and celebrate the good and denigrate the bad in our leadership.
I liked Thatcher but can see why People of the North ,mainly miners, hate her but what Bliar did after was even worse, opening boarders lying to the kids that they could all have degrees killing all those in Iraq so.....
@@michaeldavison9808 I'm not a labour supporter but I still agree with you Thatcher was an awful PM
@@michaeldavison9808 I agree too, unfortunately it earned her a further term in office.
This is very interesting, I was told by a Navy man that the Belgrano was acting as a mirror for radar, due to the curvature of the earth, very surprised to see where it was sunk, I expected it to be between Argentina and the British fleet. Thanks for posting, I've never seen things laid out so clearly.
My argument is that if the Argentinians didn't want the British to shoot at their ships they shouldn't have shot at the British.
As an American I’ve never understood why it was such a big deal. As far as I’m concerned I would have been fine if the British sunk the whole Argentinian fleet in port. It’s war!
BASED Yank!
The only reason there is any legal doubt about this case is Clive Ponting, who was a retired Civil Servant who worked in the MOD and leaked a document to the papers that the Belgrano had been sailing out of the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk. This is all just media furore, nothing else, speaking as somebody who has asked many lawyers and academics about this, nobody who has any training seriously doubts the legality of the sinking of the Belgrano. The controversy is sort of just invented.
They did the same with bomber Harris, Moaning at the British for hitting civilians during air raids, yeah and they ignore the Blitz murdering Londoners every day and night for months.
My cousin was on Conquerer. I was told many years later that Belgrano had made an aggressive turn to the north giving the impression it was turning back towards the exclusion zone.
In time when the war in Ukraine is over, and military information gets declassified, I'm looking forward to your video on the submarinification of the Moskva
Missile battery commanders sees ship
Missile battery commander destroys ship
@@jonathanwilliams1065 destroyed? dont kid yourself your watching too much western propaganda
It obviously was a tactical refit of the Moskva to an attack submarine.
I doubt Russia will ever release details of 90% of what they actually did in Ukraine
When it's declassified Russia and Ukraine will both have a stockpile of atrocities. However only the lower will answer for theirs.
Like on all wars, both sides commit atrocities. But those who pick a side will deny theirs and exaggerate the other.
A fascist dictatorship attacked Great Britain without a declaration of war fact. You do not send a warship to sea in a war to give the sailors a joyride you do it for a reason fact. The Belgrano was a threat to the British fleet and was sunk fact.
War is not a duel. I was a career Armor Officer in the US Army and the best description of the ideal tank gunnery engagement was described to us by our chief gunnery instructor when I was in the Officer Basic Course - "A shot up the ass of the last tank in the column while everybody is looking the other way"
Anyone who has been in combat or a SNCO would agree the action was well done. Also the action was required since both battle groups were in battle formation.
GOTCHA!
As with many things, Mrs Thatcher was correct in defending the sinking and is even supported in that by no less than the captain of the stricken ship. There can be no more argument that it was legal and justified.
Quoting the Sun has never been cosndiered the right thing to do.
@@rick7424 it’s the most famous headline of the war, irrespective of opinion.
@@Hollows1997 I read a bunch of RN sailors asked for lots of copies of that particular edition when they ran out of toilet paper.
@@Hollows1997 Surely that's "The Empire Strikes Back"? I had literally never heard of this headline before watching this video but I had heard of the other one because it's such a cliche.
@@hedgehog3180 personally disagree. I was born 15 years after the War and Gotcha is the headline I always associate with the war.
The sinking of an armed enemy ship during wartime is justified, regardless of whether it was in a specified zone or not. If they sat outside of the zone while firing missiles at ships within the zone would they still have been considered controversial for sinking her?
Agreed. The Italian navy was sunk at Taranto whilst in port.
The Tirpitz was at anchor. The Bismarck was trying to return to port.
I'm glad the fooker was sunk.
Argentina: NOOOOOOO! They were in international waters! That’s illegal!
Britain: We’re literally at war…
The big big question for me was why didn’t the escorts not stay to pickup survivors. Was glad to hear that the Captain of the General Belgrano has always said it was a legal attack.
Battleship's?
@@danielleeming1027 ok edited to keep you happy 😃
This is an old favourite for British left-wingers. They never seem to grasp that if the two forces had encountered each other almost anywhere outside other nations’ waters then they could legitimately kill each other.
The exclusion zone was supposed to keep neutrals clear from the combat zone, not to limit hostilities to it.
Strawmanning is an old favourite of British right wingers.
An enemy man o' war in a theater of combat. Well done, Brits.
It is very interesting how so many governments and civil organisations protested against that torpedo attack, all the while the argentinians, even the surviving captain of the sunk ship themselves openly stated that they wouldn't blame the british for their actions. They honestly and openly stated: "his is a war, we made some operational mistakes and we lost a battle. What else could we expect?"
In an interview many years after the sinking the Captain of the Belgrano himself admitted they were not leaving the area, they were repositioning for an attack on the British forces, this meant the Cruiser was still a legitimate target.
They could've been eating ice cream or doing drills and it would've been a legitimate target, as it was a warship. I was a conscript myself, so I feel bad for the conscripts that perished, I really do.
Irrelevant! War sucks…for all sides
@@sebastiantiainen2749 If it had been a British warship in a war area and knowing an opposition nuclear powered submarine was in the region the crew wouldn't have been sitting around eating anything.
Their orders and intent are still irrelevent as theres no realistic way the Brits could determine that without having a man onboard themselves. What matters is that she was a commisioned vessel of the argentine navy, armed, involved in hostilities, and not having signalled a surrender.
Perfectly justified attack. A shame, she was a lovely example of a warship.
Yes it was legal. We were at war with Argentina. It was a warship. We sank it. Uproar. They sank four of ours. Nobody says anything. Well done the Royal Navy.
Are you also for suppressing Scotland and Ireland? Good that the worst days of England are over
Even the captain of Belagrano admitted that it was justified in the interview he did almost 3 decades ago
It was in 2003, so almost 2 decades.
I think a lot of the international saltiness was due to them realising that, despite being underfunded and reduced in size thanks to years of Labour governments, the Royal Navy was still more than capable of hitting hard.
Why do you blame labour governments it was thatcher destroying the tax base needed to keep the ships
You need to reread economics 101
I remember the great newspaper headline at the time, "Britain Waives the Rules."
I miss witty journalists like that.
what rules?
@@kennethmckay6391 Britain had declared an "exclusion zone" around the islands, basically like a "no-fly zone," in that any vessel that enters the zone without permission of the enforcing power may be fired upon at the enforcing power's discretion without warning.
The Argentinians seem to have selectively chosen to interpret this to mean that the British would ONLY engage vessels inside the exclusion zone, but from everything I've seen, there's no particular reason to believe that to be implied. I don't understand why this idea has persisted, that there was anything at all problematic about a British vessel correctly identifying and sinking an Argentine warship during an undeclared war. I suppose anyone who might want to stick a finger in NATO's eye might be happy to peddle that kind of rhetoric, but it's just not justified by anything I'm aware of in historic legal precedent. I don't even think the fact that the vessel was indeed intent on entering the exclusion zone and engaging in combat operations matters. When you open hostilities, you should expect the other side to start shooting at anything of yours that they can reach. Argentine civilian merchant ships should probably be left alone, but all military vessels, conducting any operations, anywhere, are fair game, as I read the rules of the sea and the rules of war.
The Sun went with Gotcha!
So a treasonous lie during wartime, the press clearly get away with far too much!
The classic "fuck around and find out" moment for Argentina I would say.
The two countries were at war, any Argentinan ship was fair game, just like the Atlantic Conveyor was.
This new series of yours is excellent, even compared to your usual high standard. I look forward to more of it!
Great video. I am bemused why, having been engaged by Argentina’s military with an invasion and thus an undeclared war, anyone should mull over the legality of engaging a warship deployed with escorts in a war zone. The modern mentality that everyone should have a good old chinwag with their solicitor before engaging an enemy warship in a war zone is laughably stupid.
after the second world war, wars are no longer declared, hitles started that trend
The Belgrano wasn't a fishing vessel, allls fair in war
I never did understand the faux outrage because if it was flying the Argentine navy's flag it was a enemy combatant in a war of its own nations choosing. There was no 'outrage' when the Argentine sub was depth charged and rocketed while liberating South Georgia and that is along way outside the declared exclusion zone. One could be left with the impression that the declared exclusion zone was intended for non combatants ships that may have been intending to transit through those waters, like Soviet spy trawlers for example :)
Excellent! Balanced, informative and beautifully delivered
This is the best video on this subject I've come across thus far. Excellent job conveying the detail and nuance of the situation in such a concise and entertaining manner.
TL;DR Things like the "Exclusion Zones" aren't actually legally biding things in war. It's just going "Hey, you better not cross this line or else!" type of a head game.
Perguntar se se justificou o afundamento de um navio de guerra durante uma guerra é, só por si, um disparate.
Agree
If memory serves Belgramo was formerly USS Phoenix one of the few ships to escape Pearl Harbour Dec '41
You have to give props to Captain Bonzo, I mean he just lost his entire ship and hundreds of his crew and while the rest of the world is outraged his reaction is "Nah, fair play, it sucks but all's fair in love and war." I have huge respect and envy for that level of composure and maturity. If the British hadn't sunk it it probably would have gone down anyway under the weight of the captain's massive balls.
The rest of the world wasn't outraged. Intact there was little noise about it since Argentina was at war and sinking British ships. There were only a noisy minority of lefties who thought it was wrong to kill people. I was alive then and the support stayed high at home and abroad. The video gets this bit very wrong.
@@dominicomucci3014 Ah, I see, thank you for the correction. Still, huge props to the captain.
@@dominicomucci3014 Can't just leave it at "there were people that didn't want the war to begin with" - fucking christ.
Argentina: It was outside the wars zone this is illegal.
UK: Did we agree that the Falkands was a wars zone before you invade with out warning? This probably make your invasion illegal.
Argentina: You were not legally allow to say that.