In the conflict over the Falkland Islands between Britian and Argentina what was the resolution? Also why were the Falklands so important to the two countrys?
I don’t remember the specifics, but I know Britain won pretty easily. I remember reading a while back in a book about the Dirty War era that the conflict was largely nationalist in nature (ie, the Argentines didn’t like the idea of Britain owning a group of islands just off their coast, or some such), but most likely somebody else could shed further light on the subject. So far as I know, there isn’t any great resource deposit there, unless you count the penguins. But again, I’m working from a memory that has faded in many respects.
And, just to keep it straight and avoid huffy corrections later if I can, the Dirty War generally refers to the “disappearences” of Argentines under the dictatorship at the time, not the Falklands/Malvinas conflict.
–Amy
Well, they’re still British possessions. They had a war. The British won.
As for the dispute, it’s a longstanding one. Argentina doesn’t seem to like the concept that an island group very near their shores is controlled by a European power. It was more a matter of national pride than anything else. Some argue that the war was started by the Argentine military regime in an attempt to drum up some support for a country and government that wasn’t doing well at the time. The British responded with force because they weren’t going to let some country like Argentina tell it what it could or could not have as a colony.
Presumably, the two sides will work out a diplomatic solution for this once and for all. However, since there are still disputes over Gibraltar between the British and the Spanish, I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for that.
I’m oversimplifying this I know.
Here’s a trivia question that most people don’t get:
In what war was the only (documented) sinking ever of a warship by a nuclear sub?
The answer: The Falklands War. The Argentine warship Belgrano (?)–which I think was some old US Navy ship–was torpedoed by a Brit nucular sub (don’t remember the name).
Right - the cruiser General Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, which survived the Pearl Harbor attack, and which the US sold to Argentina as surplus. It was sunk by the submarine HMS Conqueror, since it represented a threat to the British fleet. I believe there were no survivors, and the British caught a lot of criticism for brutality, even though it was a war.
The war also saw the longest bombing missions ever (since broken by the US with Guam-to-Iraq and Missouri-to-Kosovo missions). They used single Vulcan bombers with no fewer than 15 refueling tankers, and a complex pattern of refueling each other as well as the Vulcan, from their Ascension Island base - something like 5000 miles away. Think of a NYC-Hawaii round trip without landing.
Nobody cared, then or now, about a few sheep farms in a God-forsaken corner of the world, except for the sheep farmers themselves (many of whom would have been happy to leave anyway). The exception of the military junta that controlled Argentina and saw these islands close by, dreamed up some claim to them, and used them to distract a restless population. The junta was overthrown when they lost the war.
Actually, “only” about a third of the crew died (368 out of ~1000 is the number I’m finding).
Further trivia: This only sinking of a warship by a nuclear sub was accomplished with a spread of three WWII-style (-era?) unguided torpedoes (two hit).
Back in those heady days of the Cold War, one of the first non-US targets would have been the Panama Canal. With that blown out of commision, the route around Cape Horn (Tierra del Fuego) would suddenly assume strategic proportions.
The Allies, in general, probably all felt a lot better about having a NATO member in control of what could suddenly be a gatekeeper location in time of conflict.
Perhaps someone else could post something about what had to be one of the most curious anecdotes of the conflict.
The French had sold the Argies Exocet missles for ship killing engagements. Evidently, the Exocets were from NATO deployment stocks. Consequently, British vessels were unable to jam them on their inbound flights. What was the upshot of this major blunder? You would figure that the Brits would have reprogrammed their ELINT systems on the long voyage there in order to be ready for such an occasion. All of this seemed quite strange to me, and it also resulted in the loss of the “Atlantic Conveyer” for the Brits.
As a final aside. One of the things that brought defeat to the Argies were American kyaking enthusiasts.
The warplanes the Argies used were of American manufacture. In order to engage the Brits with any amount of flight time left, the Argies were required to carry spare fuel drop tanks to accomodate the extended range to the target. Due to the age of the Argies’ aircraft, many of the planes’ parts had long ago been surplused by the US government. Many kyaking enthusiasts bought the drop tanks and converted them into sport water craft. During the conflict the Argies showed up state side in an attempt to purchase all of these tanks that they could find. Only to realize that these tanks were being paddled down rivers.
What a swell bit of irony if it is true. Any verification on this one?
As far as I know, the Falkland Islands War is the only occasion when a ship was sunk by a missile during combat. One of those Exocets sunk a British destroyer, an event that caused quite a stir in naval circles around the world. I’ve never heard the part about the British being unable to jam them because they were NATO stock though. I saw a special on this event on the History or Discovery Channel a while ago. The Exocet missile is really an interesting weapon. It’s basically just a huge flying bomb. When it hit the British destroyer it was like a using a shotgun to shoot a cat 10 feet away. It split the ship in half right across the middle and sank it almost instantly.
I know for a fact though that much of the Argentine Air Force at the time was composed of FRENCH warplanes. (I might add that this doesn’t necessarily make the very interesting anecdote related by Zenster untrue.) Some of the same planes used by the Argentine Air Force in the FI War were still in use several years ago. I actually saw an interview with the Colonel in the Argentine Air Force who sank that British destroyer, and he explained how the whole thing played out. I believe the plane he used was a Mirage III fighter.
It’s a rather weird chapter in South American history. It’s too bad people had to die for such a (relatively) worthless pile of rock.
Air-Air: several squadron of French Mirage III fighters; conventional bombing: a wing of American A-4 Skyhawks; Naval Aviation, Exocet platform: one squadron of Aerospatiale Super-Etendard; ground-support: some Italian light trainer jets. The guy in the interview was actually a Marine Aviator. HMS Sheffield was taken out by a hit right to a critical nerve centre of the ship, folowed by fire out of control, rather than being so dramatically blasted (Discovery’s footage is NOT of HMS Sheffield).
In any case, objectively speaking, April 1982 was the wrong time for the Armada de la República Argentina to go into a major war, specially against a main NATO power. In the first quarter of 1982 the ARA’s carrier “25 de mayo” was laid up for major repairs (from which it never recovered). This was a conventional, catapult-launching attack carrier, as opposed to the Brits’ Harrier-carriers. With the carrier out of service, the Argies had to launch all the way from bases in Patagonia that had never been meant to support a major campaign. Because of this the Air Force’s Mirages were limited to something like a minute in combat, ARA’s A-4’s had to carry reduced bomb loads and the Super-Etendards, even if the fleet ever came well within range, could only come as close as the outer reach of the Harriers – though ARA pilots are trained in Air-to-Air, those S-Es carried no AAMs to dogfight with. The two Argentine surface combatants of the time with really modern AAW/ASW capabilities, the Trinidad-class destroyers, were, wouldn’t you know it, British built - quite similar to Sheffield. Thus, no spare parts, and the other guys knew how to jam every last piece of EW gear on them. ARA’s long-range subs were old US diesel-electrics, one was taken out while surfaced off South Georgia. The Argentine Army of the time was a brass-bloated repression force that had spent the last decade killing its own citizens, and its main bulk of short-term, ill-paid conscripts was singularly unmotivated.
In any case, the strategic situation of Argentina from,well, forever, meant that their forces had never really prepared to fight a real air-superiority campaign, never mind conduct a long-range air war; nor to hold any sort of non-contiguous territory. All things considered ther AF/NA acquited themselves quite honorably. And one good thing came out of it: the generals so thoroughly disgraced themselves that democracy was restored by the following year and the military was greatly reduced in numbers and standing.
For what it’s worth Lizard, a quick check with a certain unnamed butler yielded, “The Falkland Islands / Islas Malvinas History and War of 1982”. Excerpts from the records that follow, bear out both of our aircraft assignations:
May 4, 1982
Argentine air attacks from Super Etendard fighter planes using Exocet air to surface missiles sink the British destroyer HMS Sheffield with twenty men on board. One British Harrier plane is shot down.
May 14, 1982
Three Argentine Skyhawks are shot down. Prime Minister Thatcher warns that peaceful settlement may not be possible. Special British forces night raid on Pebble Island; 11 Argentine aircraft destroyed on the ground.
May 25, 1982
HMS Coventry is hit by 3 1000 lb air bombs dropped from Argentine Skyhawks; 19 British dead. The MV Atlantic Conveyor is hit by an Exocet missile and sinks 3 days later, 12 more British dead.
Although the Argentine Air Force did use French Super Entendard fighter jets, they were also in possession of American built Douglas Skyhawk A-4 attack fighters as well. The vintage of the Douglas aircraft (Vietnam era) leads me to think that these were the planes in question. Their spares could have been on the open market by 1982.
Sadly, in the days of the cold war, the Falklands weren’t quite a, “worthless pile of rock”. Even if they are today.
(I attempted to provide links to the documentation, but they did not work when tested.)
Well, actually Argentina has disputed Brit rule over the Falkland/Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich since … well since there is a united Argentina (mid-XIXth century). Only never as, well, forcefully as in 1982.
Apparently back in the late 1700’s-early 1800’s Britain just took over the islands but never had Spain (at the time the presumptive Empire-in-charge) formally sign some piece of paper surrendering them. After the Napoleonic wars and the wars of Independence and some civil warfare and finally when by the 1850’s the dust settled, there was a proper Argentine government, who claimed that its borders were those of the Spanish settlements and claims on and off the SE of South America. But then it turned out some islands that were presumed to be theirs were being run by Britain. When they asked that since Spain had never really surrendered them to the UK they should be given back to Argentina, they were told quite naturally, take a hike, we conquered this horrid piece of land 50 years ago before your country existed. And have been resenting it ever since.
The Malvinas issue has been a matter of national pride for Argentina, and an on-and-off issue of for all its history. The Brits certainly didn’t help by an attitude that at times bordered on that it’s all just in the Gauchos’ neurotic heads. A very great exacerbation of the irredentist sentiment was promoted by those swell folk, the Peróns, and as in 1982, it’s whipped out whenever there’s a need to rouse the rabble.
jrd
Too complex to summarize in a post but a good book on this is The Battle for the Falklands by max Hastings and Simon Jenkins. Everything you need to know.
the site of the argentinians who fought: http://www.malvinas.com/
Don’t forget the people who live in the Falklands. Maybe they are just a bunch of lanolin smelling shepherds, but they all came from Britain, and they sing God Save the Queen and all that rubbish. They consider themselves Britons and do not want to be ruled by Argentina.
Surely, their desires had something to do with Britain’s response to the invasion.
Continuing the run of amusing anecdotes. Did any of you watch “TV Nation”, the TV show put together by Michael Moore of “Roger and Me” fame?
Apparently, a few years ago the Argentinian government offered the citizens of the Falklands about $200,000 per person to vote to join Argentina. They refused.
So, Moore takes his TV crew to a town in Wales (Maere?) where the mines are all tapped out, the industry has moved away and the population is about the same as the Falklands. He goes around asking people if they would be willing to join Argentina for $200,000. Most of them enthusiastically say yes. They hold a little Argentianian parade in the main street. Moore then takes the footage and a copy of a petition to join Argentina to the Argentinian Embassy.
One of the funniest things I have seen on television.
>> Don’t forget the people who live in the Falklands. Maybe they are just a bunch of lanolin smelling shepherds, but they all came from Britain, and they sing God Save the Queen and all that rubbish. They consider themselves Britons and do not want to be ruled by Argentina. Surely, their desires had something to do with Britain’s response to the invasion.
Gimme a break. You really believe that? If the UK determined it was not in their interest to keep the Falklands they would drop them like a hot potato without a thought for the few people who live there. They returned HongKong to China when they had no obligation and there were many more British subjects involved. But they determined it was not practical to keep HongKong after the New Territories returned to Chinese sovereignty and they just gave it all back to China and the people be damned.
I do not believe the settlers of the Falklands had anything to do with the whole thing.
Why were the Falklands so important?
It is worth noting that Thatcher did little to pursue a peaceful settlement. She realised that whipping up a little jingoistic fervour would do no harm to an ailing government. As a result she was returned in the 83 election with increased majority despite tripling unemployment.
Interesting grasp of facts, sailor. I’ll try to keep it simple. There was an obligation to give Hong Kong back - it was effectively leased from China, and the lease ran out. For some reason China was rather keen to get back one of the most dynamic markets in asia, so wouldn’t extend the lease. This left Britain with no legal or moral alternative but to hand Hong Kong over to the Peoples Republic. Strangely enough, it would have been much more in their interest to keep the colony.
As a Brit, I’m rather cynical about the whole thing.
My opinions / unchecked memories:
-
Britain acquired many territories over the centuries. The Falklands were never considered important, except perhaps as a foothold in the region. I suspect there may be some natural resources in its territorial waters.
-
Before the conflict, we were negotiating to hand the islands back to Argentina. We even withdrew some of our military force (= a warship), which may have helped precipitate the Argentinian action.
-
I think Prime Minister Thatcher saw the conflict as a great opportunity to divert attention from her unpopularity at home.
-
The Belgrano was sunk in international waters heading away from the Falklands. Thatcher was visibly uncomfortable when challenged about this on TV.
-
for sure, the views of the islanders meant nothing. I’m sure they couldn’t even vote in British elections.
-
most British people know where Gibraltar is, but had never heard of the Falklands until the conflict.
Gary Kumquat,
Wasn’t the Hong Kong lease issue quite complicated? Couldn’t we have argued for an extension?
(Mind you, I’m not sure of the morality of the way we acquired the lease).
In any case, there was no support for British people living in Hong Kong being allowed to come to Britain…
Glee,
The lease issue was complicated, but as you point out it’s initial morality was rather suspect and Britain was very unlikely to have got a favourable adjudication. This wasn’tr helped by China’s absolute insistence that they wanted the land back and would probably have ignored any outside bodies decision.
You are right about the very poor treatment that Hong Kong’s people got from the British government.