# Guardian and the Falklands **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468 "2012-01-14T03:06:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/21 "2012-01-14T19:09:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Obviously the latter. But we do not claim any Canadian territory nor do the Canadians any of ours. But the Argentinians do and have attempted to take over the Falklands militarily. > > And it would be absurd to have a conference when one side is totally correct anymore than there should be a conference if the US decided to claim say Nova Scotia. Incorrect: Here’s a quick list of [Canadian/US current border disputes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States). Note that several of these are significant, notably the Northwest Passage dispute. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/22 "2012-01-14T20:01:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The UK was willing to hand over several million of its subjects to China ( **which despite claims to the contrary, it was not obligated to do by treaty** ) I didn’t think there was ever any claim that Hong Kong had to be handed over to China. My understanding was that the lease on the New Territories ran out in 1997, the PRC made clear that there was no way that lease would be renewed, and without the New Territories it was untenable to continue holding Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/23 "2012-01-14T20:26:49Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > I didn’t think there was ever any claim that Hong Kong had to be handed over to China. My understanding was that the lease on the New Territories ran out in 1997, the PRC made clear that there was no way that lease would be renewed, and without the New Territories it was untenable to continue holding Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. I don’t think it was untenable. It would have been difficult to keep Hong Kong Island without the New Territories but it could have been done. As somebody pointed out, the UK has spent tens of billions of pounds on the Falkland Islands with only three thousand subjects there. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/24 "2012-01-15T01:38:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think it was untenable. It would have been difficult to keep Hong Kong Island without the New Territories but it could have been done. It absolutely was untenable. [Water supply was one of the biggest issues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Hong_Kong), since most of it is bought from Guangdong. Further, the NTs included all of the outlying islands including Lantau. So you have a place where perhaps a million existing residents of the NTs would want to cram into nothing more than HK island and the area of Kowloon south of Boundary Street, into housing that didn’t exist, in an area that was already one of the most crowded on the planet. Alternatively you tell NT residents that _they_ have to go back to China and their neighbours not - then quell the resultant riots at a time an inevitably hostile northern neighbour could hold you hostage by turning off the tap, while surrounding the territory and the seaways on major islands just a few hundred yards south and west. You could cite the Berlin air lift, but that wasn’t sustainable either - and didn’t involve water. Thatcher really had no choice, and the situation is very different to the Falklands. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/25 "2012-01-15T20:51:52Z")
Back to the OP; it’s pretty mainstream for the _Grauniad_ and you can find much more of the same among their CiF comments from its readers, who call it ‘Thatcher’s War’ and state that she planned the whole thing, let the Argentines in and allowed them to make themselves comfortable on the islands before taking them back, solely to get herself re-elected. The _Grauniad_ claims a large on-line readership among North American progressives and many of its articles nowadays make me think “what is this doing in a supposedly British newspaper?”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/26 "2012-01-16T01:49:31Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > It absolutely was untenable. [Water supply was one of the biggest issues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_in_Hong_Kong), since most of it is bought from Guangdong. Did China threaten to cut off the island’s water supply? I’ve never heard that such a threat was made. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/27 "2012-01-16T02:14:03Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Back to the OP; it’s pretty mainstream for the _Grauniad_… For those of us who don’t speak British, is this the same paper as noted in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/28 "2012-01-16T02:20:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > For those of us who don’t speak British, is this the same paper as noted in the OP? Satirical magazine _Private Eye_ coined the spelling, based on its unfortunate - and justified - reputation for typographical mistakes during the 1960s and 70s. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/29 "2012-01-16T02:47:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Did China threaten to cut off the island’s water supply? I’ve never heard that such a threat was made. The Chinese government had been stonewalling negotiations at every opportunity for a decade; while accepting the border _de facto_, in its negotiating position it didn’t even acknowledge the 1898 treaty that ceded HK island and Kowloon, since it said the treaty was coerced (which indeed it was). Withdrawal of resources may never have been a direct threat, but in the words of the last Governor, Chris Patten (_East and West_, pp. 12-13): > [@](#): > > While it would have been theoretically possible to retain the territory held by grant - a course of action urged on Britain in the early 1890s by some of those local Chinese advisers to the British governor who subsequently (such is politics) became cheerleaders for China - this would have been neither politically judicious nor administratively feasible. Hong Kong and the Kowloon peninsula - the land ceded outright by grant - depended on the hinterland of the New Territories and beyond for food and water. For Britain to have made a last imperial stand on the shores of the South China Sea would have risked local calamity and international obloquy. Who knows whether a direct threat was made behind closed doors? However, anyone dealing with as autocratic, aggressive and belligerent a government as the Chinese government was at the time would have understood the implications. It’s difficult to express how much the ‘occupation’ of Hong Kong by the British - they called Patten the ‘whore of the East,’ a ‘serpent’ and a ‘wrongdoer who would be condemned for a thousand generations’ (per [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten), but I too was there at the time and remember this all) - was resented by the people and government of China. To them it was a just reunification from evil imperialists, not a handover, and they would have done what they could to have stymied continued British rule. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/30 "2012-01-16T06:00:33Z")
Erratum: I mistyped the Patten quote. Please read “1980s” for “1890s” above. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/31 "2012-01-16T11:08:50Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Back to the OP; it’s pretty mainstream for the _Grauniad_ and you can find much more of the same among their CiF comments from its readers, who call it ‘Thatcher’s War’ and state that she planned the whole thing, let the Argentines in and allowed them to make themselves comfortable on the islands before taking them back, solely to get herself re-elected. > The _Grauniad_ claims a large on-line readership among North American progressives and many of its articles nowadays make me think “what is this doing in a supposedly British newspaper?”. True, I’m a Guardian reader but they have a very wide mix of articles. Still left leaning of course…sometimes almost horizontal but it doesn’t shy away for offering the opposite view and I find myself in agreement about 50% of the time. A healthy position to be in I think. As it happens on the subject of the Falklands war I tend to disagree with the Guardian editorial slant. I think it was about as just as a war gets and Thatcher, for all her faults, was the right leader for the time. The fury over the Belgrano was misplaced, a total non issue. It was a legitimate act. Even the Argentinian government agree with that position. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/32 "2012-01-16T14:16:45Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Back to the OP; it’s pretty mainstream for the _Grauniad_ and you can find much more of the same among their CiF comments from its readers, who call it ‘Thatcher’s War’ and state that she planned the whole thing, let the Argentines in and allowed them to make themselves comfortable on the islands before taking them back, solely to get herself re-elected. > The _Grauniad_ claims a large on-line readership among North American progressives and many of its articles nowadays make me think “what is this doing in a supposedly British newspaper?”. Yeah, the article linked in the OP is the Comment is Free section, which isn’t part of the regular paper. CiF articles can be pretty far out, bordering on the ludicrous, and the commenters on the articles are the left wing version of Telegraph readers: hysterical ideologues who never let facts get in the way of a good rage against members of the opposing tribe. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/33 "2012-01-16T14:43:38Z")
The Guardian, like most British newspapers, presents a broad range of opinions in comment and editorial sections. Tory MP’s regularly get a voice and even the British National Party leader gets the odd chance to strut his stuff. That’s what newspapers should be like. In these austere times it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether spending billions to ‘defend’ the Falklands instead of coming to a diplomatic solution is sensible or affordable. But I agree - this is about oil and antarctic claims - not sovereignty. Much as I hate Thratcher and much as I believe her own defence cuts in the area gave the wrong signal to the Argentine junta, I still believe the Falklands war was necessary. And I still don’t give a damn which direction the Belgrano was sailing in. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/34 "2012-01-16T18:27:14Z")
Having been much closer to the Falklands war, and knowing with some certainty what happened, the view that it was a just war is very, …distorted. You should read through previous posts I have made, probably goes back a few years, but I am not all that interested in laying it all out yet again since it will not change much, governments the world over continue to behave in similarfashion, from Pakistan in Afghanistan, through to the US in Iraq, to various central African states involvment in Congo or Rwanda. Nothing changes and the powers in place dont change, nor do their intentions, all that happens periodically is that the electorate sometimes get to decide which outlook informs national government practices. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/35 "2012-01-16T18:48:02Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Yeah, the article linked in the OP is the Comment is Free section, which isn’t part of the regular paper. CiF articles can be pretty far out, bordering on the ludicrous, and the commenters on the articles are the left wing version of Telegraph readers: hysterical ideologues who never let facts get in the way of a good rage against members of the opposing tribe. While what you say about CIF is true as far as I can see (and recall when I first read it in print) this article was actually an editorial one from the paper. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/36 "2012-01-16T19:14:56Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Having been much closer to the Falklands war, and knowing with some certainty what happened, the view that it was a just war is very, …distorted. Unless my eyes deceived me, the Argentinians invaded another nation without provocation. There would have to be a whole shed-load of distortion to negate the justification there! ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/37 "2012-01-16T20:57:41Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Having been much closer to the Falklands war, and knowing with some certainty what happened, the view that it was a just war is very, …distorted. For those who don’t care to search, **casdave** served in the Royal Navy during the Falklands War and took part in it. But being there doesn’t mean that you get to judge any better on what happened before. Yes there were screw-ups, but defending freedom is worth the price. Just as it was in Korea and Malaya and elsewhere. My uncle was out there too, in the Army, and part of that price was his health. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/38 "2012-01-17T18:52:32Z")
I was there during a deterrance operation, one of three, and these took place during the previous administration. You’ll note that we do not send out resources on deterrance missions without good reason to do so, ie. Intelligence. It is impossible for that final invasion not to have been flagged up prior o the event, we knew it was going to happen, we did nothing about it, you can speculate why we didnt send a fourth deterrent mission, if we had then there would have been no war, and no war would certainly have meant that Thatcher would not have been reelected. Look back at the post I made that lays out what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/39 "2012-01-17T21:57:48Z")
Casdave, Are you seriously suggesting that we invited the invasion? That is some industrial-strength conspiracy theory. Do you have anything to back it up? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468/40 "2012-01-17T22:41:51Z")
The intelligence failures that led to Britain not correctly reading Argentine intentions are pretty well documented, and in fact **the previous deterrence missions were one of the very reasons the British government missed the oncoming invasion** ; in effect, “wolf” had been cried, money had been spent, and nobody wanted to go chasing a snipe again. There isn’t any credible evidence the UK invited the invasion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guardian-and-the-falklands/609468.md?page=3)