Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Sinking of the General Belgrano - Falklands War Documentary" video.

  1. Er. An elected leader of a democratic country. Unlike General Galtieri, if I recall correctly.
    5
  2. I suppose it would be expecting too much to ask you to explain why it was a 'war crime?'
    4
  3.  @rickblomerus696  'A war mongering people.' Unfair. I doubt that the people of Argentina were warmongers. Athough it seems that their government was.
    3
  4.  @mickzammit6794  Struggling, old chap? In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot. In 1841 a British civilian lieutenant governor was appointed for the Falklands, and by 1885 a British community of some 1,800 people on the islands was self-supporting. Please explain the difference between a self-supporting community on the Falklands, and the first settlers in the United States or Australia. Are you seeking to suggest that the community on the Falklands was some sort of invasion force? You will find difficulty trying to argue that one. Oh, and you haven't yet explained why a community which has been settled on the Falklands for almost 200 years has no rights, but an invasion by a military dictatorship is, in your opinion, quite acceptable.
    3
  5.  @mickzammit6794  'Who gives a hoot how long the settlers have been there?' Well, I suggest that anyone with any integrity would. Clearly, that wouldn't apply to you. Again to use your rather threadbare argument, weren't Spanish & Portuguese settlements in South America, and English/British/French/Dutch settlements in North America, established in similar manners? To use your terms, ' Who gives a hoot how long the settlers have been there?' All new world settlers of European descent, as well as those who illegally occupy Australia and New Zealand, must be expelled at once. Alternative, don't waste your time posting further nonsense.
    3
  6. Which is irrelevant. On 23 April the British government had told their Argentinian counterparts that any Argentinian warship considered to be a threat to the Task Force would be attacked. The TEZ referred to ships of other nations. I assume you know that ships can change direction and speed very quickly?
    3
  7. The submarine did not use her Tigerfish. She used Mark VIIIs, the design of which actually dated back to 1927.
    3
  8. To follow that argument, there should not be anyone of European origin living in any part of the New World.
    2
  9.  @rickblomerus696  But to return to your original post, which 'rules of engagement' did the British actually change? 'Warmongering?' Which wars have the British actually 'mongered?'
    2
  10.  @mickzammit6794  Presumably you don't consider the right to self-determination of the people who actually live on the islands to be of any relevance or importance?
    2
  11.  @mickzammit6794  So you don't believe that the people living there have any rights? Thank you for making that clear. There are many people of European origin living in the New World, or in places like New Zealand and Australia. I assume that you wish to be consistent, and demand that they be expelled as well?
    2
  12. A simple comment certainly, if not a factual one.
    2
  13. Perhaps you should actually read what the terms of the Total Exclusion Zone were. They stated that any sea vessel or aircraft from any country entering the zone may be fired upon without further warning. Rear Admiral Allara, who commanded the Belgrano Task Force, later said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". The message of 23 April, of course, was the British declaration of the TEZ. On the same day, a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, that the British Government had determined that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces anywhere in the South Atlantic would be attacked.
    2
  14. Actually, my memory of the time is that people like Michael Foot were almost desperate for the Task Force to suffer heavy casualties.
    2
  15. I suspect many of the people who criticise the sinking are really annoyed by the outcome of the war itself, and the effect it had on British politics.
    2
  16. Not really, HMS Hermes was initially to have been named HMS Elephant.
    2
  17.  @red5llaw  I see the problem here. You think that conflict is a sporting contest akin to tennis. Did the US Navy behave in a similar kindly manner at Leyte Gulf?
    2
  18. But effective.
    1
  19. Presumably, by 'occupying' you refer to the inhabitants of the islands who, in a recent referendum, voted around 98% in favour of remaining a British Overseas Territory? Or perhaps you only believe in the right to Self-determination when it suits your personal prejudices?
    1
  20. Why should the residents accept forcible re-location? Some of the families have lived there for several generations. How would you respond to a demand that all non-native Americans be forcibly repatriated to the nations their ancestors came from?
    1
  21.  @minerran  The islanders have lived there for several generations. It is their home. Would you be happy if told that the United States was to be handed over to the Native Americans, and all people of European descent must either accept the fact or leave?
    1
  22. What are you talking about? Perhaps you should try thinking. Belgrano sank on 2 May. The conflict ended on 14 June.
    1
  23. Belgrano was not alone. She had escorting vessels with her.
    1
  24. I assume you have a credible source?
    1
  25. As you haven't replied, you obviously haven't.
    1
  26. At the time, it was far from certain that the British would prevail. Certainly, the US military had considerable doubts about the outcome. I appreciate, however, that with some people, where Thatcher is concerned, rational thought must be suspended.
    1
  27.  @robbates-diy6205  Except Thatcher did not precipitate the war, Galtieri did. Moreover, how would a defeat have boosted Thatcher in the polls? If I recall correctly the defeat of Argentina didn't do much for the General.
    1
  28. Actually, I think that most of the claims about 'illegality' come not from Argentina but from the leftist element in the UK who resent what followed.
    1
  29. The TEZ did not apply to Argentinian assets in any case, On 23 April, in a message that was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, the British Government clarified that any Argentine ship or aircraft that was considered to pose a threat to British forces anywhere in the South Atlantic would be attacked.
    1
  30.  @Delogros  As I expected, the usual answer of the ignorant and ill-informed. You made the comment. You try to justify it.
    1
  31.  @Delogros  I don't recall saying that it wasn't. I do, however, suspect that there had been an error on my part, in that I thought your reply was to me, when I now realise that it was to the original poster. Apologies, and of course I agree with you.
    1
  32.  @Delogros  Not to worry. I would have reacted in a similar manner. It is a pity that replies on here aren't always prefixed by the identity of the person to whom they are addressed. It would have saved me some embarrassment on this occasion!
    1
  33.  @Delogros  Then, it seems, neither had the Argentinian Navy.
    1
  34. I can still recall how horrified Michael Foot was when the Task Force succeeded. Or the various left wing student groups at my University suddenly falling in love with President Galtieri.
    1
  35. In point of fact, at the time of the attack at Mers el Kebir, France was no longer an ally of Britain. The alliance ended at the time the Reynaud administration collapsed. Thereafter Petain signed an armistice with Germany on 22 June, 1940, one clause of which required that the French fleet be returned to mainland French ports, and placed under German 'supervision.' The idea that Vichy might commit the French fleet in support of a seaborne invasion of Britain was not a 'whim' it was a real fear.
    1
  36. Task Force 79.2 included three Drummond class corvettes, each armed with four Exocet MM38s. Type 42 were also armed with 4 MM38s each.
    1
  37. The Exclusion Zone is irrelevant. It did not apply to Argentininan ships or aircraft, and the Argentinian government had been informed of this.
    1
  38. Why don't you try to tell us about them?
    1
  39. Then why have you bothered to post? TWICE?
    1