Comments by "Neil of Longbeck" (@neiloflongbeck5705) on "Historigraph" channel.

Yes, it was legal. All Argentinian warships in international waters or Argentinian waters could be attacked. They did not need to be within the exclusion zone to be legitimate targets. This was announced to the Argentinians on 23/4/1982 a full week before the Martime Exclusion Zone became a Total Exclusion Zone. The Exclusion Zone was there for the benefit of neutral shipping but under international law the position and heading of any vessel of any of the belligerents have no bearing on the vessel's status. The Captain of the Belgrano confirmed that his ship was a legitimate target as did the Argentine government in 1994.
12
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.
9
@rob5944 I've heard several possibilities. Everything from his womanising (originally father was mother) through to financial corruption. The truth is now lost to time.
3
@phillipnagle9651 prove it. You've made a statement, now provide your evidence to support your claim.
3
@phillipnagle9651 again your opening statement is only an opinion and has no more value than any other opinion.
3
@phillipnagle9651 thanks for confirming that you are a troll. I asked for a source to backmul your assertions and you just can't do it.
3
@phillipnagle9651 writing on a bus is never easy, you were lucky to get a coherent sentence with only a handful of errors. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence to back up your initial statement. All of which you have refused to do. Save for your first reply Tommy post, all you do is insult, deflect and prevaricate like the troll, you are. I'm not taking a position that is contrary to yours, but wanting to find out if it is just your opinion or are there any facts that support your position. You never know I might have agreed with you, but now you've burnt your boats and whether or not you have any supporting evidence your opinion is not worth any further response.
3
@rob5944 well John Nott did storm off Nationwide when Robin Day asked him whether the public should trust a here today and gone tomorrow politician over a senior RN officer (you can relive that moment on YT).
2
@rob5944 it's been going in a long time, remember Lloyd George knew my great grandfather and what's more great grandfather knew Lloyd George (sung to the tune of Onward Christian Soldiers as infinitum) and that's just one of the many historic scandals.
2
@phillipnagle9651 yep. So what? If you can't backup an opinion it's not worth anything. I want to know uf you're able to back up your assertion or are you just a sad little troll? If the former then give us the supporting evidence. If not, then no one should listen to you.
2
@BigBoomOfDoom2 the RN did use navalised versions of the Hurricane (the Sea Hurricane) and the Spitfire (the Seafire). But neither had structures that were robust enough for long term operation at sea.
2
@phillipnagle9651 you are a joke. My second posting states which of your postings I am referring to - your initial posting. The situation in the Indian Ocean has no bearing on your initial posting nor dies ghe quality or lack thereof of the ships and planes. Unlike the others that are arguing that your opinion is wrong, I'm asking you to provide facts not opinions.
2
@BigBoomOfDoom2 the Sea Hurricane came along too late in the life of the Hurricana and not much more erformance could be wrung out of the airframe. As for the Seafire it was a war expediency measure and was a crude modification of the Spitfire compared to a fresh design straight from the drawning board. But as you pointed out of the priority had always been for the land based models iv the Spitfire.
2
@rob5944 nope, there's nothing new under the Sun.
1
@rob5944 a bit like every government since the mid-1960s with the ending of the British East of Suez commitments. But he did have to cut his cloth in line with the country's financial situation. Since the 1967 devaluation we had had the best part of 15 years of industrial turmoil and decline. In 1982 many parts if the country were still dealing with the recession of the early 1980s with no view of any prosperity that was supposed to come from the slimming down of the nationalised industries. Tax income had fallen with each person removed from the workforce and each business closed. If was political suicide to cut the welfare state including the NHS or education, but cutting military spending was seen as fair game as was reducing the number of people who could call themselves British, which including the people of the Falklsnds (one of the reasons why the Argentinians though we wouldn't fight for them). Unfortunately political actions and inactions tend to blight the country hard a decade or more down the line. An example if this us the devaluation of November 1967. After the best part of 3 years trying to support the value of the Pound the Labour government had to allowing to be devalued by 14%. The causes are many, but include a worse balance of payments deficit (£800 million instead of the expected £400 million run up under the preceding Conservative government), overmanning in industry encouraged by Conservative policies intended to reduce unemployment, lack of investment in new equipment and techniques and unions resisting to changes (some of which would have benefitted their members in terms of health and safety and other areas).
1
@rob5944 unfortunately we keep doing this to ourselves and we never learn. You can always predict which party will win any general election. They're the one who tell you that they will tax you the least but spend the most. It never fails.
1
@rob5944 unfortunately we keep doing this to ourselves and we never learn. You can always predict which party will win any general election. They're the one who tell you that they will tax you the least but spend the most. It never fails.
1
The Sun went with Gotcha!
1
@phillipnagle9651 your original assertion. I've looked at your other posts - lots if opinions but no sources.
1
They made a film about the San Demetriano.
1