Released Files Reveal The US Were Going To Betray Britain Over The Falklands War

Newly declassified files reveal that the the US were about to inform Argentina of our troops landing in the Falklands.. If it was not for Maggie Thatchers intervention.. Hundreds of British troops would have been massacered on arrival..

Newly declassified files reveal that Britain's historic allies wanted to tell Argentina that the task force was planning to retake South Georgia, the first of the islands to be invaded by Argentina, on April 21.

The operation on South Georgia was the first stage of the campaign to retake the Falklands and it would have been disastrous had Argentina been forewarned.

DailyMail.Co.UK

I will put my opinion in later .. But all I can manage right now is a big pfffffft

There was also a plan to allow UK forces to operate off the USS Iwo Jima if they lost a carrier in the Falklands, as well as giving satellite and intelligence support to the UK. The fear was that the war would drag out, and the Soviets would get involved. The Soviet leadership at the time offered ships and weapons in return for grain.

I don't really know anything about the Falklands War other than I have heard the name before. I had to look it up on wikipedia, but it looks as though it were a long-standing dispute over sovereignty. So I'm curious prior to British control, who did this land belong to? I know the British were very good at just going in and taking land, look at how the US got started afterall.. So did it belong to the Argentinians prior to the British? Why would the US have told them? Is it possible maybe the British were not in the right? Or was the US govt just being their typical ahole corrupt selves? I'm too tired to read the whole of the wikipedia article and teach myself about the Falklands war right now so it is difficult to have an opinion on what the US did or did not do. I'll have to read up on it more and then weigh in.

How does it feel to be the mother of a 1000 dead?

What a waste of money and lives that was eh?

The war was actually planned between thatcher and Argentina. thatcher needed a popularity boost (and an ego boost), and Argentina were in a financial crises and social unrest due to the military takeover and their killing of civilians. Patriotism on both sides increased, and the respective leaders popularity boosted. The Argentinians forgot about the crises, and thatcher was voted in for another term. The people were played by their respective governments.

reagan appealed to thatcher to not invade.

reply to post by MaMaa


The US backed the UK, but wanted a diplomatic solution, instead of a war. The thinking was that the UK was fighting so far from home, that the war would drag on for months, or even years, and the Soviets would get involved, which would drag the US into it, and then the whole thing blows up into something huge. So they were trying to force a diplomatic solution to the whole thing.

reply to post by MaMaa


Historically, the Falklands belong to the British. The history of the islands is chequered, the first settlers were British who left because of the American war for independence, then the Spanish moved in. Eventually, the Spanish upped sticks and left for whatever reason, and the British moved back.

The current residents of the island identify as British, and I was talking to an Anonymous a few months ago who claimed that he called a random pub on the island and asked the manager how he identified: the reply was "British."

The Argentine claim on the island is based solely on proximity. Seriously, the Argentinians have absolutely no claim on the land other than "it's near us."

The recent interest in the area is due to the discovery of several years worth of oil beneath the island's waters.

www.guardian.co.uk...

As for the political implications of America hedging its bets between Argentina and the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain: lol politicians.

reply to post by ANOK


I refuse to believe that one person, two people, or several people would be so callous as to risk the lives and eventually end the lives of hundreds of servicemen on both sides. Please provide evidence.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MaMaa

 

The US backed the UK, but wanted a diplomatic solution, instead of a war. The thinking was that the UK was fighting so far from home, that the war would drag on for months, or even years, and the Soviets would get involved, which would drag the US into it, and then the whole thing blows up into something huge. So they were trying to force a diplomatic solution to the whole thing.

Indeed. Argentina along with Chile and Brazil formed the formed the United States bulwark against communist expansion into South America. Losing Argentina to the Soviets over the war could have started a whole new level of Soviet expansion into the region. This conflict put the US in the worst possible position. Support a long time ally and possible lose South America or support you newer ally and anger your old friend. We are lucky the UK managed to pull it off, it was a very near thing.

So I read a little bit more and it looks as though French, British, Spaniards and Argentinians have all at one point claimed the Falkland islands. So what gives the British more right to it than the Argentinians? Evidently there is evidence of the islands being discovered by a Portuguese expedition before Magellan even set sail. According to wikipedia there are two very early maps, one made by a Portuguese cartographer and another by the French. So basically it boils down to looking like the Brits getting mad someone else was trying to take the Falkland Islands because they considered it theirs, even though it obviously belonged to someone else prior.

I can't say that I am all aghast at this revelation that the US wanted to warn the Argentinians. And what is this about Reagan urging Thatcher to not humiliate the Argentinians? Clearly I need to learn more about the Falklands War, but admittedly I am not a big fan of how the British went around just taking everything they felt was their god given right to have. I also find it distasteful to hear it called "The Queen's Islands". No one person should have so much power and authority, it isn't 'her' island, it belongs to the people who inhabit it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MaMaa

 

The US backed the UK, but wanted a diplomatic solution, instead of a war. The thinking was that the UK was fighting so far from home, that the war would drag on for months, or even years, and the Soviets would get involved, which would drag the US into it, and then the whole thing blows up into something huge. So they were trying to force a diplomatic solution to the whole thing.

Diplomacy Schmaplomacy..

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MaMaa

 

The US backed the UK, but wanted a diplomatic solution, instead of a war. The thinking was that the UK was fighting so far from home, that the war would drag on for months, or even years, and the Soviets would get involved, which would drag the US into it, and then the whole thing blows up into something huge. So they were trying to force a diplomatic solution to the whole thing.

Diplomacy Schmaplomacy..

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by MaMaa

 

Historically, the Falklands belong to the British. The history of the islands is chequered, the first settlers were British who left because of the American war for independence, then the Spanish moved in. Eventually, the Spanish upped sticks and left for whatever reason, and the British moved back.

The current residents of the island identify as British, and I was talking to an Anonymous a few months ago who claimed that he called a random pub on the island and asked the manager how he identified: the reply was "British."

The Argentine claim on the island is based solely on proximity. Seriously, the Argentinians have absolutely no claim on the land other than "it's near us."

The recent interest in the area is due to the discovery of several years worth of oil beneath the island's waters.

www.guardian.co.uk...

As for the political implications of America hedging its bets between Argentina and the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain: lol politicians.

So the inhabitants didn't want Argentine to take over.. which is far more important to me than what some stupid politician or queen wants anyway. If they are all 'british' and wish to remain as such then that means far more as far as I'm concerned. I can't however imagine that Argentine wanted the island only because it was close to them. It seems as though they felt just as entitled to the land as the British did.

reply to post by MaMaa


As I said earlier, initially settled by the British, then the Spanish, then the British again.

A quick google (read: wikipedia) indicates that the Portuguese discovered the island, but didn't settle it.

Originally posted by Dispo
I refuse to believe that one person, two people, or several people would be so callous as to risk the lives and eventually end the lives of hundreds of servicemen on both sides. Please provide evidence.

Really? Then you are naive as to how government operate.

I can't really give you any evidence, at the time of the war there was a military insider that was leaking classified info to a certain anarchist organization I was involved with. This was all before the net of course, so there really isn't anything to link you to. I have no reason to make this up.

Take it as you wish, I really don't care. The outcome though certainly did help both governments immensely didn't it? I guess that was just a lucky coincidence eh?

I refuse to believe an entity as powerful as the government wouldn't be so callous. So what was the war about then? It was pointless, and government don't do things for nothing.

Originally posted by Dispo
As for the political implications of America hedging its bets between Argentina and the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain: lol politicians.

Politicians indeed! I have always said the problem with politicians is politicians! That said, I have no love for England nor my own politicians here in the US so my opinion of anything they do tends to be pretty low. Presidents, Queens, Parliament, Congress, Senate, ect.... all a bunch of corrupt nincompoops. Yes.. I'm cynical and grumpy tonight.. LOL

reply to post by MaMaa


Argentina says it inherited the islands from Spain, but as I said, the Spanish were not the initial or final inhabitants. They cannot bequeath something they do not own.

The only legitimate claim the Argentinians have on the island is that it is as close to them as Cuba is to Florida.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by MaMaa

 

As I said earlier, initially settled by the British, then the Spanish, then the British again.

A quick google (read: wikipedia) indicates that the Portuguese discovered the island, but didn't settle it.

Slowly reading wikipedia on the matter. I read a bit, then my eyes glazed over, a kid came in and a cat ran across my laptop.. Funny how when I'm doing nothing of any importance cats and kids are no where to be found. As soon as I find something I want to do, boom.. they are all right there! LOL

reply to post by ANOK


The tories are regularly referred to as "friends of the forces" in Britain.

I refuse to believe that any single individual would be so cruel that they would kill several hundred of their soldiers in order to retain their position, even though any ex-PM can get any job they want on any wage they want.

It's a disgusting thought, and I refuse to believe it. If you can provide objective evidence of your claim I'll apologise and stop posting in this thread, but as it stands I have too much faith in human nature to believe you.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by MaMaa

 

Argentina says it inherited the islands from Spain, but as I said, the Spanish were not the initial or final inhabitants. They cannot bequeath something they do not own.

The only legitimate claim the Argentinians have on the island is that it is as close to them as Cuba is to Florida.

But what makes their claim any less valid? I wonder how many 'spanish' are still on the island since Spain had it before England. We can't say that the British are the final inhabitants of the island though, who knows what will come. But really to me it is more important what the inhabitants want, not what any country wants. I mean I suppose it wouldn't be much different than if Mexico tried to take Texas. Of course the US would fight for it because it has been a part of our country for so long and the people who live there consider themselves American. (well actually some areas are predominantly Mexican/Hispanic and they might be ok with it becoming part of Mexico again).

reply to post by Dispo


You can refuse all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

You must be really young or just really naive to think they wouldn't sacrifice military members for their agenda. That's what they have a military for lol.

Perhaps you fail to realise the importance of popularity when it comes to politicians. thatcher had to be re-elected because she hadn't finished decimating the working class yet.