Talk:Invasion of South Georgia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy edit req[edit]

Badly needs copy-editing to clean up the text. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry on that score, Darius and I have worked like this before, I usually help by copy editing his articles. Justin talk 12:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astiz[edit]

He was many things, but surely not a commando unless we are talking about the gov propaganda about how the Lagartos team were still fighting down there. Now, I cannot find any good source about the rest of his companions to tell if they were all from naval intelligence like him or if some of them were really buzos tacticos. Can we please rephase this group of men to another thing instead of commandos, may be using some tag or something. Any help will be appreciate.--Jor70 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately sources also claim he was a Buzo Tactico. Justin talk 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Jor but, as Justin said, two major sources of this article (one Argentine (Mayorga), one British (The Argentine Invasion of South Georgia)) classify these troops as commandos. I have my doubts also, but we should rely on what sources say. In any case, one thing is certain: Astiz had some training as diver and para, but he was not a naval commando. Furthermore, none of his rank insignia seized by the British after Operation Paraquat belongs either to the Amphibious Commandos or the Tactical Divers. I think we can reach a compromise calling them "special forces", but we cannot waive Wikipedia policies about WP:V and WP:OR.--Darius (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what about something like: a 10 men commandos team, according sources, lead by Astiz who was a blabla on the first occurence and then to use Astiz group for the rest of the occurrences. any thoughts ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Jor. Your proposal adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, and simultaneously leaves ground for a consensus solution. I agree.--Darius (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys provided in the first case you follow WP:V I have no objections. Just out of interest, I know that many of those guilty of crimes in the Dirty War pretty much got away with it but how can a guy who shot a frightened teenage girl in the back not see jail time? Justin talk 08:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a long story Justin:
  • First of all, the justice system fom 1976 to 1983 was under close military scrutiny; the tribunals had some degree of independence regarding civilian issues, but they cannot investigate or prosecute (not to mention indict) those members of the military involved in the Dirty War.
  • The coward shooting of a teen girl (Dagmar Hagelin, a Swedish citizen) and the kidnapping of two French nuns were undercover operations, not known at all by the Argentine people until 1983. Obviously, there is little ground for accountability in a military regime.
  • After 1983, Astiz was one of the first FAA officials (besides top-brass like Videla, Massera, Galtieri) charged and condemned for Human Right abuses. He was set free in 1987 by a President Alfonsín's law which exonerated medium and low rank officials and NCOs on the basis that they acted under superior orders (Leyes de punto final y obediencia debida). However, the sucessive legislatures gradually introduced amendments to the law and eventually repelled it. Astiz ended up in jail again during 2006 and as long as I know he remains there, battling against a pancreatic cancer (no tears for him, of course).
  • The following example is not intended to offend Justin; I hope you could understand that this is just a comparision with another awful situation close to you (I guess you live in Britain) and in no way an anti-British statement. I read somewhere (Tony Gheraghty's The Irish War, page 65) that a couple of members of the PARA regiment killed in action in the Falklands took part in Bloody Sunday, and two teenager girls (Carol Ann Kelly and Julie Livingstone) were killed by the BA in Belfast during the 1981 Hunger Strike (no soldiers charged); it's obvious that impunity regarding human rights abuses committed by the military was not an exclusive phenomenon of Argentina, even if the country was ruled by a vicious dictatorship. If you want other examples, you have the failure of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian tribunals to judge war criminals in their own jurisdiction or the 'blindness' of EU countries in the case of CIA clandestine jails for alleged terrorists.
  • Even today, justice in Argentina sucks: I know of people that having commited murder on 2002 are now free under parole. And the guy is a civilian. Imagine a military officer in 1982.
Unindent: All OK with Mayorga's map of Grytviken?. Regards.
  • Darius, as a Scotsman who has family on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland I don't comment on issues related to the Troubles because to be frank I despise the morons on both sides responsible for 30 years of misery. Lets just say I fundamentally disagree with your analogy. Justin talk 21:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, Justin. It wasn't my intention to upset anybody, but I realise now that this was an unfortunate comparision. I'am sorry.--Darius (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
astiz is in jail again ( he already was sometime in the 1980s) after current administration reinitiates trials after 1990s pardons. what really atonished me how Britain did not give it to France after all the help the french give them during the war --Jor70 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename article[edit]

It would be better to discuss this before making such change --Jor70 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Jor. There was another military operation (although not properly an invasion) related to the island which took place during WWII. The German commerce raider Pinguin captured a fleet of 11 Norwegian whalers (under British chart) off South Georgia in January 1941. The home base of those ships was either Grytviken or Leith. Although the Germans didn't land (as far as I know from the sources) a Google search could mislead people looking for the 1941 action. The original name would prevent such ambiguity.--Darius (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the change was in line with the MOS, there really is no need to disambiguate the article with a date (though it does fit with the format used on the Falklands War article). The 1941 incident wouldn't cause confusion as far as I can see, since it wasn't actually an invasion. Having said that its no biggy, so if you feel strongly about it, I have no objections to moving it back. Justin talk 08:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think it's better without the date, but no objections to it being changed back. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, as Justin rightly says, the only purpose of including the date was to fit with the format of the invasion of the Falklands article. My mention of the 1941 incident was a "just in case", and not an argument for moving back. I have no problem with the change.--Darius (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrico[edit]

I'm concerned the edit on Guerrico may be slightly misleading. It implies that it took 3 days to repair, dry dock time would be required to repair the hull and make it water tight. Repair time would be the total time it took to return to service, Guerrico took no further part in the war and she was cannibalised for spare parts to improvise an Exocet launcher for the Falklands. My suggestion would be to add she took no further part in the war and leave it at that. Justin talk 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When looking through sources relating to the current discussion on the main Falklands War article, I thought I did see Guerrico mentioned as part of the ARA task forces aroudn the time of the Belgrano sinking, but since I was concentrating on Belgrano, I may not have read properly. David Underdown (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were perhaps mistaken. Guerrico took no further part in the war. Her Exocet launchers were removed and used in the improvised trailer mounted launcher used to attack Glamorgan(? not sure that was the ship). Justin talk 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea it was Glamorgan. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I defnitely read what I thought I read. The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, David Brown, Leo Cooper (publisher), 1987, ISBN 9780850520590, p.120 has the "recently repaired Guerrico" as part of the ARA TG79.4 consisting of three corvettes operating to the north of the Argentine task force containing 25 de Mayo on 1 May, in the build up to the sinking of Belgrano. Now Brown may have got it wrong of course, but he seems to have pretty solid credentials. David Underdown (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked another reference that says the same thing. Yet equally I've seen it that Guerrico was out of the war and of course there is the improvised launcher I referred to. Perhaps Jor70 or Darius could comment. Justin talk 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys. All Argentine sources -even those noted for their criticism of the conduct of the war- agree that three corvettes where part of the northern Task Force of the Argentine fleet at the time of the sinking of Belgrano. Until today, I was convinced that Guerrico -whatever ther cause- was not involved on these operations, but after re-reading a good number of authors, there is no doubt that she was operational by 1 May along with her sister ships. As for the land-launched Exocet, some sources assert it was stripped down from the old destroyer ARA Seguí, a former US Sumner class.--Darius (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mills' Marines[edit]

The article says "Mills approached the Argentine positions waving a white coat, and surrendered,[6] "after achieving his aim of compelling the Argentine troops to use military force." - Can anyone fill in WHY that was his aim? I don't have access to this information and it seems like that only glaring omission in the article.

A forcible, armed, opposed invasion would have been easier to object to in international fora such as the UN rather than just strolling in unopposed and setting up shop. PatLurcock (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guerrico-1980s.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Guerrico-1980s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Guerrico-1980s.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invasion of South Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invasion of South Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BAS chapter of the story...[edit]

The BAS team (which also included a research student from Aberdeen University) on the island at the start of this phase of the conflict was in several components and locations - those on the KEP base and those at the various field stations and working locations, including Cindy Buxton and Annie Price at St.Andrew's Bay (SAB)(2) and the Bird Island Team and those of us at Lyell Glacier Hut (2). The dispersal of some KEP staff to the latter two locations, and the removal of the main group - captured by the Argentine party and missing for a number of days until released in Montevideo - changed the numbers and the dynamics. The Thirteen left on the island as the conflict deepened had a challenging time coping with the limited communications, the decline of weather conditions at the end of the summer field season, lack of clarity on the trajectory of the conflict locally and the shortage in the Lyell case of adequate supplies. This period 2-24 April is somewhat better captured in the relevant sections in Bob (Robert) Headland's and also in Cindy Buxton's books. Though the Lyell story and the Bird Island men's experience are also less well articulated. After the RRS Bransfield left the area, the SAB/SG party was clandestinely supported by HMS Endurance, but the rest of the BAS team was more isolated and left in the end to be gathered and evacuated from KEP via HMS Antrim and HMS Antelope. That experience was a whole further story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:701D:F901:84BC:2B8C:D0EF:8066 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Mills[edit]

Try googling this for a YouTube interview with Mills.South Georgia: Royal Marines Fight Off An Invasion. I cannot get a better link. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_South_Georgia&oldid=1207731539"