Jump to content

Talk:Falklands War

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.53.138 (talk) at 10:10, 27 December 2018 (→‎Public opinion in the UK: Info). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateFalklands War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
November 20, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Falklands War. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding other countries as combatants

I think the regular contributors to this page may be slightly tetchy at the perpetual attempts to add other nations as "combatants". At various points, we've had Libya, Israel, Peru, Cuba etc added on the Argentine side. At other points, all the members of the EU, the US, NZ etc added on the British side. There were only two combatants, the UK and Argentina and the usual refrain "it's sourced so it MUST go again" really doesn't cut the mustard. They're not sourced as combatants, they're sourced as providing some form of aid. Consensus has always been not to and we do not do so with other conflicts. WCMemail 08:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Something the literature on the war (including the very detailed British official history) makes clear is that all the countries who supported Argentina and the UK took great care to avoid becoming a combatant, or even being seen as being aligned too closely with the one side. An odd feature of the war was that most of Argentina's supporters had good relations with the UK, and vice versa, and wanted to maintain this situation to the extent possible. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with WCM and Nick-D. Another point is that Cuba was listed under Material Support. We have an article which Material support redirects to, and there is no way MartinKassemJ120's addition of Cuba was remotely relevant to that. Moriori (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For much of the conflict the US (i.e., in the person of Al Haig) was actively trying to persuade the Argentinians to accept mediation talks with the UK as the UK Task Force headed south, and so other countries tried not to come down in support of either side.
The term 'combatants' refers to fighting and AFAICS only the UK and Argentina actually did any fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check quote from Ward

Quoting in the references section from Ward, Nigel (2000). Sea harrier over the Falklands Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35542-6. the article states Ward 2000, pp. 247–48: "Propaganda was, of course, used later to try to justify these missions: 'The Mirage IIIs were redrawn from Southern Argentina to Buenos Aires to add to the defences there following the Vulcan raids on the islands.'Could someone with access to this book confirm that the word redrawn is used here, rather than withdrawn which would seem more likely. - Nick Thorne talk 02:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly seen it quoted as "redrawn" elsewhere. "The Mirage IIIs were redrawn from Southern Argentina to Buenos Aires to add to the defences there following the Vulcan raids on the islands. Apparently, the logic behind this statement was that if the Vulcan could hit Port Stanley, that Buenos Aires was well within range as well and was vulnerable to similar attacks. I never went along with that baloney. A lone Vulcan or two running into attack Buenos Aires without fighter support would have been shot to hell in quick time." Nigel Ward, who suffers from a bad case of 'cap-badge rivalry', a serious sin in the armed forces, is not particularly literate or intelligent. However, he concedes that Black Buck forced the Argentines to detain fighters for the defence of Buenos Aires in case of Vulcan attacks. The psychological purpose of Black Buck was to indicate to the enemy, 'You are not out of range.' Ward, and the article, are wrong to suggest that the damage caused by Black Buck 1 to the Stanley runway was trivial. It certainly wasn't. As Rowland White notes in Vulcan 607 p.363, 'At the runway's mid-point, the southern third of its 130-foot width had been obliterated. The full extent of the damage was later measured by JARIC [Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, RAF Brampton, Cambs] at 115 feet across and 84 feet deep, and although it was hastily filled, the repair was botched and the patched-up surface never stopped subsiding. The crater put an end to any remaining hopes Argentine forces had of using the runway for their fast jets. And while Hercules transports continued to use the strip until the end of the war, the damage complicated their task to the extent that, one one occasion, one of the big transports nearly crashed on take-off.' The physical objective of Black Buck 1 was to poke a 1,000-pounder into the mid-point of the runway, and it succeeded perfectly. If you are trying to conduct air operations, even with C-130s designed for rough-field use, an 84-foot-deep crater in the middle of your runway is a headache. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, its withdrawn not redrawn. It wasn't British propaganda, the Argentine Air Force stated they redeployed Mirage III to defend BA. I'll fix the quote. WCMemail 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up Nick Thorne I checked my library and found some dubious claims in there. I've rewritten the para to reflect what the sources actually say. WCMemail 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion in the UK

The war divided public opinion in the UK almost as much as the Suez Crisis had in 1956. Why is there no mention of this? (86.172.137.251 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If you can find a reputable source which says that you are welcome to add it Lyndaship (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asa Briggs mentioned it in his 1994 book on the Social History of England, p. 319. (86.172.137.251 (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I think this was reverted per WP:FACT vs WP:OPINION. It is one person's opinion, which to be honest doesn't resonate with me. As I recall public opinion was very much in favour of the Government's action. WCMemail 13:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see the statement by Asa Briggs, in context, if anyone can quote it or point to a free online source, because it seems at odds with the reality of what was happening at the time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the war had widespread public support, though not universal support. Surely there were opinion polls, etc, of public views at the time which historians and political scientists have drawn on to discuss this topic. 22:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The war was opposed by much of the Labour Party, the SDP, the Liberals, the Church of England, the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, and many working class people. It was seen as a distraction by a hugely unpopular government, as well as a manufactured conflict since Thatcher had sent Nicholas Ridley to discuss the transfer of sovereignty with Argentina in 1980-81. The Falkland islanders had been stripped of their British citizenship, and the Royal Navy warship had been withdrawn from the South Atlantic. Briggs mentions that the Suez Crisis divided public opinion even more than the Falklands War was to a quarter of a century later. Most people could not understand why we were going to war over a couple of remote islands 8,000 miles away, especially when we were having huge cuts to public pending domestically. (86.161.73.248 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Your comment about what Briggs wrote, if correct, is more about Suez than the Falklands. The political situation at the time of the invasion has been downplayed by many people who focus too much on the campaign and what that did for Mrs Thatcher's popularity. I am not convinced though that the war was opposed to the extent you suggest. Foot and Owen gave total support to the proposed Task Force, as can be seen by reading the 3 April 1982 debate in the House. I do think though that this article needs slight adjustment to reflect the political situation and public mood in Britain at the time of the invasion, which was not the same as at the end. That topic though would better suit another article that deals just with that and in this article about the war itself, it only warrants mention in a subsection. After nearly 40 years, some revisionism of the way the war is viewed is probably needed to put the war in context. Some sources to confirm the alleged widespread opposition are essential though. There were public opinion polls carried out by the BBC and others during the campaign and they would be useful to see. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Falkland islanders had been stripped of their British citizenship" - do you have a source for this?
Never mind - British Nationality Act 1981 reduced their citizenship rights, rather than revoke them completely. Also, if the "Warship" referred to was HMS Endurance, it's hardly a warship, it was scheduled for retirement, but the war began before it was. (Hohum @) 20:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was widespread support in the UK for the Government's response as many had had enough of the UK being 'f*****d-about by tin-pot' foreign governments. For many in the UK, coming so soon after Operation Nimrod, the invasion was the last straw.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falklands_War&oldid=875548186"