The Falklands War

[Plotinus]

I disagree with the comment that it was pointless. These islands, inhabited only by British subjects, were wrongfully taken. A corrupt government was humbled and forced to give up power. Britain proved again the valor and skill of its royal marines, SAS, and other units mentioned in this article.

Why was it pointless ?

The Argentine invasion, which precipitated the war, was pointless. Argentina had no particular use for the islands. Why cause a war in order to control a bunch of sheep and some more-British-than-the-British ex-pats who certainly didn't want to become Argentinian? What good did it do Argentina?

It is certainly true that the British involvement in the war was more reasonable than that of the Argentinians. The British fought to repel an invader and on behalf of people who wanted to remain as they were. All the same, it is hard to justify overall, in my opinion. It is true that the inhabitants should have been allowed to remain subjects of whichever country they wanted. But about a thousand people died in order for this to happen. Was the right of the Falklanders to be British rather than Argentinian more important than those lives? I can't see that it was. A just cause does not necessarily translate to a just war.

As for "proving the valour and skill" of the British forces, I hardly think that's a reasonable justification for anything.

The war also stirred up appalling and now-notorious jingoism in Britain; think of the infamous "Gotcha!" with which the Sun greeted the attack on the Belgrano, or Thatcher's outrage when the archbishop of Canterbury proposed to pray for Argentinians who had died in the war. Thatcher's own jingoism was obviously incompatible with regarding enemy soldiers as human beings or worthy of a second thought. Finally, the war was a key factor in Thatcher's re-election in 1983 - not a desirable consequence.

 

[Atticus]

Yeah - really what made Argentina wanna do such a stupid thing

I'm not sure if it applies to this case, but countires desire to hold even small islands, because they control pertty large area of the water around them. If I remember correctly they have privileges on couple hundred kilometers radius. The position of Falkland Islands seems to be pretty important. I would sure build city there in a civ-game.

she was, at that time, simply "Mrs Thatcher". (Well, she had other epithets as well, but I won't repeat those...)

Because they are forbidden in the forum rules?

 

[GoodGame]

The Argentine invasion, which precipitated the war, was pointless. Argentina had no particular use for the islands. Why cause a war in order to control a bunch of sheep and some more-British-than-the-British ex-pats who certainly didn't want to become Argentinian? What good did it do Argentina?

Was the right of the Falklanders to be British rather than Argentinian more important than those lives? I can't see that it was. A just cause does not necessarily translate to a just war.

As for "proving the valour and skill" of the British forces, I hardly think that's a reasonable justification for anything.

Finally, the war was a key factor in Thatcher's re-election in 1983 - not a desirable consequence.

Snipped out parts I didn't want to comment on (hope context is still clear):

1. While Argentina historically claimed the islands for a long time, Argentina's invasion was totally political to strengthen the Argentinian junta. It was basically a pep rally for the nation, and to increase Argentina's world prestige for thumbing their nose at a major power. The unintended collapse of the junta and replacement with civilian government, accidentally confirms the Falklands as a just war.

2. Of course the locals should have self-determination, and that is generally just. It's even more just since they'd been that way prior, in continuity. To imply that war is unjust because of the loss of life is ethically wrong. By that arguement it'd be just for NATO to sit back and let the Soviets take all of Europe. The right of self-determination is just in itself, and if casualties arise, blame the invader not the defender. In this case, Argentina was an unwanted invader and only had a claim on the Falklands via proximity.

3. I'd agree that generally doing something for the display of nationalist valor is not a just war rational. It amounts to a 'lets have a war, just so we can say we had one'. Ironically, Argentina was guilty of that in the Falklands invasion, on populist grounds. In FP's defense, obviously, any soldier on any side would view any war as an opportunity to display valor as a point of professional and national pride; It's probably instilled in all modern militaries.

4. political opinion She was fairly elected, regardless.

 

[Plotinus]

Similarly, quoting only the bits I would disagree with:

The unintended collapse of the junta and replacement with civilian government, accidentally confirms the Falklands as a just war.

I don't believe that a war can be accidentally just. What the events you mention mean is that the war had good consequences. But no matter how good the unforeseen consequences, they cannot justify the original decision to wage war, because (obviously) they were not part of that decision. So you may say that these considerations mean that it's better that the war occurred than if it hadn't occurred, and you may have a good case. But it doesn't make the war just, because that is a property of the intent of the prosecutors of the war, not of the events themselves.

To imply that war is unjust because of the loss of life is ethically wrong. By that arguement it'd be just for NATO to sit back and let the Soviets take all of Europe.

No, that is not a fair analogy. In cases such as this you have to weigh the different factors. On the one hand, there is the (hoped-for) good which waging the war will bring about. On the other hand, there is the loss of life (and other unwanted consequences) that it will also bring about. In the case of the Falklands, I said that the hoped-for good - namely, allowing the islanders to live under the regime of their choice - did not seem to me to be greater than the death and destruction involved in securing it. Saying this does not commit me to the view that no degree of self-determination can outweigh any degree of death and destruction. I said only that in this particular case the degree of the former didn't seem to me to outweigh the degree of the latter.

I'm not being dogmatic about it, just saying how it seems to me. If someone can give a good reason why the aims of the British in waging the war were such as to outweigh the costs then I'm perfectly willing to accept it; it's just that I can't really see that the mere aim of defending the right to self-determination of the islanders fits that category. I agree that this is an important right (and this is why the Argentinians were clearly in the wrong); it's just that it doesn't seem to me to be that important.

The right of self-determination is just in itself, and if casualties arise, blame the invader not the defender.

I don't think it entirely works like that. Certainly the invader bears the brunt of the responsibility, but not all of it, because the defender has a choice. In this case, the UK could have chosen to give in and avoid all the deaths involved in the war. That means that the UK must bear at least some of the blame for the deaths. Not as much as Argentinia, of course, but still some. To deny this is to deny any agency to the defender at all.

In FP's defense, obviously, any soldier on any side would view any war as an opportunity to display valor as a point of professional and national pride; It's probably instilled in all modern militaries.

I'm sure you're right. Although in the highly unlikely event of my ever joining a military, I'd like to see them try to instill national pride into me.

 

[Flying Pig]

Flying Pig,

When you talk about the SAS and Pebble Island, you mention an "Argentine OC killed". What's the OC acronym?

Officer in Command.

Also might want to mention what happened to the British who were made POWs in the initial Argentinian invasion. Were they treated by Geneva Conventions?

As far as I know, they were not mistreated but I don't know. Any of them who are here are welcome to inform me.

Might also want to include major citations for bravery. e.g. Silver star equivalents or such, by action.

I mentioned the two VCs; which are the highest British award.

 

[vogtmurr]

The Argentine invasion, which precipitated the war, was pointless. Argentina had no particular use for the islands. Why cause a war in order to control a bunch of sheep and some more-British-than-the-British ex-pats who certainly didn't want to become Argentinian? What good did it do Argentina?.

Yes I agree. That was the original point in my first post - if anybody bears repsonsibility here it is the aggressor. - Why should Britain turn their back on several generations of English settlers just because they didn't amount to a hill of beans resource wise.

It is certainly true that the British involvement in the war was more reasonable than that of the Argentinians. The British fought to repel an invader and on behalf of people who wanted to remain as they were. All the same, it is hard to justify overall, in my opinion. It is true that the inhabitants should have been allowed to remain subjects of whichever country they wanted. But about a thousand people died in order for this to happen. Was the right of the Falklanders to be British rather than Argentinian more important than those lives? I can't see that it was. A just cause does not necessarily translate to a just war.

Well I guess we don't always get to choose sufficiently justified causes in the face of aggression - but if we follow this line of thinking then I think Canada should just invade St. Pierre & Miquelon, afterall they've been such a "thorn in our side" 20 or so km. off the cost of Newfoundland, leading to fishery disputes, and we occupied them from the Vichy regime in WWII anyway. I'm sure Holland wouldn't mind letting Venzuela or the West Indies Federation 'liberate' Curacao or Aruba since they've pretty well chosen self-government already.

As for "proving the valour and skill" of the British forces, I hardly think that's a reasonable justification for anything.

I know that sounds jingoistic - what I really mean is Argentina gambles that recovering these islands was beyond UK's capabilities or resolve, after decades of defense budget cuts. This recovery was a major effort for Britain with limited resources and airpower, over 10,000 miles from home, the nearest base was Tristan da Cunha. And they accomplished it rather neatly I would say with a minimum of bloodshed among the 10,000 Argentine soldiers there. All in all they have a right to proud for pulling that off and demonstrating that they are not a 'sick man' to be victimized by tin pot dictators.

If you let this one go down, then there's those other little enclaves like Anguilla, Gibraltar, etc. If someone feels there is a legitimate claim against them, there are other forums to resolve this, like UK did give up Hong Kong according to lease, but China was offering a much better deal than they were in the 50s, and they rightfully held out for that.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think it entirely works like that. Certainly the invader bears the brunt of the responsibility, but not all of it, because the defender has a choice. In this case, the UK could have chosen to give in and avoid all the deaths involved in the war. That means that the UK must bear at least some of the blame for the deaths. Not as much as Argentinia, of course, but still some. To deny this is to deny any agency to the defender at all.

We acted (for the most part) to minimise civillian and enemy casulties (once, when a platoon of Argentines was being forced to fight by the officers, a Parachute Officer signalled to his men to caese fire, shot the officer, and the whole unit surrendered). I think that once this has been done the British cannot take the blame for the deaths to the enemy; and it was well-done enough to ensure that ours were just the inevitable few.

I'm sure you're right. Although in the highly unlikely event of my ever joining a military, I'd like to see them try to instill national pride into me.

You'd be impressed that they managed to convince you to join

 

[Sam_Yeager]

The Royal Navy, anxious to prove itself, sprung into action: on 5 April a fleet composed of the carriers Hermes and Invincible, the amphibious vessels Canberra, Intrepid, Stromness, Fearless and Norland, and the frigates Antrim, Ardent, Argonaut, Brilliant, Broadsword, Plymouth and Yarmouth to carry 40, 42 and 45 Commando along with the second and third battalions of the Parachute Regiment;

Both Intrepid & Fearless were Royal Navy amphibious vessels. The Canberra was definitely a civilian passenger vessel that was pressed into service as a troop ship. I don't know about Stromness and Norland but I suspect that they were troop ships and/or transport vessels.

The British fought to repel an invader and on behalf of people who wanted to remain as they were. All the same, it is hard to justify overall, in my opinion. It is true that the inhabitants should have been allowed to remain subjects of whichever country they wanted. But about a thousand people died in order for this to happen. Was the right of the Falklanders to be British rather than Argentinian more important than those lives? I can't see that it was. A just cause does not necessarily translate to a just war.

You seem to be using the benefit of hindsight to argue against an event where the decision makers did not have the benefit of your knowledge at the time. Perhaps you are arguing that any invasion of British overseas territories where a loss of life, of unknown numbers, would result from liberating the territory should be ignored by the UK?

 

[Flying Pig]

Both Intrepid & Fearless were Royal Navy amphibious vessels. The Canberra was definitely a civilian passenger vessel that was pressed into service as a troop ship. I don't know about Stromness and Norland but I suspect that they were troop ships and/or transport vessels.

That wasn't clear - I meant that they were used to carry men and/or supplies rather than fighting.

 

[GoodGame]

This looks like a nice website on the war, OOBs included: http://www.falklandswar.org.uk/

 

[Slaughter]

The British did pretty well there, although I think the war would've been pretty ugly if Argentina was strong as Brazil. I sleep safe knowing that anybody who ever had thought at having shot at conquering Brazil was already shot and buried in a shallow grave or intimidated by our vast armies.

 

[Cutlass]

It seems the ground forces did pretty well. However it seems that the RN did pretty poorly overall. They lost or had damaged a number of ships against an enemy that was badly outclassed. Did the RN of the time simply have no doctrine or weapons for defense against sea skimming missiles? It's fortunate for them that the Argentinians were so inexpert that many of their hits failed to explode. Impossible to know why of course, but it seems that only poor weapons handlers could have managed that.

Also the article does not mention that Brit air power was much help to the ground forces. Was it of not a lot of help, and if so why? Or was it just not mentioned?

 

[vogtmurr]

It seems the ground forces did pretty well. However it seems that the RN did pretty poorly overall. They lost or had damaged a number of ships against an enemy that was badly outclassed. Did the RN of the time simply have no doctrine or weapons for defense against sea skimming missiles? It's fortunate for them that the Argentinians were so inexpert that many of their hits failed to explode. Impossible to know why of course, but it seems that only poor weapons handlers could have managed that.

Also the article does not mention that Brit air power was much help to the ground forces. Was it of not a lot of help, and if so why? Or was it just not mentioned?

Part of the answer to that question is in the first statement - Argentina's navy was outclassed and made little attempt to interfere - their single light aircraft carrier stayed in port. But it's airforce was another thing - and with about 60 Daggers, Mirages, Skyhawks and Super Etendards that could reach the British fleet, presented a bigger air-force than Britain could bring to that area - fortunately for whom, the subsonic flying Harriers had a few tricks trained pilots could use. With possession of sea skimming missiles in 1982, Argentina had something that the world's navies were only beginning to adequately defend against, and the Sheffield's 3rd generation Sea Dart SAMs were capable, but they did not react in time. The smaller, fast reacting multiple systems like Sea Wolf were not yet deployed. Out of budget restrictions I understand, even Britain's through-deck cruisers (they couldn't be called carriers) did not have SAMs. They may have improvised some light mounts, but this war demonstrated how vulnerable Britain's skeleton forces could be in a major intervention situation.

On land, the Argentine occupying forces were generously equipped with Rapier and Blowpipe SAMs, as well as modern 40mm AA, which may be reason enough for the RN to avoid risking the two squadrons of Harriers they had in many air strikes, but the role of helicopters in supporting this operation I think our OP can speak to. Didn't one of the royal princes use a Sea King as a radar beacon to draw in an Exocet and save a major landing ship from a fatal hit ?

On the other hand SAS and Royal Marines undertook some daring missions to make sure the Aregentines did not have the use of ground attack planes like the Pucara on the islands themself. All in all it was carried out with considerable daring and skill by outnumbered British ground forces and a scratch naval force with inadequate aircraft, and also by an agressive Argentine air force. After this, sales of sea skimmers like the Exocet went way up.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Flying Pig,

When you talk about the SAS and Pebble Island, you mention an "Argentine OC killed". What's the OC acronym?

Maybe Officer Commanding?

 

[IglooDame]

Excellent article. The Falklands War took place just as I was starting to get interested in naval stuff growing up, so I've developed a bit more of a familiarity with it than most older naval history.

Just a couple questions/points, that don't really detract from the overall article:

The US offered the use of a carrier - in what way? Most naval historians agree that airborne early warning (such as that provided by the E-2C Hawkeye on any US carrier) was a serious weakness of the RN's in the Falklands, so clarifying why the RN declined would be significant I think.

You don't mention that it was an Argentinian submarine (the Santa Fe) that delayed the South Georgia operation

It took an hour to get the Abandon Ship order out on Sheffield - this implies that the CO made the decision to abandon ship as soon as Sheffield took the hit but that communications were problematic, which I think is incorrect. Rather, the crew fought the fires for at least an hour before it became clear that it was hopeless.

One of the Exocets deflected off HMS Ambuscade and hit Atlantic Conveyor - the Exocet didn't physically glance off Ambuscade, it was decoyed away by chaff and acquired Atlantic Conveyor when it started looking for a new target. It's also stretching it a bit to describe HMS Ardent as a "mighty vessel".

Both Intrepid & Fearless were Royal Navy amphibious vessels. The Canberra was definitely a civilian passenger vessel that was pressed into service as a troop ship. I don't know about Stromness and Norland but I suspect that they were troop ships and/or transport vessels.

That wasn't clear - I meant that they were used to carry men and/or supplies rather than fighting.

Understood, but naval amphibious ships are not considered noncombatants.

 

[GoodGame]

About the US carrier

Although never officially acknowledged there are reports that during the conflict the United States offered Britain the loan of a US Navy aircraft carrier should the worst happen to either Invincible or Hermes. One source claims the American carrier in question was the U.S.S Eisenhower* while another source suggests that it was the Keersage† . The Guam and Oriskany are also mentioned and it is rumoured that Royal Navy officers visited the Norfolk navy yard to inspect two Iwo Jima class vessels. Regardless of the ship and regardless of weather the offer was even made it is almost certain that it would have been turned down or would never have materialised. The problems involved with manning and equipping a foreign vessel of this size in a time of the war would be difficult to say the least. Where would the Royal Navy get the manpower for a capital ship of this size? After all there were and still are significant technical differences between RN and USN equipment. Then there are the political implications. The US and UK had always had a 'special relationship' but this would be pushing it to its limits. By merely supporting UK the USA were jeopardizing relations with South America and additionally the American public may not have the same resolve to lend American equipment to fight a battle thousands of miles from not only the United States but also from Britain. * The Secret War for the Falklands by Nigel West † Falklands Documentary on the Discovery Channel.

If you look at the American politics of the time, it's probable that no offers were really made by the USA, because there was a split in the administration over whether to side at all. On one hand, the US didn't want to look to be against South America since that would play to the Soviets' growing political influence there, and on the other hand there was the traditional Anglo-American friendship.

 

[Flying Pig]

The British did pretty well there, although I think the war would've been pretty ugly if Argentina was strong as Brazil. I sleep safe knowing that anybody who ever had thought at having shot at conquering Brazil was already shot and buried in a shallow grave or intimidated by our vast armies.

You really think that any country short of the USA could stand a serious invasion by us? By the way; the only people who seriously tried were the Portugese, and they managed it.

It seems the ground forces did pretty well. However it seems that the RN did pretty poorly overall. They lost or had damaged a number of ships against an enemy that was badly outclassed. Did the RN of the time simply have no doctrine or weapons for defense against sea skimming missiles? It's fortunate for them that the Argentinians were so inexpert that many of their hits failed to explode. Impossible to know why of course, but it seems that only poor weapons handlers could have managed that.

Also the article does not mention that Brit air power was much help to the ground forces. Was it of not a lot of help, and if so why? Or was it just not mentioned?

They didn't do much; remember that they were operating from Acension and so had no chance to do much more than minor bombing runs on the airfileds. We took out their airpower (for the most part) when the SAS came in, during the landings and when we took the airfeild at Goose Green and then had to use ship-borne weapons to get rid of them.

Excellent article. The Falklands War took place just as I was starting to get interested in naval stuff growing up, so I've developed a bit more of a familiarity with it than most older naval history.

Just a couple questions/points, that don't really detract from the overall article:

The US offered the use of a carrier - in what way? Most naval historians agree that airborne early warning (such as that provided by the E-2C Hawkeye on any US carrier) was a serious weakness of the RN's in the Falklands, so clarifying why the RN declined would be significant I think.

They said that it would not be convenient; in truth I reckon that they didn't want to drag their allies into it ad wanterd to be seen to be doing it alone

You don't mention that it was an Argentinian submarine (the Santa Fe) that delayed the South Georgia operation

It took an hour to get the Abandon Ship order out on Sheffield - this implies that the CO made the decision to abandon ship as soon as Sheffield took the hit but that communications were problematic, which I think is incorrect. Rather, the crew fought the fires for at least an hour before it became clear that it was hopeless.

Changed. I didn't know much about what happened before the San Carlos

One of the Exocets deflected off HMS Ambuscade and hit Atlantic Conveyor - the Exocet didn't physically glance off Ambuscade, it was decoyed away by chaff and acquired Atlantic Conveyor when it started looking for a new target. It's also stretching it a bit to describe HMS Ardent as a "mighty vessel".

I changed it; and toned down the description of Ardent a bit.

Understood, but naval amphibious ships are not considered noncombatants.

Can you suggest a better term?

About the US carrier

If you look at the American politics of the time, it's probable that no offers were really made by the USA, because there was a split in the administration over whether to side at all. On one hand, the US didn't want to look to be against South America since that would play to the Soviets' growing political influence there, and on the other hand there was the traditional Anglo-American friendship.

I am almost certain that the offer was made; indeed they gave us their island base on Acension so by then they had almost declared war. They wanted to help out their allies; we refused because it was our fight and we needed to win it alone.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

the non-combatant vessels Canberra, Intrepid, Stromness, Fearless and Norland

Can you suggest a better term?

What about "amphibious vessels Fearless and Intrepid, troop and transport vessels Canberra, Stromness and Norland"?

 

[budweiser]

The British had one ship for defense in the Faulklands with a single 3" gun. This was enough to protect the Faulkands because it symbolized Britain's intent to defend the island. When the ship was slated for decommission, it sent the wrong message to the Argentines that Britain would no longer commit itself to the defense of the islands. This is what precipitated the invasion, since Argentina also had a longstanding claim to the islands.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think I mentioned the Endeavor. The problem had been brewing for some time, though.