Pages

READ THIS FIRST!

READ THIS FIRST. I am new to blogging, so this is a kind of trial project. During the Falklands conflict of 1982 I found myself writing down my thoughts about it from time to time, much as bloggers do now. Recently I found these papers and because it's topical I thought some people might be interested in what was going through the mind of a typical Guardian-reading thirty-something in 1982. It's occasionally quite surprising!
My plan is this: to reproduce the pages facsimile, so readers can see it's genuine; then to transcribe so readers can read it; then to make comments clarifying the text where necessary, explaining things, and giving my opinions (for what they're worth) on what it all means.
I shall try to upload each instalment on the date it was originally written, but 30 years later. There are 21 pages, in six bits, between April 28 and June 12.
Problem about blogs is that they are always backwards, so if you are new to it, for a linear story like this you have to go right to the bottom and work backwards, or use the dated links on the sidebar.
It's lots of text, not very bloggy, but that's its nature. And sorry no pictures!
I'm not expecting many comments for this particular project, but of course they are welcome.

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Falklands Diary 22 May 1982: The Invasion.
Space lines are in the original, presumably indicating a break in the writing. I cannot now remember, but I have must have kept coming back and adding more thoughts as they occurred to me. It's not particularly coherent, but looks as if it is trying hard to be both frank about feelings and even-handed about the principles.

22
The invasion. Still fascinated by the military tactics. Argentines said to have damaged 2 ships badly. They have 150 planes, so presumably could have sunk the lot by hit and miss, if they were prepared to lose a lot of planes  ?   Why are they using bombs, not missiles? Do missiles only work at sea where there is a clear radar image? 


British reporter gave a gripping account of the landings and the air attack as they were happening, but omitted to say "Omigod there's another frigate sinking". I presume that once they've built a runway for the RAF planes air superiority will pass decisively to Britain and the show will be more or less over. They never found those other 3 subs tho -- always possible to sink an aircraft carrier or two while the British are busy with landings. {1}


Still every time they sink a boat that's £50M gone. Comparison with tightfistedness in other areas of government spending is now hard to avoid. {2}


The uselessness of the whole exercise as a moral crusade has become very clear to me. That "aggression should not be rewarded" is an excellent principle, but it should always be channelled through the UN. Only when a weaker country attacks a stronger one (militarily speaking) can the lesson be prosecuted unilaterally through military action. Supposing the Falklands had "belonged to" Spain, say, or Denmark....? So the only generalisable way to discourage the settling of disputes by armed force is concerted economic pressure through the UN. This is what Britain should have done.


=============
If Britain regains control of the islands, relations with Argentina will be appalling. The Argentine people will feel outraged that 'their' land has been seized after the triumphant liberation. What can be done to offset this?


The latest UN proposals "are no longer on the table". Presumably Maggie & Co now reckon they can get better terms after a military victory. I must say the British proposals as published seem very reasonable Foolish of the Argentines not to accept, but then if for all historical and psychological reasons they are utterly convinced the islands are theirs, the proposed terms must appear an affront and hard to sell to the military.{3}


============
A comment of Andrew Leonard. The 'Malvinas' are on all Argentine maps. Everybody knows were they are and something of their history. A British hairdresser in the Falklands (there for a couple of years) had accepted the job from an advertisement and & supposed they were somewhere in the Hebrides. {4} Before the crisis, nobody knew where the islands were or anything about them.  If nobody lived there, the Argentine claim would be very strong indeed. As it is, they seem to have worked themselves into the present state of blind prejudice by systematic suppression of contrary information. In international law the case is at best open. {5}


A whole nation of Julian Amerys, Enoch Powells and Winston Churchill (Jr)s. Be nice to see an intelligent debate between a moderate Briton and an extremely well-informed Argentine without too much of an axe to grind. {6}


COMMENTS
{1} Apparently there were three Argentinian submarines 'not accounted for', and in this entry I seem to have the feeling that if a single torpedo can sink the Belgrano, the same might be true of British carriers, although presumably they would have much better submarine detection systems.  At this point in the conflict there was definitely a sense that it could fail.


In situations like this, for obvious reasons, operational and on-the-ground information is poor, leaving scope for endless speculation about what should or should not be done. My own views here were presumably even more worthless than those of retired military officers in the newspapers. 


{2} This remark bears comparison with today's contrast between finding untold billions at the drop of a hat to bail out banks, alongside savage austerity for everybody else. Or perhaps even more precisely, what have been the economic effects of the Afghan and Iraq wars?


{3} Worth remembering the Argentine government at the time was a military dictatorship, although temporarily at least, a popular one.


{4} Andrew Leonard, local farmer and County Councillor, also a neighbour, had worked as a teacher on the Falklands and had many such stories.


{5} Apparently I thought that although psychologically the British did not 'deserve' the islands, the Argentinians themselves had failed to exploit a due process that probably would have served them better.


{6} The names refer to three representatives of the right wing of the Conservative Party at the time, the implication being that the entire Argentinian government was composed of such characters.

No comments:

Post a Comment