Wasn’t the General Belgrano originally a United States Navy WWII cruiser?
More on that page 2 in this topic:
The Argentine Government had ample warning that all of its warships were at risk. On 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty’s Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
The course at the time was irrelevant, the order to attack the task force had not been rescinded, the order was merely on hold waiting for more favourable weather for the Argentine carrier to launch an air strike. In reality the Argentine navy had been lucky, HMS Splendid had been in position to launch a torpedo attack on the carrier, it was only stopped by ROE requiring visual ID of the target.
The 2001 legal action was doomed from the start, the Argentine Government itself acknowledged that the sinking was a legitimate act of war in 1994.
The word of one survivor.
Extracted from the daily Telegraph.
Major Lies by HMG over Belgrano sinking
The Belgrano was approaching the task force and was a threat to it.
It kept changing direction throughout the day.
It was heading for the shallow waters of the Burdwood bank, where it could have been lost by the Conqueror.
It was part of a ‘pincer movement’ attack on the task force.
The Conqueror detected the Belgrano on May 2nd.
The decision to fire was made by the submarine commander.
News of the Peruvian peace proposals did not reach London until after the attack.
Are those lies by HMG (Her Majesties Government) or are you stating facts that were true. A little more info to go with your post would be appreciated.
Being the new guy James1, you don’t know your way around the place yet, but we usually will post some type of source authority information to support whatever statements we make. Links to the information so we can reference it to expand on a post. I hope you will enjoy your visits here, there is alot to see.
Even if all of that is true, the Belgrano was still a legitimate target. Even if it was at anchor in Buenos Aires with the captain and crew fast asleep.
All warships of a warring nation are targets for the other nation.
Em … some of the debate In Here on this point seems a bit unrealistic. “De facto war” has, historically, been the norm. In the 20th century in particular, states as respectable as the USA and the UK - and as less-than-respectable as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have made war de facto, without any concern about niceties like declarations of war. I seem to recall a statement by Hitler that he would never sign a declaration of war. Mind you, he did declare war on the USA - though I do not think he ever signed a declaration.
I recall the period of the Falklands/Malvinas War very well, for the odd reason that I was in the early stage of “negotiations” with my (still) wife at the time. In Ireland, feelings about the whole thing tended to be very mixed. On the one hand, what was perceived as unprovoked aggression by the Argentine military dictatorship was viewed as unacceptable. On the other, there was an understandable (if not justifiable) sympathy with Argentina as a “victim of British oppression”. The Irish folk group, the Wolfe Tones (once notably described as “the Musical Wing of the IRA”) summed up the latter sentiment in their song of the period, dedicated to Admiral William Brown - the founder of the Argentinian Navy and (bizarrely) born in Foxford, County Mayo in the West of Ireland -
"From a County Mayo Town came a man of great renown
As a sailor and a soldier was none bolder
He went to America at an early age they say
As a cabin boy to sail the wide world over
Then adventure took him south to the Del La Plata Mouth
San Martin was on the route in Argentina
So three whaling ships he bought and Brazil and Spain he fought
And freedom they he sought for Argentina
Now Admiral William Brown you’re a man of courage shown
And in battles fought the odds were all against you
But your Irish heart was strong and in memory still lives on
And in Ireland there are some that don’t forget you
On St. Patrick’s Day it’s told you had many victories bold
And you defeated all invaders thugs and bullies
Then through the Pampas rose and you found a happy home–
Las Islas Malvinas Argentina
He had heard of Irish hands in the noble gallant bands
That helped to free the land called Argentina
He had heard with great acclaim the Patricios name
And fame, when in 1806 the British came for slaughter
And to this very day in the Argentine they say
The English ran away from Buenos Aires
To the islands further down and they took them for the crown –
Las Islas Malvinas Argentina
We remember William Brown and his land of great renown
He, invader of the islands from your country
When 1833 where by pirates force to flee
And in Ireland sure we know the story fully
And the people that went too to the Argentine when new,
To escape the English laws and wars and famine
They proved a loyal crew just like all the Irish do–
Las Islas Malvinas Argentina
The old colonial days and the cruel English ways
With her thunder plunder we will teach the natives
For the Brits are going to war just like Whitelock did before
With her ships & guns & drums & flags & banners
In the Empire days of old when they murdered for the gold
And paraded it around the streets of London
Oh no human rights were given to the natives dead or living–
Las Islas Malvinas Argentina
In the Argentine he died Father Fahey by his side,
Fifty-seven was the year his father mourned him
A hero of the nation he’s remembered with elation,
Throughout the world were freedom still abounds
And the Southern Cross take note were bold Willie Bulfin wrote
“The Irish still support you Argentina”
With the Empire tumbling down let no Paddies back the crown–
Las Islas Malvinas Argentina".
Er … er …
Yours from South Georgia,
JR.
On 14 October 1939, German u-boat captain Gunther Prien sailed his u-boat undetected into Scapa Flow and torpedoed the British battleship HMS Royal Oak - riding at anchor - to the consternation of the UK and the elation of the Germans. 833 British sailors lost their lives. Question: Did the British take the Germans to court and sue them over the “illegal” sinking of their “helpless” battleship, and, if so, what was the outcome of the court case? England and Germany were at war at the time of the sinking.
Was this “completely different”? If so, how?
Yes, it was completely different.
The difference is that Britain didn’t destroy Argentina from the air; on the sea; and on land, and then occupy it and try its leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity as Britain did to Germany in conjunction with the other Allies in WWII.
Argentina inflicted damaged on the Falklands but, unlike Germany, never experienced an attack on its own land in that conflict and has not the faintest understanding of what modern total war is like. This allows it to get excited and sulk about the Belgrano which, frankly, was a trivial event in the scale of things that happened in a major war of the sort that Britain and many other nations have fought over the past few centuries.
As I said at #78 above
Maybe learning to accept war’s terrible misfortunes and gross injustices is part of the acquired character of Australia and other British dominions which, like but to a much lesser early extent than Britain, are among the few nations that have been involved in long and sapping conflicts in two world wars from start to finish (not just a couple of months like the Falklands), and that, like America and Britain, were involved in another one in Korea less than a decade after the end of WWII and, like America, was involved in another one in Vietnam well before the 25 year mark from Sydney’s sinking. When a nation gets used to losing ships and men, the sinking of something like the Belgrano is a great but passing misfortune. It is not grounds for a sense of national persecution and eternal whingeing.
Whatever the reasons for drawing a line under things, it’s 25 years since the Belgrano went down, so isn’t it time to draw a line under it, and move on?
Right you are RS - completely different. I’m not familiar with the word “whingeing” but assume from the context that it’s the same meaning as the American “whining”.
The same.