All things Labour Party

[hutch]

For anybody who isn't completely bored by the Falkland saga yet, there's a pretty good history of what actually went on here, including a free copy of Lorton's helpful book on the subject.

[alpine_saint]

Boll*cks.

 

In what way ? Corbyn wouldnt have stood up to Hitler alone for 2 years.

[alpine_saint]

He's a loose cannon with no idea of tactics and strategy. He wont get elected - but I like the fact he raises difficult issues and questions the lazy consensus we've had for 30 years.

 

He's turned Labour into a one-issue protest party. He is doing no such thing.

[Nolan]

And the numbers continue to slide for Corbyn and Labour

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/corbyn-at-odds-with-voters-over-his-policy-on-nuclear-deterrent-new-poll-reveals-a3167276.html

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

Were we wrong to oppose nazi Germany??

 

if Corbyn were pm back then, we'd all be living under the nazi jack boot, whilst jIzza would be telling us how he stuck to his principles (in German)

 

I think your second sentence is tendentious. We don't know what Corbyn would have done - the Corbyn in this imagined piece of time travel is not the real one. However, it's certainly true that the British Left - by which I mean left of the 'Tory-lites" of the day like Aneurin Bevin - saw the same moral equivalence between the evils of hitler and the evils of Toryism.

 

The Daily Worker - the newspaper Corbyn has written for in its more recent guide of the Morning Star - said this during the Blitz:

 

The blacker the news the more cheerful the Prime Minister…Why worry boys? Only 1075 civilians have been killed and only 800 out of our 13,000,000 houses have been destroyed…The realities behind the Churchill blarney are the prospects of more bombs and less [sic] sirens.

 

On 18 October 1940, the Daily Worker was calling Churchill and his war cabinet (including a number of Labour MPs) 'Britain's Hitlers'.

 

The Left took this view because Hitler and Stalin had concluded a non-agression pact and so the British left quickly fell into line with Russian tyrant. Prominent intellectuals of the British Left like Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond Williams argued that the pact was concluded, in reality, to protect Russia from British imperialism not Nazi fascism, and so it should be supported.

 

Is there an equivalence between these sentiments and Corbyn? Not necessarily. Are there echoes of these sentiments in Corbyn's political positions? Absolutely.

[Verbal]

Meanwhile, Corbyn's polling numbers indicate the scale of incompetence and denial at the Stalinist summit of Labour. Ipso Mori today put the Tories ion 43% and Labour 16% when prospective voters were asked which party had the bet team to solve the country's problems.

 

Corbyn doesn't do much better on the question of which party has the best policies for the country as a whole: Tories 35%. Labour 25%.

 

But he does worst of all when voters were asked which party is most clear and untied about what its policies should be: Tories 33%, Labour 13%.

 

And all this at a time of maximum difficulty for the Tories - split on Europe, hopeless on the refugee crisis, unable even to understand that multinationals like Google are ripping off Britain.

[aintforever]

Labour are a complete mess, I think their only hope is that after Corbyn, the next front bench will be perceived as very electable. A bit like how After Wigley, even Redknapp was seen as a good choice.

[Johnny Bognor]

 

The Left took this view because Hitler and Stalin had concluded a non-agression pact and so the British left quickly fell into line with Russian tyrant. Prominent intellectuals of the British Left like Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond Williams argued that the pact was concluded, in reality, to protect Russia from British imperialism not Nazi fascism, and so it should be supported.

 

Is there an equivalence between these sentiments and Corbyn? Not necessarily. Are there echoes of these sentiments in Corbyn's political positions? Absolutely.

 

... And how wrong the left were. Millions of people being exterminated in death camps. As wars go, it was morally right for us to do our bit to defeat the nazis. Whilst there are questionable wars, pacifists don't recognise that sometimes it is a necessary evil...

 

... but at least the left of the day weren't suggesting that we send up the spitfires with out any bullets to keep the unions happy.

[buctootim]

... And how wrong the left were. Millions of people being exterminated in death camps. As wars go, it was morally right for us to do our bit to defeat the nazis. Whilst there are questionable wars, pacifists don't recognise that sometimes it is a necessary evil...

 

... but at least the left of the day weren't suggesting that we send up the spitfires with out any bullets to keep the unions happy.

 

You do know Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative? There was no left / right political split to the anti war feeling so lets not pretend the right wing saved the day for the country from the pacifist lefties. Many of the most vocal anti war voices were on the right and the Communist Party were the most vocal supporters of going to war with Germany.

Edited 28 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

You do know Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative? There was no left / right political split to the anti war feeling so lets not pretend the right wing saved the day for the country from the pacifist lefties. Many of the most vocal anti war voices were on the right and the Communist Party were the most vocal supporters of going to war with Germany.

 

Yes and you make a fair point. Both left and right were against Germany as our freedom depended on it and the brave souls came from both sides of the political spectrum. So I'll wind my neck in.

 

However, any pacifists opposed to the war has been shown to be wrong.

 

There are a number of morally justifiable wars / interventions. I am intelligent enough to recognise that some wars are justifiable and some are not. For example, the 1st Iraq war was justifiable. The 2nd was not as the premise for going in was a lie. But to take a position of being anti war for all conflicts is just ridiculous. In an ideal world, I would share their view. But we don't live in an ideal world and unfortunately war is sometimes a necessary evil.

 

i can't wait for corbyn to fly out to Syria to negotiate with ISIL. Oh wait a minute. He won't do it. This is not the IRA were talking about. He knows his head would be mailed back with a first class stamp. So jizza what are we to do? Won't fight. Can't negotiate. The mans a sitting duck. Meanwhile innocents are getting slaughtered.

 

Believe it it or not, I want a strong opposition. Someone to keep the government on their toes. A protest communist party that is out of touch with normal working people won't acheive anything. Despite the lefts hatred of new labour, they can be credited with things like the minimum wage, which have turned out to be a success. Surely a watered down version of social policies is far better than none at all?? At the end of the day it is about balance.

Edited 28 January, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

Yes and you make a fair point. Both left and right were against Germany as our freedom depended on it and the brave souls came from both sides of the political spectrum. So I'll wind my neck in.

 

However, any pacifists opposed to the war has been shown to be wrong.

 

There are a number of morally justifiable wars / interventions. I am intelligent enough to recognise that some wars are justifiable and some are not. For example, the 1st Iraq war was justifiable. The 2nd was not as the premise for going in was a lie. But to take a position of being anti war for all conflicts is just ridiculous. In an ideal world, I would share their view. But we don't live in an ideal world and unfortunately war is sometimes a necessary evil.

 

i can't wait for corbyn to fly out to Syria to negotiate with ISIL. Oh wait a minute. He won't do it. This is not the IRA were talking about. He knows his head would be mailed back with a first class stamp. So jizza what are we to do? Won't fight. Can't negotiate. The mans a sitting duck. Meanwhile innocents are getting slaughtered.

 

Believe it it or not, I want a strong opposition. Someone to keep the government on their toes.

 

Quite right, jonneh, wind your neck in. You've had a mare.

[Verbal]

You do know Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative? There was no left / right political split to the anti war feeling so lets not pretend the right wing saved the day for the country from the pacifist lefties. Many of the most vocal anti war voices were on the right and the Communist Party were the most vocal supporters of going to war with Germany.

 

No it wasn't. Between 1939 and 1941, the Communist Party of Great Britain was a noisy opponent of war with Hitler, and it purged many of its members who thought otherwise.

 

Somehow, the CPGB's appeasement coincided with the period beginning with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (August 1939) and ending with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union (June 1941).

 

For the CPGB the enemy was not Hitler but British imperialism.

[buctootim]

n't. Between 1939 and 1941, the Communist Party of Great Britain was a noisy opponent of war with Hitler

 

Somewhat disingenuous. They started to change their minds in September 1939 due to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and subsequently an Anglo French plan to send troops to Finland to fight the Soviets - but war had already started by then. In the decade leading up to the war the communists were the rallying point for anti Fascists and pushed war against Fascism when the mainstream were still scarred and wary after the horrors of WW1.

Edited 29 January, 2016 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That the nub of it though. Britain had given up on the Falklands and were prepared to give them away -and everybody knew it. We offered Argentina full sovereignty, shared sovereignty and full sovreignty and leaseback. The governments were agreed but the islanders refused to counteneance it. When the Government stripped the Falklanders of their UK citizenship in 1981 the Argies took it as a sign we wouldnt respond if they invaded. It was our vacillation / **** poor diplomacy / weakness/ determination to save cash which caused the war every bit as much as Galtieri.

 

Once they had invaded we had to respond but if the government had imposed transfer and 100 year leaseback on the islands then no-one would have experienced any change to their lives and no-one would have died.

 

For someone who told me that he didn't know how much responsibility for the 1982 war should be laid at the door of the aggressor, I must say you seem remarkably certain in assigning guilt here in this country. As for the Foreign Office imposing Nicholas Ridley's so-called leaseback sovereignty deal on the Falkland islanders - you should understand that the Minister reported back to Cabinet that any such deal would of course require the support of both the islanders and of Parliament. Therefore, your notion of HMG imposing this arrangement against opposition is not only highly undemocratic in nature, but put simply a ''non starter'' politically - as both Conservative and Labour leaders at the time acknowledged.

 

Ultimately methinks that none of the various Foreign Office manoeuvres - efforts that date back at least as far as Harold Wilson's first government in the 1960's - to dispose of this problem at all justify the 1982 Argentinian invasion. Indeed, this line of argument surely comes perilously close to a ''blame the victim'' mentality.

[buctootim]

As for the Foreign Office imposing Nicholas Ridley's so-called leaseback sovereignty deal on the Falkland islanders - you should understand that the Minister reported back to Cabinet that any such deal would of course require the support of both the islanders and of Parliament. Therefore, your notion of HMG imposing this arrangement against opposition is not only highly undemocratic in nature, but put simply a ''non starter'' politically - as both Conservative and Labour leaders at the time acknowledged.

 

Thats very weak Charlie. Ministers and Parliament were quite happy to strip British citizenship from the Falkland Islanders in 1981 without their consent. They disenfranchised the population but kept sovereignty over the land - very honourable - thereby alienating the people and Argentina simultaneously. What they should have done of course is the leaseback solution so the Falkland Islanders kept their UK passports, government and self determination for 100 years. Nothing awould have changed in anyone's lifetime except for the better.

 

Agreement with Argentina would have meant much better communication with the world, easy imports of goods and services instead of tortuous sea routes and flights to and from South America for work, holidays and medical emergencies - instead of 3,000 dead or wounded, an effective blockade, isolation of the islanders and a £100m bill pa for defence. It was the diplomacy equivalent of a cluster ****

Edited 29 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Verbal]

Somewhat disingenuous. They started to change their minds in September 1939 due to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and subsequently an Anglo French plan to send troops to Finland to fight the Soviets - but war had already started by then. In the decade leading up to the war the communists were the rallying point for anti Fascists and pushed war against Fascism when the mainstream were still scarred and wary after the horrors of WW1.

 

I'm not sure how far you want to push this argument. "They started to change their minds" makes the CPGB sound like some carefully reasoned organisation making strategic decisions. In fact, it was a wholly-owned client of the USSR, and its activities, such as the publication of Daily Worker/Morning Star, were actually funded by the Kremlin. (In fact, the paper couldn't have survived any other way - no one read it and yet it had all the production and distribution costs of a national daily.)

 

As for the CPGB pre-1939, this would be the same CPGB that supported or remained silent during Stalin's "Great Terror" of 1936-9. Cloaked by the outward aim of fighting fascism and counter-revolution, the NKVD destroyed lives on an industrial scale, executing roughly 1,000 people a day during 1937-8 alone. The number of people detained, imprisoned, tortured or executed was approximately 6% of the entire Soviet population. All the while, the CPGB toed the Soviet line that these people were indeed counter-revolutionaries, or in some cases fascists, and deserved their fate.

 

And all this is aside from the roughly 30 million people Stalin killed throughout his reign.

 

So we go from the CPGB turning a blind eye to, and even supporting, the largest peace-time massacre of the twentieth century, to falling silent about Hitler just as he invades Poland, having already swept through Czechoslovakia and the Baltics.

 

Some record that, even for a puppet political party.

 

So no, the Communist Party of Great Britain was never a "rallying point" for anti-fascists, except for a few delusional toffs in Cambridge who in any case were much more interested in the largesse of the Soviet Union itself. Besides, "anti-fascism" among socialists in the 30s really was about opposition to Franco, and this was much more widely based than the piddling CPGB.

 

This does of course have a relevance to Corbynism, because Corbyn's chief of staff, a very influential character after the office-political games-playing recently, is a noted Stalin admirer, on record as believing that Stalin's downsides were outweighed by his upsides. His mindset would have fitted perfectly among the yes-men and women of the Soviet-puppet CPGB.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thats very weak Charlie. Ministers and Parliament were quite happy to strip British citizenship from the Falkland Islanders in 1981 without their consent. They disenfranchised the population but kept sovereignty over the land - very honourable - thereby alienating the people and Argentina simultaneously. What they should have done of course is the leaseback solution so the Falkland Islanders kept their UK passports, government and self determination for 100 years. Nothing awould have changed in anyone's lifetime except for the better.

 

Agreement with Argentina would have meant much better communication with the world, easy imports of goods and services instead of tortuous sea routes and flights to and from South America for work, holidays and medical emergencies - instead of 3,000 dead or wounded, an effective blockade, isolation of the islanders and a £100m bill pa for defence. It was the diplomacy equivalent of a cluster ****

 

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

 

I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she?

 

Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

Edited 30 January, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Whitey Grandad]

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

 

I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she?

 

Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

 

Well said CEC, and beautifully articulated.

[alpine_saint]

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

 

I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she?

 

Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

 

Good summary.

[buctootim]

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

 

I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she?

 

Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

 

I didnt, and am not saying that responsibility for the war lies solely with Britain. Clearly the junta were repressive and launched an illegal occupation - in which its important to remember they were careful to not kill anyone. However it was profound British political and diplomatic failings which led them to believe there would be no serious repercussions, certainly not a war. Since both sides didn't want a war, but one happened anyway, the question then becomes who takes most blame for bringing about a war no-one wanted? It seems to me most of those were on the British side who were sending out confused public signals in different parts of the globe.

 

You have to remember Argentina had been playing nicely in discussions for 15 years at this point and had the backing of a UN resolution. They felt they were being strung along and making no progress whilst nearly every other remaining British overseas territory was being changed. Belize, Brunei, St Vincent, St Lucia, Antigua even Zimbabwe and others all became independent in the early 1980s. Britain was already in negotiations to hand much wealthier and more important Hong Kong to China against the wishes of its 7 million population - because we feared an invasion otherwise. Why should Britain behave differently with to 2,000 people on a couple of wind blown islands? - especially, as you said, with Endeavour and citizenship being withdrawn indicating a lack of will and commitment.

Edited 30 January, 2016 by buctootim

[hutch]

Which UN resolution?

[alpine_saint]

I didnt, and am not saying that responsibility for the war lies solely with Britain. Clearly the junta were repressive and launched an illegal occupation - in which its important to remember they were careful to not kill anyone. However it was profound British political and diplomatic failings which led them to believe there would be no serious repercussions, certainly not a war. Since both sides didn't want a war, but one happened anyway, the question then becomes who takes most blame for bringing about a war no-one wanted? It seems to me most of those were on the British side who were sending out confused public signals in different parts of the globe.

 

You have to remember Argentina had been playing nicely in discussions for 15 years at this point and had the backing of a UN resolution. They felt they were being strung along and making no progress whilst nearly every other remaining British overseas territory was being changed. Belize, Brunei, St Vincent, St Lucia, Antigua even Zimbabwe and others all became independent in the early 1980s. Britain was already in negotiations to hand much wealthier and more important Hong Kong to China against the wishes of its 7 million population - because we feared an invasion otherwise. Why should Britain behave differently with to 2,000 people on a couple of wind blown islands? - especially, as you said, with Endeavour and citizenship being withdrawn indicating a lack of will and commitment.

 

I didnt realise James Cook was patrolling the Falklands in the early 80s

[alpine_saint]

Which UN resolution?

 

Indeed.

 

Seeing as the Argies then ignored 501, citing UN resolutions is something of a hollow exercise.

[Wes Tender]

Well I dare say that few would disagree that the 1981 Nationality Act was not a particularly wise piece of legislation. It was however just one piece of a much bigger jigsaw and the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from the South Atlantic may have been just as - if not more - significant. If you examine more closely the terms of the 81 Act you will soon learn that by no means all Falklanders had their full UK citizenship status revoked because many of them had UK born parents or grandparents. Needless to say there is nothing either explicit or implicit in this legislation that indicates that the UK was committed to ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

 

I fear your grip on the realities of the early 1980's British political scene may not be as secure as you think it because the prospects of the ''leaseback'' arrangement being successfully imposed on a unwilling local population and a highly skeptical Parliament were very poor indeed. You need to remember that at the time Margaret Thatcher was a deeply unpopular PM due to the severe economic recession the nation was then experiencing. A significant number of backbench Tory MP's would almost certainly have opposed this notion as did the Labour Party - led by the (then) Shadow Foreign Secretary Peter Shore MP. Regardless of any of that, I seriously doubt that Thatcher herself would have been very keen on this Foreign Office idea anyway - she doesn't seem the type does she?

 

Ultimately it was the (deeply unsavoury) military Junta that had seized control of Argentina that decided to invade the Falkland Islands and initiate a war - a move primarily motivated methinks by internal factors within Argentina that I will not go into at this time. Therefore, it seems to me that responsibility for the subsequent war lays with them rather than in Westminster - however incompetently our politicians may have handled the matter. To excuse the Junta and blame British politicians instead for the Falklands War is akin I think to arguing that poor old Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were fully responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War while a certain Mr A Hitler of 77 Wilhelmstrasse Berlin was entirely blameless!

 

A very good summary. Regarding the Nationality Act, it hardly impinged on the residents of the Falkland Island at all, because virtually the entire population qualified for British citizenship. Indeed their claim with some justification was that they were more British than most of the population of Britain.

 

Whether the Foreign Office was partly to blame for sending out the wrong signals of not, at no time had there been any serious suggestion that the wishes of the population of the Falklands would be ignored. I agree that the wrong signals were sent out when it was mooted that HMS Endurance would be withdrawn. General Galtieri and his Junta misjudged the determination that we would show to restore the Islands to British sovereignty, but it cannot be ignored that one of the most significant reasons that they went to war with us to invade the Islands was as sabre-rattling to improve the popularity of his government at a time of economic turmoil in Argentina, which is presumably the internal factors you referred to.

 

As you rightly say, Thatcher's government was also undergoing a similar unpopularity at the time of the invasion and in the same way that Argentina was united by the fervour of the military action taken to invade territory that they thought they had a right to be theirs, Thatcher and the Conservatives united the country behind the war against the tyranny of this Junta and their illegal invasion of British sovereign territory and following our success in the war, she and the Tories reaped their rewards politically

[Whitey Grandad]

I didnt, and am not saying that responsibility for the war lies solely with Britain. Clearly the junta were repressive and launched an illegal occupation - in which its important to remember they were careful to not kill anyone. However it was profound British political and diplomatic failings which led them to believe there would be no serious repercussions, certainly not a war. Since both sides didn't want a war, but one happened anyway, the question then becomes who takes most blame for bringing about a war no-one wanted? It seems to me most of those were on the British side who were sending out confused public signals in different parts of the globe.

 

You have to remember Argentina had been playing nicely in discussions for 15 years at this point and had the backing of a UN resolution. They felt they were being strung along and making no progress whilst nearly every other remaining British overseas territory was being changed. Belize, Brunei, St Vincent, St Lucia, Antigua even Zimbabwe and others all became independent in the early 1980s. Britain was already in negotiations to hand much wealthier and more important Hong Kong to China against the wishes of its 7 million population - because we feared an invasion otherwise. Why should Britain behave differently with to 2,000 people on a couple of wind blown islands? - especially, as you said, with Endeavour and citizenship being withdrawn indicating a lack of will and commitment.

 

'Careful not to kill anyone'?

 

The way they stormed the barracks not knowing that they were empty belies that point.

[Gemmel]

I didnt, and am not saying that responsibility for the war lies solely with Britain. Clearly the junta were repressive and launched an illegal occupation - in which its important to remember they were careful to not kill anyone. However it was profound British political and diplomatic failings which led them to believe there would be no serious repercussions, certainly not a war. Since both sides didn't want a war, but one happened anyway, the question then becomes who takes most blame for bringing about a war no-one wanted? It seems to me most of those were on the British side who were sending out confused public signals in different parts of the globe.

 

You have to remember Argentina had been playing nicely in discussions for 15 years at this point and had the backing of a UN resolution. They felt they were being strung along and making no progress whilst nearly every other remaining British overseas territory was being changed. Belize, Brunei, St Vincent, St Lucia, Antigua even Zimbabwe and others all became independent in the early 1980s. Britain was already in negotiations to hand much wealthier and more important Hong Kong to China against the wishes of its 7 million population - because we feared an invasion otherwise. Why should Britain behave differently with to 2,000 people on a couple of wind blown islands? - especially, as you said, with Endeavour and citizenship being withdrawn indicating a lack of will and commitment.

 

I think the saying "A little bit of knowledge is dangerous", Is very apt, with regard to this post.

[Sour Mash]

So it was Britain's fault the Argentines invaded the Falklands? That definitely deserves one of these

[buctootim]

Seeing as the Argies then ignored 501, citing UN resolutions is something of a hollow exercise.

 

I didnt realise James Cook was patrolling the Falklands in the early 80s

 

I didnt realise the resolution on the Lebanon-Israel conflict was relevant.

[buctootim]

'Careful not to kill anyone'?

 

The way they stormed the barracks not knowing that they were empty belies that point.

 

They used tear gas and were under orders to avoid casualties. They didnt fire a shot. The bullet holes sometimes misreported were from a subsequent attack by British forces on the barracks when they were being used by Argentinians.

Edited 31 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Clearly the junta were repressive and launched an illegal occupation - in which its important to remember they were careful to not kill anyone.

 

I just noticed this bit and thought how kind it was of them to be so concerned not to kill anybody, when on the other hand when the British troops were advancing towards Port Stanley, the Argies set up their artillery in the midst of the residential area, using the civilians as a shield.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

They used tear gas and were under orders to avoid casualties. They didnt fire a shot. The bullet holes sometimes misreported were from a subsequent attack by British forces on the barracks when they were being used by Argentinians.

 

What exactly occurred at Moody Brook Barracks is a matter of some dispute. It is certainly true however that the Argentine invasion force was under orders to minimise British casualties as far as practicable. Nevertheless, all published accounts agree that during their invasion (''Operation Rosario'') the attacking force and the small Royal Marine garrison did indeed exchange live fire on several occasions - both in and around Port Stanley on the night of the 1st/2nd April 1982 and a day later during a fierce little fire-fight on the island of South Georgia - where a Argentine navy corvette attempted to bombard our troops with its main and secondary armament before being forced to withdraw. The record shows that one of our Royal Marines was wounded in action during this engagement.

 

The real explanation as to why there were no more serious British causalities incurred at this time seems to be a combination of mere good fortune and the fact that the Falkland Islands Governor - Sir Rex Hunt - rapidly ordered his tiny garrison to surrender in order to prevent further bloodshed.

[hutch]

I didnt realise the resolution on the Lebanon-Israel conflict was relevant.

 

I expect he was referring to this one:

 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 adopted 3 April 1982

 

The Security Council, recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 (S/14944) calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina, determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

 

Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

 

Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

 

Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

 

Is that the same one you were referring to?

[CB Fry]

Buctootim has been playing an absolute blinder on the Falklands stuff, hasn't he?

 

Really think he needs to quit while he's behind because he seems to be in a minority not much bigger than the Rockall residents association.

[buctootim]

Buctootim has been playing an absolute blinder on the Falklands stuff, hasn't he?

 

Really think he needs to quit while he's behind because he seems to be in a minority not much bigger than the Rockall residents association.

 

What are your thoughts CB? We've all seen the acid one liners, endlessly. They are pretty easy to do, but what about actual views, ideas of your own? You think the Falklands was really a justified jingofest or a bit of ****up. Reasoning would be welcome too.

Edited 31 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Verbal]

Buctootim has been playing an absolute blinder on the Falklands stuff, hasn't he?

 

Really think he needs to quit while he's behind because he seems to be in a minority not much bigger than the Rockall residents association.

 

Not to mention finding reasoned independent thought in a USSR-puppet Communist Party of Great Britain, which sided with or turned a blind eye to the Kremlin's mass murder programmes of the Great Terror, and then, to top that, thought that British imperialism was a greater threat than the Nazis during the Hitler-Stalin pact.

 

There seems a parallel, sadly, with his moral-relativist reasoning with the Falklands. The argument that the Argentine junta at the time - whose brutality against its own citizens, if it were detailed here, would make anyone physically sick - is thought to be capable of humanitarian restraint when invading the Falklands is bizarre.

 

Aside from the fact that the Argentine navy fired 100mm guns at British troops on South Georgia, in a fiercely fought battle for the island (a dependency of the Falklands), the military occupation by one of the most vicious regimes on earth was clearly not going to end well for the islanders.

 

And to lay the blame at the door of the British for misguided and incompetent diplomatic mixed signals, over and above the perpetrators of the military invasion, is also absurd.

 

But then if your world view is dominated by an anti-Western self-loathing, as is the case here, you end up saying really weird stuff. Frankly, in probably forty years now I've not heard anyone - not even present or former Communists - talk in any way approvingly the CPGB of 1936-41. Nor have I heard an Argentinian post-1982 argue anything other than that the regime was ferocious and that no one in the way of its military campaigns against civilians would have survived intact.

 

I suppose it's a measure the corrupting influence of Corbynism on the well-meaning but hopeless middle-class, moral-monopolist virtue-signallers, that the think they are being righteous peace-seekers but are actually inured to the worst of evils.

[buctootim]

Not to mention finding reasoned independent thought in a USSR-puppet Communist Party of Great Britain, which sided with or turned a blind eye to the Kremlin's mass murder programmes of the Great Terror, and then, to top that, thought that British imperialism was a greater threat than the Nazis during the Hitler-Stalin pact.

 

There seems a parallel, sadly, with his moral-relativist reasoning with the Falklands. The argument that the Argentine junta at the time - whose brutality against its own citizens, if it were detailed here, would make anyone physically sick - is thought to be capable of humanitarian restraint when invading the Falklands is bizarre.

 

Aside from the fact that the Argentine navy fired 100mm guns at British troops on South Georgia, in a fiercely fought battle for the island (a dependency of the Falklands), the military occupation by one of the most vicious regimes on earth was clearly not going to end well for the islanders.

 

And to lay the blame at the door of the British for misguided and incompetent diplomatic mixed signals, over and above the perpetrators of the military invasion, is also absurd.

 

But then if your world view is dominated by an anti-Western self-loathing, as is the case here, you end up saying really weird stuff. Frankly, in probably forty years now I've not heard anyone - not even present or former Communists - talk in any way approvingly the CPGB of 1936-41. Nor have I heard an Argentinian post-1982 argue anything other than that the regime was ferocious and that no one in the way of its military campaigns against civilians would have survived intact.

 

I suppose it's a measure the corrupting influence of Corbynism on the well-meaning but hopeless middle-class, moral-monopolist virtue-signallers, that the think they are being righteous peace-seekers but are actually inured to the worst of evils.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=strawman+frenzy&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO0Y6EsdTKAhVMshQKHYzZCuUQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=strawman+meme&imgrc=iZPaGwY2VckBdM%3A

[CB Fry]

What are your thoughts CB? We've all seen the acid one liners, endlessly. They are pretty easy to do, but what about actual views, ideas of your own? You think the Falklands was really a justified jingofest or a bit of ****up. Reasoning would be welcome too.

 

It was indeed an unjustified "jingo-fest" and "a bit of a **** up" and I am sure there are plenty in Argentina that would agree with that assessment and I hope they learn, or have learnt, the lessons from it.

 

Although I probably wouldn't myself use the phrase "a bit of a **** up" when talking about a military action that cost 650-odd deaths.

[buctootim]

It was indeed an unjustified "jingo-fest" and "a bit of a **** up" and I am sure there are plenty in Argentina that would agree with that assessment and I hope they learn, or have learnt, the lessons from it.

 

Although I probably wouldn't myself use the phrase "a bit of a **** up" when talking about a military action that cost 650-odd deaths.

 

I'm interested in what makes people hold the views they do more than the specifics of a particular war or vote.

 

People like to to portray themselves as independent thinkers, but in practice mostly uncritically follow party / club / national line. At the time of the war, irrc, around 85% of both Argentinians and Brits thought their country was in the right. There is only one set of facts - mostly undisputed - yet two diametrically opposed interpretations of them. Government and media spin plays a part, but also there is a large dose of people selectively believing what they want to hear. They dont want to fall out with the group - or worse have the beliefs they have built up over a lifetime challenged or contradicted.

Edited 31 January, 2016 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

They dont want to fall out with the group - or worse have the beliefs they have built up over a lifetime challenged or contradicted.

 

I can see why this is causing you some personal anguish.

[buctootim]

I can see why this is causing you some personal anguish.

 

I was genuinely thinking about you when I wrote it - the inability to break out of set patterns.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm interested in what makes people hold the views they do more than the specifics of a particular war or vote.

 

People like to to portray themselves as independent thinkers, but in practice mostly uncritically follow party / club / national line. At the time of the war, irrc, around 85% of both Argentinians and Brits thought their country was in the right. There is only one set of facts - mostly undisputed - yet two diametrically opposed interpretations of them. Government and media spin plays a part, but also there is a large dose of people selectively believing what they want to hear. They dont want to fall out with the group - or worse have the beliefs they have built up over a lifetime challenged or contradicted.

 

Sadly all too true on Saintsweb.

[hutch]

I can see why this is causing you some personal anguish.

 

Hardly. Most of Tim's views are built up over a lunchtime.

[Wes Tender]

I was genuinely thinking about you when I wrote it - the inability to break out of set patterns.

 

As you say, the acid one-liners are indeed easy to do, aren't they?

 

Your preference is to question why people hold the views they do rather than the specifics of the actual war or vote, something which would require a thread of debate that would dwarf the Pompey takeover thread, involving such factors as upbringing, education, environment, and dozens of other things that go towards forming the opinions of individuals. But as you obviously think that this is something easy to explain, perhaps you'll begin by telling us what makes you hold the views that you do.

 

Actually, don't bother. I'm sure that you are capable of realising what factors go towards the thought processes forming people's opinions and you were only using this as a diversion tactic to deflect the criticism that you have received for some of your views on the Falkland War. These are easy enough to pick holes in with the help of the historical perspective afforded to those old enough to have lived through it, regardless of whether some posters attempt to label them as sheep if they happen to belong to a group who share the majority point of view.

 

For example, let's look at your assertion that around 85% of both Brits and Argentinians thought that their countries were in the right. It is naive to think that there is any real substance to the figure of support for the war from the Argentinian people, when they were living in a country ruled by a cruel dictatorship, where those who voiced criticism of their leaders were murdered, the tens of thousands of so-called "missing." There may well have been that level of support, but little or no credence can be given to any suggestion that the poll result was achieved without coercion or fear of savage reprisals towards those who spoke out publicly against the War.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm interested in what makes people hold the views they do more than the specifics of a particular war or vote.

 

People like to to portray themselves as independent thinkers, but in practice mostly uncritically follow party / club / national line. At the time of the war, irrc, around 85% of both Argentinians and Brits thought their country was in the right. There is only one set of facts - mostly undisputed - yet two diametrically opposed interpretations of them. Government and media spin plays a part, but also there is a large dose of people selectively believing what they want to hear. They dont want to fall out with the group - or worse have the beliefs they have built up over a lifetime challenged or contradicted.

 

Well I for one don't at all mind seeing preconceived historical ideas being challenged or contradicted on here. However, that revisionist approach has to both objective in its ambition and supported by some actual evidence in order to be taken very seriously. We must respect history and not trample all over it.

 

Of course the partisan populations of Argentina and the UK are almost bound to hold diametrically opposed - and equally earnestly held - views of the subject of the Falkland Islands and their disputed sovereignty. What can't be meaningfully disputed is that the (unelected) military Junta in control of Argentina back in 1982 decided to abandon diplomacy and launch a military invasion that ran contrary to the expressed wishes of the indigenous population and counter to the UK's long established de facto sovereignty status over those islands.

 

You may like to see yourself as a ''independent thinker'' but it seems to me that you are yourself thinking very much within what might be depicted as a traditional leftist ''British imperialism is to blame'' mindset. This itself is just another established (and rather rigid) world-view in the final analysis that is as open to question as any other.

[buctootim]

Well I for one don't at all mind seeing preconceived historical ideas being challenged or contradicted on here. However, that revisionist approach has to both objective in its ambition and supported by some actual evidence in order to be taken very seriously. We must respect history and not trample all over it.

 

Of course the partisan populations of Argentina and the UK are almost bound to hold diametrically opposed - and equally earnestly held - views of the subject of the Falkland Islands and their disputed sovereignty. What can't be meaningfully disputed is that the (unelected) military Junta in control of Argentina back in 1982 decided to abandon diplomacy and launch a military invasion that ran contrary to the expressed wishes of the indigenous population and counter to the UK's long established de facto sovereignty status over those islands.

 

You may like to see yourself as a ''independent thinker'' but it seems to me that you are yourself thinking very much within what might be depicted as a traditional leftist ''British imperialism is to blame'' mindset. This itself is just another established (and rather rigid) world-view in the final analysis that is as open to question as any other.

 

Charlie I like your posts and have enjoyed sparring with you. You've made some good points so its a pity you've gone down the lazy route of "well you would think that because because you're leftist anti imperialist". That would be an odd position for me to take as the military junta were systematically killing leftists. You then attack my analysis as "trampling all over history" without giving any examples of where I am factually wrong.

 

Why is it "revisionist" to ask why two different populations see a situation so differently? Both populations saw the conflict as their country rightfully regaining what had been wrongfully taken from them. What the Brits see as an Argentine invasion they see as a liberation from foreign occupation. What we see as a glorious patriotic operation to free Brits from the oppressive yoke (yes the same Brits we had told the previous year they werent Brits anymore) they see as a violent recolonisation killing 1,000 people whereas their operation killed no-one.

 

As I said previously the best result would have been transfer and leaseback for 100 years - thats a much much better deal than we gave Hong Kong or the people of the Chagos. Why did we forcibly evict the 2,000 people of the Chagos Islands at the behest of a foreign power, but get the army to defend the Falklanders? In Hong Kong we had a treaty guaranteeing occupation in perpetuity, instead of "well they were empytish at the time so we annexed them". We didnt need to give Hong Kong up we just decided the economic loss and death toll of defending it wasnt worth it. We sacrificed 255 military personnel and three islanders for a Falklands population out of 2,000. The same death rate for Hong Kong would have seen over 700,000 British dead and 2m Chinese.

 

At what point does a foreign policy sometimes founded on high minded principles and sometimes on elastic pragmatism in a wider national interest become hypocritical? If you are hypocrtical in foreign policy why should other countries respect your actions?

Edited 1 February, 2016 by buctootim

[buctootim]

let's look at your assertion that around 85% of both Brits and Argentinians thought that their countries were in the right. It is naive to think that there is any real substance to the figure of support for the war from the Argentinian people, when they were living in a country ruled by a cruel dictatorship, where those who voiced criticism of their leaders were murdered, the tens of thousands of so-called "missing." There may well have been that level of support, but little or no credence can be given to any suggestion that the poll result was achieved without coercion or fear of savage reprisals towards those who spoke out publicly against the War.

 

What about now? Why are those pesky Argentinians still holding the wrong views when the junta is long gone and they are no longer savagely coerced? Below is YouGov survey. Why do they think the islands are more important to Argentina than Brits think they are to Britain?

 

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21673504

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629216/Argentina-never-give-up-Falklands-new-president-Cristina-Fernandez-de-Kirchner

Edited 1 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Nolan]

Because Kirchner was concentrating on the Falklands, trying to divert attention from the Argentinians woeful economy.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

I'm interested in what makes people hold the views they do more than the specifics of a particular war or vote.

 

People like to to portray themselves as independent thinkers, but in practice mostly uncritically follow party / club / national line. At the time of the war, irrc, around 85% of both Argentinians and Brits thought their country was in the right. There is only one set of facts - mostly undisputed - yet two diametrically opposed interpretations of them. Government and media spin plays a part, but also there is a large dose of people selectively believing what they want to hear. They dont want to fall out with the group - or worse have the beliefs they have built up over a lifetime challenged or contradicted.

 

I know you claim not to be a Corbynist but this is another tiresome and alienating Corbynist trait - the idea that people who disagree with you, and especially the vast majority to the right of you, hold their beliefs because of some permanent or temporary delusion, reinforced by polluting, manipulative media, etc., to which Corbynists are singularly immune.

 

How about challenging people's beliefs with an inclusive, better argument, rather than patronising the "uncritical" masses and their supposed group-think mentality?

 

The attraction of the false consciousness argument is that it entitles those who say they're somehow above it to feel almightily superior. Engage in some proper argument, be as critical as you like (clue: ad hominem crap doesn't win people over), but don't set yourself as a paragon of wisdom against mass delusion.

[buctootim]

Because Kirchner was concentrating on the Falklands, trying to divert attention from the Argentinians woeful economy.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

If that was so effective why wasnt she re-elected?

 

To be clear. There was no public support during the junta because they were coerced. There was no real support during Kirchner because she tricked people and there is no real support under the current government because....?

 

Im so glad that kind of thing could never happen here.

 

 

 

[buctootim]

I know you claim not to be a Corbynist but this is another tiresome and alienating Corbynist trait - the idea that people who disagree with you, and especially the vast majority to the right of you, hold their beliefs because of some permanent or temporary delusion, reinforced by polluting, manipulative media, etc., to which Corbynists are singularly immune.

 

How about challenging people's beliefs with an inclusive, better argument, rather than patronising the "uncritical" masses and their supposed group-think mentality?

 

The attraction of the false consciousness argument is that it entitles those who say they're somehow above it to feel almightily superior. Engage in some proper argument, be as critical as you like (clue: ad hominem crap doesn't win people over), but don't set yourself as a paragon of wisdom against mass delusion.

 

Thats rather rich Verbal.

 

1. You try to condescend to most posters on here and flounced off from Sotonians simply because you were in a minority and losing the argument. Very Corbynist.

2. You make a rather superior ad hominem attack accusing me of ad hominem posts and superiority.

3. I didnt vote for Corbyn. I wouldnt vote for Corbyn, although I think he would make a good minister in the right department with the right PM

4. I have voted Tory, LD or Green far more times than I have voted Labour.

 

I engage in proper argument with anyone who wants proper argument. Those who make snipey remarks but add nothing to the debate I make snipey remarks to or ignore