MoD block Belgrano documents

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Proximo, Jun 27, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Guardian:

    The full story is here.

    People seem to forget we were at war, and mistakes happen. What good can possibly come of this? Am I being too much of a sabre-rattling Imperialist?
     
  2. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    DD -

    No, your not. With current Anglo-Argentine relations are not all that rosy (see other recent threads on the Falklands), the Gaurrdain is being its usual disingenuous self, especially towards the end of the piece. Indeed we were pally with Carlos Menem, but he's not in charge now, and we are considerably less chummy with Kirchner, his successor. And the 'spirit of reconciliation' has been notably absent recently.

    This is a very good time not to pis$ off our allies in the South Atlantic (i.e. Chile) by publishing stuff which can franly wait a few years.
     
  3. I can't see how it was a mistake though, tbh. We were at war and sank one of the biggest ships in the enemy's navy. Most countries in the world would say that was a good result.
     
  4. Are these people forgetting - they started it. If they had left well alone, then we wouldn't have been there in the first place. If you try and smack someone when their back is turned and get caught, expect a good smacking back to ensure you don't try it again!

    OS
     
  5. I am reading 100 Days by Sandy Woodward at the moment and he goes on about this at some length. Even though the vessel was outside the Total Exclusion Zone at the time it could change its course and head in at any time, straight for our carriers. The Belgrano was not the main target anyway but the 25th May, the Argentine carrier which was supposed to have launched an airstrike at the same time that the Blegrano force headed at us in a pincer movement. The Belgrano's armament could have done damage but it was the excocet bearing escorts that were the real worry. A lack of wind across the flight deck prevented the 25th May launching the airstrike (unbeknownst to Woodward) and the fact that the Brit SSNs couldn't find her lead to the decision to sink the Belgrano, outside the TEZ.
    The sinking was a military necessity at that time; the ROE was changed specifically to counter the perceived threat to the carriers. Without the carriers, there would have been no air cover or command. In this case, we would have just had to go home. I don't believe there was anything sinister here and "losing" Conqueror's log book in '85 didn't help matters.
    Militarily, the right thing was done, saving the fleet and winning the war.