Tonys new & improved (& pro-argie) version of Falklands War

The Mail on Sunday reports.

"Britains sovereignty over the Falklands is set to be called into question by a new official history commisioned by Tony Blair."

The book is said to reveal secret Foreign Office advice on the British claim to the Islands and criticise Big Maggies handling of the crisis.

The professor who wrote the book is said to "not appreciate that the Falklands is still a continuing dispute and that whatever he wrote would have a direct political impact." Obviously!!!

Yet again Tony kicks this country in the teeth. He will be shiping 2 Para over to Argentina to apologise for their conduct next. What an arrsehole!!!

The author, professor sir lawrence freedman (I hate him already!!) also says his book shows that the decision to sink the Belgrano was "British weakness" and admitted "there are some people who are not all that pleased with the fact that the book is coming out".

Well, he is a professor isn't he!!!!

As for "British weakness" IMHO when you are a small taskforce of modern paper thin frigates with no air cover and 8000 miles from home, yes you are in weak position. Especially when a WW2 vintage (Belgrano was formerly USS Pheonix and survived the Pearl Harbour) Cruiser is cutting about. Thats why when the chance came up she was sent to the seabed!!! Her massive 12" (may be wrong) guns could have ripped our frigate and destroyers apart, yet our exocets, etc would have pretty much bounced off her armour.

What shows Argie Weakness is that A. they lost and B. the two destroyers escorting the Belgrano didn't attempt to interdict the Conquerer before or after the attack. They just hit the gas and didn't stop till they were tied up alongside port!!! Thats why so many sailors from the ship died.

The argies seemed to think that the Maritime Exclusion Zone meant that if you werent in it you were safe. Hence they used to go around it and only entered it for certain things, like launching missiles. They didn't realise that when you declare war, then your ships are at risk where ever they are!!! and the Exclusion Zone was for more for commercial ships to avoid the hostile area. Or that is my read on what a MEZ is for.

And of course post sinking the argie bargies of their navy never left port again. Undoubtedly saving many British and Argie sailors lives. Also bear in mind the Argies had removed the Belgranos torpedo bulges, designed to trigger the torpedoes away from the real side of the ship, a bit like a bumper.

This tit of a professor needs his PHd ripping from him and then getting shipped down south for a battlefield tour and a chat to the bennies. Who, if I'm not mistaken, want to stay British. Regardless of what some prof/legal types or Argentina think should happen!!!
Bliar is trying to turn us into the Harry Enfield character. The German chap who would introduce himself to everyone by stating 'Hello, firstly I would like to apologise for my countries conduct during ze war'.

Disgusting load of balls. Why oh why are we allowing everything that our relatives, family and ancestors have done for us in the past be wiped out, re written, sanitized, PCised, politically adjusted just to serve the present incumbent? I bet the tosser will ensure he sounds great and heroic for commiting us to Iraq though.
Got to agree with c_f re the Belgrano you declare war you can't pick and choose where and when your assets are a target it's all fair game until the armistice is signed. If we'd have let it get about it's business and it did sink one of ours I'm sure the families of the dead would have been grateful to HMG for leaving the Belgrano alone, the fact that we have no dead as a result of an attack by the Belgrano speaks for itself.

Personally I would have sent subs to the Argentine navies home ports and sank it at anchor.

And as for the pro-Argentine tone of this book nothing suprises me with this shower in charge. The sooner these people realise that war fighting is not a particulary pleasant business the better, but then again tucked up safely in bed in Islington with not a single member of the family having served to tell you how sh!t it can be, and no concept of self sacrifice for the greater good, your never going to learn what it's about are you

Revisionist history of the Falklands, eh? Erwin will be pleased :twisted:
The question that needs to be answered is exactly why Bliar commissioned this book, presumably paid for from public funds. Perhaps the money would have been better spent on a book on more recent history, such as "Dude, where's my WMDs?".
To be fair, I've seen or heard nothing that suggests the Argies have whinged about the fact that the Belgrano was outside the TEZ when hit.

If anything they've been quite dignified about it and simply accepted it as a military loss. Its actually the British left who've made daft arguments about it being outside the Zone and sailing away from the task force (like that means its harmless or something). The Argies didn't recognise the TEZ at the time and haven't suddenly 'discovered' it later.

Also, steaming away from a torpedoed ship is a Naval SOP - its precisely what we did in the WWII Atlantic Convoys and other conflicts. You hang around and you've lost another ship or two immediately. The drill is to abandon ship if it can't be saved, self aid and then hopefully get recovery mission in later.

I can't help feeling this article is Daily Mail boll0ks. Sir Lawrence Freedman isn't some dungaree wearing lefty with a chip on his shoulder, he's one of the eminant academics in this field. The 'British were weak' quote looks suspiciously like its out of context: of course we *were* feckin weak - that's why it was an extraordinary victory!

Also, accept it or not, the Argentines have made a claim to the sovereignty of the Falklands. I suspect all Freedman has done is explored both sides of the argument in the way a good academic always does.

This piece smells of the usual mail sensationalist cack.
My dad is a falklands veteran from HMS Glamorgan (only ship to survive an exocet hit)

I quote "they started it, we fcuking finished it. What more do you need to know."

There you go could have saved the tax payer millions on this pile of shite book
Perhaps before we pour scorn on this publication we should read it. Prof Freedman is a war Studies Academic from King's College and the Joint Services Staff College. As Mister Angry states he is not some long haired pinko lesbian, but a defence and international affairs academic of world renown. He was appointed the official Falklands Conflict Historian in 1997 so it would apppear that some time and effort has been put into his book.

Freedman Bio

It is no secret that, prior to the Argie Invasion, the British (Tory) government had been desperately trying to divest itself of the expensive colonial anachronism that the Islands represented. Unfortunately the difficulty was always the self-determination of the Islanders. If the Argies had only waited the UK government would have ceded sovereignty anyway, despite the Islanders' wishes. Fortunately licencing of fishing and mineral exploitation rights has made the Islands largely self sufficient. If this had not been the case we might have seen further moves to share or transfer government, despite the sacrifices made during the War.

pensionpointer said:
He was appointed the official Falklands Conflict Historian in 1997 so it would apppear that some time and effort has been put into his book.
Yeah, I also suspect he was in the frame for the job prior to Blair getting in.

Seriously, theMails coverage on this looks dodgy.
I don't think British diplomacy at the time is anything to be proud of. Withdrawing the Endurance sent a clear message and is a lesson that sholud be remembered in these cost-cutting times.

Nevertheless, as pointed out there is a far more recent event that should be probed in terms of legality, national interest and the worst handling of international affairs since Suez!
Well said, Mr_Angry. If the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday told me it was Sunday today, I'd be checking my calendar. I wouldn't wipe my @rse with the rag, let alone seriously read it, even less believe it!

I was recently stuck in an outpost in the Middle East for several weeks and the only English 'newspaper' available was, you guessed, the Mail. I was pretty eager to read some news from home. Did I buy it? Did I f***
mail hitlers favorite paper all horiscopes & illegal immigrants. Even blair wouldnt give up the falklands .Surprised his has not gone to zimbawe never
seems to have missed a chance to send troops to war for whatever.
"It's Tommy this an' Tommy that,
And "Chuck him out, the brute"
But he'll send you all to Iraq,
When the circumstances suit"

With apologies to Kipling.
I think Kipling would have approved. He knew who got to hold the sh!tty end of the stick!
Maggei should be hung next to Churchills freshly dug up corpes, these criminal perpetrators of war must never be allowed to get away with their war crimes.
Blurs good lady should receive silk so she may conduct the trail for treason and the EU must be petitioned for one final use of death penalty.
To insure EU co-operation Tone the Great will agree to ow't the newly created Emperor of Europe Cheerack the Good.
I am also curious as to why it needed to be commissioned at all. Surely there are better uses of taxpayers money at present. If the article has taken the book out of context then that should become very obvious very quickly. The recent rumblings by the argies about their "malvinas" also makes me wonder at the timing of both.
I am not at all surpirse he commission that book. Have you all forgot that Tony had always been against the Falkland war? He fought a by-election on that year (1982) campaigning the British Army to surrender to Argn!! And he lost his seat that year over it. He is a traitor back then and he is still one now.

Similar threads

Latest Threads