Why did Britain limit herself to war in the Falklands and exclusion zone?
Why not air and ballistic missile strikes on Argentina proper? Surely a night of attacks on Buenos Aires would have ended the war instantly?
Why did Britain limit herself to war in the Falklands and exclusion zone?
Jeremiah Taylor
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
telegraph.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
warisboring.com
twitter.com
Brayden Edwards
As someone who knows nothing about this conflict I would assume they were perhaps worried about the international condemnation that would come from launching missiles strikes on defenseless civilians in a relatively minor conflict.
Isn't it better to moderate force appropriately and use only enough as needed?
Parker Mitchell
Better that foreign lives are lost than 14 ships and 900 of your own soldiers.
Jonathan Williams
Britain did actually send covert SAS troops onto the continent IIRC.
But I think the ostensible limiting of the battlefield to the Falklands was to prevent the whole thing spiralling out of control, to give the war a definite goal (retake the Falklands and walk away), and to prevent any potential Argie terrorist attacks on Britain itself. The agreement worked to safeguard the homelands of both countries, not just Argentina.
If Argentina had somehow managed to attack England (remember they were being secretly armed by the French!), there would've been hell to pay. Declaring total war from the start might've provoked attacks on the UK as Argentina would have nothing to lose.
I will add the disclaimer that I don't really know much about that conflict so take all this with a pinch of salt.
Carter Fisher
Attacking Argentina proper would have enlarged the war from a battle over the Falklands to a full-scale conflict, with all of the international hullabaloo that it entails. Plus, crushing the Argentinian navy without attacking civilian centres makes the Argentinian government look worse in the eyes of its own people, and makes a prolonged war just about untenable.
Grayson Bennett
>the Monroe Doctrine is used against Soviets but not against the UK
the eternal anglo strikes again
Cameron Long
We should have annexed them desu
Benjamin Barnes
1. Argentina was an US ally and the US put the pressure on UK to not attack the mainland
2. Brazil. An attack on the mainland would have instantly triggered a brazilian reaction, maybe an attack against St Helena and Ascencion.
Lucas Brooks
I don't get why communists and left wingers tend to support Argentina's claims in the war because of anti imperialism and opposing Thatchers government despite the population themselves being only fully British, the island having belonged to the UK for almost its entire settled existence and Argentina having a dictatorial government that executed communists. Are they retarded or what?
Jackson Smith
There are numerous instances from the 19th century of America choosing not to invoke the Monroe Doctrine. IIRC France once blockaded Veracruz to collect customs for unpaid debts from Mexico and America didn't raise a protest.
So it was never meant to be an ironclad binding contract, but more of an announcement to Europe of American sentiment against excessive meddling by European powers in the Americas
Jace Perry
Monroe only prevents aggression against New World states, it says nothing about defending yourself from them.
Andrew Martinez
They hate the West more than they love Gommunism.
Cooper Stewart
Margaret Thatcher's morals prevented her from doing so.
Liam Stewart
Fun fact: Argentina sent commandos to attack Gibraltar but spanish police discovered the whole thing
Robert Watson
Attacking cities is pretty high up on the escalation ladder. And mass civilian casualties don't mesh well with war goals of retaking the islands.
>Britain did actually send covert SAS troops onto the continent IIRC.
There was a planned mission to attack a airbase, but it was scrubbed after the reconnaissance mission failed.
en.wikipedia.org
"anti-imperialists" love sucking fascist cock if the cock is making the right noises about how terrible the west is.
For example, US green party presidential candidate Jill Stein recently apologized to ISIS for "US bombs terrorizing civilians" after the Kurds liberated Manbij.
Jack Hill
en.wikipedia.org
>The police were ordered to take the arrested men to Málaga. Nicoletti said that once the policemen realized they were not common criminals, their attitude changed and became more favourable. The police let Nicoletti handle the explosives, as he had training the police did not. Then Nicoletti invited them to lunch, so the police convoy, still carrying the explosives, stopped at a roadside restaurant. Then they went to pick up some clothes at a dry cleaners and finally headed for the Málaga police headquarters.
>At the airport, the police charged with taking the photos thought it would look awkward to take mugshots in public and so a friendly, group photo of the commandos with the police guarding them was taken. This photo has not been found.
holy lol.
Easton Thompson
still more wierd: one of the guys was actually a leftist terrorist who had previously blown up an argie navy cruiser inside the dry dock
Adam Ramirez
Because:
Liberating occupied territory from a hostile force=justified
Invading and bombing a weaker nation=tyrannical
Jose Watson
If there was anything that the Falklands demonstrated it was that the SAS consistently jumped the gun, irritated other elements of the task force by engaging in wild heroics and ultimately caused more trouble than they were worth.
>Why did Britain limit herself to war in the Falklands and exclusion zone?
>Why not air and ballistic missile strikes on Argentina proper? Surely a night of attacks on Buenos Aires would have ended the war instantly?
Because the casus belli was the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, and it was agreed that that should be the main focus. Anything else would have undermined the justification for British military action.
Intense diplomatic shuttles and negotiations were ongoing as the initial stages of the conflict developed, and it was crucial to undermine support for Argentina within the wider international community, specifically via the UN. If the UK had started to attack the mainland, and indiscriminately targeted urban areas, not only would this have marshaled Argentine determination to retain the Falklands, it would have convinced certain nations globally that the UK was a imperial pariah acting in its own parochial interests.
The other point is that there simply wasn't enough resources to enact such an operation on the sort of scale you're thinking of. Julian Thompson's account of the initial preparation in 'No Picnic' is arguably the most illustrative of this, especially in the post-War context he paints for the UK; the UK was an ailing imperial power, operating as a peripheral element on the edge of NATO's considerations, and had a dilapidated if not outright poor range of hardware and equipment demonstrating this. The Task Force being mobilised was an ad hoc scraping together of whatever military resources the UK had on hand at the time. British forces could barely operate this structure successfully 8000 miles from home, let alone a full-scale scorched earth policy on the Argentine mainland.
Sebastian Baker
>(remember they were being secretly armed by the French!),
telegraph.co.uk
Liam Martin
i just might add that the Americans did raise a protest, the day that the french fleet and a small British fleet and the very first ship of the royal Canadian navy left. The operation was timed and worked out with the Americans in advance so as to not trigger american sensibilities.
Leo Hall
Holy shit! I do apologise, and thanks for setting me straight on that.
I thought I'd read that France continued selling fully functional Exocets to Argentina during the war, and that there was a certain amount of diplomatic outrage as a result. It appears i was grossly misinformed.
Kayden Perez
You're welcome.
Carson Edwards
you really imagine losing a handful of soldiers is meaningful to a government
to an extent you even want to give your military something to fight both as a test run and to announce your ability to the world.
soldiers are people whose death will shake the powers that be by far the least, because everyone's already prepared for it. civilians, diplomatic standing, etc will actually have consequences.
Aiden Jackson
>spics are this universally butthurt
Zachary Reyes
>If there was anything that the Falklands demonstrated it was that the SAS consistently jumped the gun, irritated other elements of the task force by engaging in wild heroics and ultimately caused more trouble than they were worth.
Sounds familiar.
warisboring.com
Reagan also agreed to loan the British one of the USMC's amphibious assault ships, which could operate Harriers, in case the British lost one of their carriers. The plan was that the USS Iwo Jima would get sailed to England, where the US sailors would be replaced by private contractors (retired US sailors) and the ship would be taken into British service.
Blake Torres
>Brazil. An attack on the mainland would have instantly triggered a brazilian reaction, maybe an attack against St Helena and Ascencion.
Literally why?
Brandon Martinez
>Reagan also agreed to loan the British one of the USMC's amphibious assault ships
We did more than that too. Our military advisors in Argentina worked as active spies and photos taken by our military satellites were handed over to British. There's a reason Britain knew what exactly what Argentina did well before they did it. Our neutrality in the conflict is a little overplayed.
Oliver Martin
>Sounds familiar
Indeed.
The Royal Marines and Paratroopers, when not exchanging angry looks and arguing about who was better, consistently doubted the combat ability of 5 Brigade and the Welsh and Scots Guards. The latter were frequently scoffed at, and were described as out of shape dullards who had joined the task force straight from ceremonial guard duty at Buckingham Palace. These rivalries caused a number of fatal mistakes at various points during operations.
Let's not get started on the naval contingents not having a proper liaison staff to communicate with their Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm support.
Jason Russell
Surely you are an ignorant human being
Elijah Barnes
Brazil is more diplomatic but also doesn´t want the UK or other power in the south atlantic.
Another fun fact: the RAF almost shoots down a Varig Rio-Cape Town flight full of civilians