Queen&#x27;s fury at Margaret Thatcher for &#x27;damaging the Commonwealth&#x27;

It is well known Thatcher and the Queen didn't get along personally.

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Sorry your heroine was a such a racist and is judged accordingly in the history books.

The politics of the gutter from the extreme left who can't even get through a whole Wikipedia article, never mind a book. Slandering the dead with vile claims of this sort is not on.

Everyone who has a grain of sense knows Margaret Thatcher was a strong opponent of apartheid and regularly lobbied the South African government on these issues. Botha said it, de Klerk said it, Mandela said it.

Reply 5

Trinculo

21

Mrs. T didn't believe in sanctions against SA- that's completely different from supporting apartheid.

Lefties and Carebears change their tune on sanctions all the time, depending on the situation. Sometimes they want sanctions, sometimes they say they're criminal and harm the regular people.

Reply 6

Original post by L i b

The politics of the gutter from the extreme left who can't even get through a whole Wikipedia article, never mind a book. Slandering the dead with vile claims of this sort is not on.

Everyone who has a grain of sense knows Margaret Thatcher was a strong opponent of apartheid and regularly lobbied the South African government on these issues. Botha said it, de Klerk said it, Mandela said it.

Isn't that a diplomatic way of saying she did damn all? Maybe raise the issue in passing or when no one was really paying attention for instance.

Original post by Trinculo

Mrs. T didn't believe in sanctions against SA- that's completely different from supporting apartheid.

Lefties and Carebears change their tune on sanctions all the time, depending on the situation. Sometimes they want sanctions, sometimes they say they're criminal and harm the regular people.

I'm not sure this is entirely universal to your quaintly named 'lefties and carebears' now is it :rolleyes:

Reply 7

Original post by Napp

Isn't that a diplomatic way of saying she did damn all? Maybe raise the issue in passing or when no one was really paying attention for instance.

No, of course not - and you need only read a bit around what was said and done at the time to see that.

The idea that Margaret Thatcher supported racial apartheid is frankly a disgusting allegation to throw about.

Reply 8

hannah00

18

I still don't understand why Politicians in the early 20th century, did not include Canada and Australia in the United Kingdom with devolution max.

Why set them on a path towards independence.

should have been easy for the UK given the countries were populated largely by british people anway

Reply 9

Original post by L i b

No, of course not - and you need only read a bit around what was said and done at the time to see that.

The idea that Margaret Thatcher supported racial apartheid is frankly a disgusting allegation to throw about.

Alas i really am not bothered enough about that woman to do the leg work. What I do know though is that i treat government with a dully earned skepticism and when lucrative arms exports and such. Not to mention the potential to use the Simonstown base.

Maybe so, good thing i never threw it around then? I merely pointed out that trade talks and morals can take the bus.

Reply 10

Original post by Napp

What I do know though is that i treat government with a dully earned skepticism and when lucrative arms exports and such. Not to mention the potential to use the Simonstown base..

I'm pretty sure the UK ended the Simonstown base agreements long before Thatcher became PM.

Reply 11

Original post by L i b

I'm pretty sure the UK ended the Simonstown base agreements long before Thatcher became PM.

It was just one example - although granted it appears I might have my dates wrong on that one.
but do you disagree with my general point..?

Reply 12

Original post by Napp

It was just one example - although granted it appears I might have my dates wrong on that one.
but do you disagree with my general point..?

There's always a tension in international relations with maintaining constructive dialogue and finding agreements on issues that you can, and taking action against the wrongful actions of states.

This discussion started about Thatcher's falling out with some of the Commonwealth over sanctions against South Africa. It strikes me that many of the people in Britain who would condemn her position today held a very similar position in relation to applying sanctions to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Sanctions are a very blunt instrument and sometimes even a counterproductive one.

Britain used a lot of its power and influence in relation to ending apartheid in South Africa. I don't just mean the UK Government either: local councils, campaigning organisations - a whole range of people across Britain got involved. By Thatcher's time, I think the edifice of apartheid was already crumbling: it was more about allaying the fears of the white population, trying to battle concerns about Communists gaining influence and coming to an agreed process by that stage. Mandela did that very well.

Reply 13

Original post by L i b

There's always a tension in international relations with maintaining constructive dialogue and finding agreements on issues that you can, and taking action against the wrongful actions of states.

With all due respect but that seems like a very diplomatic way of saying it was not in our interest to do anything.

This discussion started about Thatcher's falling out with some of the Commonwealth over sanctions against South Africa. It strikes me that many of the people in Britain who would condemn her position today held a very similar position in relation to applying sanctions to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Sanctions are a very blunt instrument and sometimes even a counterproductive one.

I'm well aware - I'm not in favour of sanctions as a rule of thumb for the reasons you just gave.

Britain used a lot of its power and influence in relation to ending apartheid in South Africa. I don't just mean the UK Government either: local councils, campaigning organisations - a whole range of people across Britain got involved. By Thatcher's time, I think the edifice of apartheid was already crumbling: it was more about allaying the fears of the white population, trying to battle concerns about Communists gaining influence and coming to an agreed process by that stage. Mandela did that very well.

Indeed he did but my main point was as far as the government is concerned it could have done a lot more to poke the SA's in to ending apartheid sooner. It all does come down to balance though.

Reply 14

Original post by Napp

With all due respect but that seems like a very diplomatic way of saying it was not in our interest to do anything.

You could easily argue it's never in our national interest to do something about the actions of foreign states. Yet strangely enough, we managed to get involved in fighting several of Europe's major powers over an invasion of Poland. There is a wider interest in upholding international law, spreading democracy and ensuring the protection of human rights.

Reply 15

Original post by L i b

You could easily argue it's never in our national interest to do something about the actions of foreign states. Yet strangely enough, we managed to get involved in fighting several of Europe's major powers over an invasion of Poland. There is a wider interest in upholding international law, spreading democracy and ensuring the protection of human rights.

I would suggest the idea of Germany running rampant across the continent was more pressing to planners at the time and that Poland itself was little more than a casus belli for a larger issue.
I dont disagree per say that is why i said a certain balance must be struck, one cannot operate as a world policeman when it goes against most of your core international economic interests.

Reply 16

sexilexi

16

Quite honestly that woman was the best thing to happen to the UK in modern history. If it weren’t for her economic policies, Britain’s economy wouldn’t be close to where it is today and Britain as a whole would have been much worse off today.

Reply 17

Tempest II

16

Original post by Napp

I would suggest the idea of Germany running rampant across the continent was more pressing to planners at the time and that Poland itself was little more than a casus belli for a larger issue.
I dont disagree per say that is why i said a certain balance must be struck, one cannot operate as a world policeman when it goes against most of your core international economic interests.

I know this is somewhat off topic but Hitler would probably have left Western Europe alone if the UK & France hadn't declared war after the invasion of Poland. His aim was always the destruction of the USSR & gaining land to the east. Even after the French surrendered, Hitler attempted to strike a peace deal with Britain.
Even some in the UK saw the Nazis as a bastion against the threat of Communism & the desire to avoid a repeat of the First World War all meant that you could argue that it wasn't particularly in the UK's interest to get involved.

Reply 18

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Napp

With all due respect but that seems like a very diplomatic way of saying it was not in our interest to do anything.

That is unfair. Apartheid wasn't a colonial legacy. It was an express policy created after WWII by men who had opposed Britain during the war. Morover it was a single generation. The men who took power in 1948 were still in power in 1989. Only in her last year of office was she dealing with a man who did not create apartheid in opposition to British policy.

Reply 19