Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Of course it would it have. SA would have been economically isolated. The US,EU and the commonwealth would have stopped all trade. The SU was a zombie by the 80's. The SA depended on exports to the West.

    The resistance against sanctions had to do with the fear of a communist ANC. The concept that Thatcher was concerned about poor blacks is garbage.

    Have sanctions ever actually worked other than penalising those most vulnerable?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    One of the biggest myths is "she only won the 1983 election because of the Falklands War".

    Labour were far left at the time, and also divided, and taking extreme positions eg full withdrawal from the EEC.

    But also there was a very strong centre party, the SDP Liberal Alliance, which was polling about a quarter of the electorate. This badly split the anti Thatcher vote. She won another landslide majority in 1987 and there was no Falklands effect there.

    The idea that Labour would have won in 1983 had there been no Falklands War is bonkers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    British intelligence claim the ship was heading away.
    You're just flat out wrong. The direction it was heading in is irrelevant. Intelligence intercepts concluded that the ship still had orders to attack the taskforce at first opportunity. If the head of the taskforce says that based on the availabe intel that the Belgrano is engaging in a pincer movement and advises you to sink it, you generally listen to him. Thatcher didn't just order the attack for the giggles.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    And now you are just speculating. The war would have been won without it. That's me speculating, I can do it too.
    I never made any claim as such. I said that the Argentine navy stayed at port for the remainder of the war, which is an indisputable fact. That proves that the sinking of the Belgrano had a noticeable affect on the tactical situation of the war. See, unlike you, I don't rely on speculation and conjecture.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer.
    While technically true, misleading. Before Thatcher, rich and poor had been getting richer at more or less the same rate - the rate the economy was growing. Under Thatcher, the economy continued growing at that rate, but the rich started richer at a much more rapid rate whereas the poor were getting richer at a much slower pace.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Dodgy?! Her relationship with a rutheless dictator was merely dodgy? Who is the apologist now? USSR helped out her allies in WW2, yet you wouldn't praise someone defending a Soviet dictator, would you?
    What do you mean who is the apologist now? When did I accuse you of that?

    I don't praise Thatcher for her relationship with Pinochet and have never done so. That's an attempted red herring on your part. I praise her for her conviction politics, diminishing the power of the unions, creating an economic boom, lowering taxes, winning the Falklands war, right-to-buy etc.
    Her relationship with Pinochet, while dubious, does not negate her acheivements.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    So what exactly was the government who wanted to oppress the majority of its people due to their skin colour? You know, the government she was effectively supporting by not supporting the sanctions?

    Desperate times called for desperate measures. The non-violence protests often does not work and this was the case with South Africa. It also happened to be the case in Northern Ireland when the group that would eventually come within inches of her assassination was born out of a failed civil rights movement.

    It is always amusing hearing such people throw around the term terrorist as if they are immune to it because they are part of a recognised state.
    Justify attempting to main and kill innocent civilians of all races.

    South Africa was pressured by the rest of the world with sanctions already, killing innocents would just lead to harsher government crackdowns.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    One of the biggest myths is "she only won the 1983 election because of the Falklands War".

    Labour were far left at the time, and also divided, and taking extreme positions eg full withdrawal from the EEC.

    But also there was a very strong centre party, the SDP Liberal Alliance, which was polling about a quarter of the electorate. This badly split the anti Thatcher vote. She won another landslide majority in 1987 and there was no Falklands effect there.

    The idea that Labour would have won in 1983 had there been no Falklands War is bonkers.

    I some how have difficulty thinking that Michael foot would've become prime minister in 83
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    A myth of the era of Margaret Thatcher is that she led the most popular Tory government ever. John Major's 1992 election victory saw more people vote Tory than in any of the three elections Margaret Thatcher won.
    They'd be basing that on seats- 397 in 1983.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What do you mean who is the apologist now? When did I accuse you of that?

    I don't praise Thatcher for her relationship with Pinochet and have never done so. That's an attempted red herring on your part. I praise her for her conviction politics, diminishing the power of the unions, creating an economic boom, lowering taxes, winning the Falklands war, right-to-buy etc.
    Her relationship with Pinochet, while dubious, does not negate her acheivements.
    It does negate her legacy and says a lot about her philosophy. Regarding the apologist statement, it was implied when you (I'm paraphrasing) claimed people accuse just for the sake of it. If I misunderstood then I apologise (pardon the pun lol)
    With the Belgrano, of course it's relevant whether it was sailing away or not. It was a rutheless act.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    While technically true, misleading. Before Thatcher, rich and poor had been getting richer at more or less the same rate - the rate the economy was growing. Under Thatcher, the economy continued growing at that rate, but the rich started richer at a much more rapid rate whereas the poor were getting richer at a much slower pace.
    No, the economy was growing faster and the poor were getting richer at a faster rate than during the 1970s, the rich were simply getting much, much richer.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    With the Belgrano, of course it's relevant whether it was sailing away or not. It was a rutheless act.
    What part of still engaged in a pincer movement with orders to attack the taskforce do you not understand?
    Do you know that ships can turn around in matter of minutes and often engage in zigzag patterns to confuse the enemy?
    Ruthless? Perhaps.
    A legitimate military attack? Most definately.
    A war crime? Absolutely not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    It does negate her legacy and says a lot about her philosophy. Regarding the apologist statement, it was implied when you (I'm paraphrasing) claimed people accuse just for the sake of it. If I misunderstood then I apologise (pardon the pun lol)
    With the Belgrano, of course it's relevant whether it was sailing away or not. It was a rutheless act.
    Then why does everyone including parts of the Argentine military view is as a legitimate act of war?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer. She answers this criticism better than I ever could in her last ever Commons Speech:

    Indeed. But it begs the question - how could a society become so much monetarily richer en masse? Where was the extra money coming from?

    Drastic cost cutting over an extremely short period of time:

    1) 3 million unemployed instead of the relatively little unemployment that she inherited.

    2) Educational / cultural cut backs. Unlike the massive expansion in the 60s, no new universities were built during her time.

    3) Lax attitude to crumbling structures / health and safety matters : There were 2 well known fires during this time caused by similar types of circumstances . The Bradford Fire and Kings Cross Fire caused by accumulated rubbish catching fire.

    Who knows how much the social conditions of the early 80s, originally begun by some of the darker days of the 70s but cumulating in to a divide between the prospective middle class and the prospective unemployed in the early 80s, lead to the public order / drug problems , the suspicion of football fans en masse and their suffocation behind state erected bars at Hillsborough?

    'There is no such thing as society'. No religious person (and she called herself a Methodist) could truly want that to be.

    If there is no society then there is simply no country. A virtual country dependent on cash amounts in castles in the sky.

    Thatcherism went some way to destroying the working class intellectual and replacing it with the ideology of the grocer's profit counting in every respect, no matter what the human cost to that what we used to call a soul.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Then why does everyone including parts of the Argentine military view is as a legitimate act of war?
    Who's everyone? It's widely been criticised.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Who's everyone? It's widely been criticised.
    Wiki sumarises it nicely:

    n August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari[40] was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war"

    La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area".[47]

    During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.[50]

    n the book he stated that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone.[51][52] A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.[53]

    Argentine Navy has historically held the view that the sinking was a legitimate act of war


    Given that Argentinians in the navy including the captain of the ship admit it was part of a pincer attack ,it was a threat to British ships and that it had orders to sink any British vessels it came across on top of British intel intercepts that show it was a genuine danger I'm not sure why there is any controversy over this. Except from a few pissed off overly Nationalistic Argentinians like the current president.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What part of still engaged in a pincer movement with orders to attack the taskforce do you not understand?
    Do you know that ships can turn around in matter of minutes and often engage in zigzag patterns to confuse the enemy?
    Ruthless? Perhaps.
    A legitimate military attack? Most definately.
    A war crime? Absolutely not.
    Keep your tone respectful or don't bother debating with me.
    Listen, at that time, a ship sailing in the EZ would be sunk. The Belgrano was sailing away, towards the mainland, but was still sunk. It is mere speculation by one historian that the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement with orders to attack!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Margaret Thatcher did NOT destroy British industry.
    Manufacturing output actually increased under her watch.
    It seems she closed down the unprofitable parts and her tax cuts allowed the profitable parts to thrive
    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1475644.stm
    When she was Education Secretary she argued against cutting school milk for 7-11 year olds. But as she was the minister she took the rap!

    Ironically it was Labour that removed school milk from secondary school students in 1968!

    Please feel free to add some more
    Yes and no.
    British manufacturing was losing out due to traditional British mistakes (not investing in modernisation) so when it failed, it should have rightfully been left to die. That is how capitalism works.
    However, where she did **** up and what you are ignoring, is how she did not then help new industries to form to replace the ones that had folded. She left areas with mass unemployment and basically said "**** off" to the working class. That was wrong and very stupid.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Wiki sumarises it nicely:

    n August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari[40] was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war"

    La Nación published a reader's letter from Admiral Enrique Molina Pico (head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s) in 2005 in which Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons. Pico added that "To leave the exclusion zone was not to leave the combat zone to enter a protected area".[47]

    During an interview in 2003 he had stated that the General Belgrano was only temporarily sailing to the west at the time of the attack, and his orders were to attack any British ships which came within range of cruiser's armament.[50]

    n the book he stated that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone.[51][52] A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated; the report was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.[53]

    Argentine Navy has historically held the view that the sinking was a legitimate act of war


    Given that Argentinians in the navy including the captain of the ship admit it was part of a pincer attack ,it was a threat to British ships and that it had orders to sink any British vessels it came across on top of British intel intercepts that show it was a genuine danger I'm not sure why there is any controversy over this. Except from a few pissed off overly Nationalistic Argentinians like the current president.
    That's not "everyone". I'm speaking about Thatcher as a person. She was not aware of any potential orders but decided to sink it because of the proximity to the EZ. A huge gamble with life that with serendipity turned out to be wise, or not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    That's not "everyone". I'm speaking about Thatcher as a person. She was not aware of any potential orders but decided to sink it because of the proximity to the EZ. A huge gamble with life that with serendipity turned out to be wise, or not.
    I think the captain of the ship and Argentine navy's view is going to be more important than just about any one else's views. Especially given that its backed by plenty of other evidence such as intercepted messages. But it's pretty clear she was fully justified in that choice. War is full of choices like the one she made. Seems you should just have a problem with the nature of war rather than Thatcher....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Keep your tone respectful or don't bother debating with me.
    Lol what?!

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Listen, at that time, a ship sailing in the EZ would be sunk. The Belgrano was sailing away, towards the mainland, but was still sunk.
    Listen, at that time, a ship sailing in the EZ would definately be sunk. A ship outside might still be sunk, depending on the circumstances.

    In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.



    (Original post by amineamine2)
    It is mere speculation by one historian that the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement with orders to attack!
    No, it's something that was confirmed by the Argentine navy themselves.
    Admiral Enrique Molina Pico wrote that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, but was holding off for tactical reasons.
    We have testimony from military commanders from both sides who took part in the war that the Belgrano was takin part in a pincer movement.
    It's not 'mere' speculation by 'one historian'.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 18, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.