Clive Ponting, doyen of British whistleblowers, anti-imperialist historian and campaigner for Scottish independence has died at his home in Kelso, age 74.
Clive came closer than anybody else to saving British society and industry from the horrors of Thatcherism. There is a danger in history of believing that everything that happened was inevitable. In fact Thatcher’s government after two years in office was extremely unpopular just before the Falklands War. Conservative party support was at 23% in the opinion polls, well behind both Labour and the Liberal/Social Democratic Party. Thatcher’s later popularity was entirely unexpected and based on a tidal wave of jingoism as a result of a short, successful war with Argentina. Without the Falklands War the privatisation of water, rail gas and electricity and the destruction of 90% of British heavy industry may either not have happened or have been short-lived.
The Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri was as obnoxious as Thatcher, and also a desperately unpopular leader looking to unleash a wave of nationalist support. The Falkland Islands are one of the UK’s most pointless surviving colonies, though unlike most at least are not a tax haven. After Galtieri sent his forces on April 2 1982 to occupy the Falklands, the United States were leading international efforts to broker a compromise agreement, when all possibility of a peaceful resolution was destroyed by the UK sinking the battleship General Belgrano.
It is worth noting that the Argentinians had occupied the Falklands without one single British casualty. On 2 May 1982 when an advanced British nuclear submarine sunk the old second world war cruiser Belgrano, killing 323 Argentinians in the most horrible of fashions, not a single British person had been hurt in the Falklands War.
The claim that the ancient Belgrano was a serious military threat was always spurious. Clive Ponting, a Principal level civil servant in the MOD, blew the whistle on the fact that it was not, as claimed, heading towards the Falkland Islands when it was destroyed, but was in fact steaming away. The truth of the matter is that the decision was never a military one, but was a murderous political decision, to make inevitable the war the Tories wanted so badly to revive their political fortunes. As we have seen with Brexit, imperialist hubris and sheer atavism are very easy to awaken in British nationalist society, steeped in tales of Empire and World War.
Clive Ponting’s revelation put a temporary dent in support for the war but it could not ultimately make any difference to the vast surge of Tory popularity from the easy military victory which ensued. That popularity was used by Thatcher to go on to destroy her “enemies within” – industrial workers – and change British society fundamentally to one based unquestioningly on the notion that the only human motive is private greed.
However Clive Ponting achieved something vital; when he was tried under the Official Secrets Act for his leak, which he heroically avowed, the jury accepted his public interest defence and acquitted him, against the clear direction of the judge. He had made the official secrets act a dead letter. When I blew the whistle on torture and extraordinary rendition, in circumstances very similar to Clive, I too was plainly in breach of the official secrets act. From first hand accounts of friends who were at senior level meetings in the FCO with Jack Straw, I know that the only reason I am not in jail now is that Straw and Goldsmith feared a “Ponting verdict” – that a jury would refuse to convict me for doing good. I believe the same is true of Katharine Gun.
Of course, New Labour were never going to accept that kind of limitation on power, and they instituted secret courts for national security cases, with no juries and where the security services can introduce “intelligence evidence” that the defendant themself is not permitted to see. Clive, Katharine or myself would be quickly in jail, without a jury, if we did our whistleblowing today. And of course the state currently believes it has found another way to jail me without the intervention of a jury. So I fear Clive’s achievement has not outlived him, but his name deserves to be remembered with great honour.
In recent years, Clive became a fairly frequent below the line commenter on this blog, modestly identifying only as “Clive P” and bringing his government experience and academic research into the discussion. Like me, he came to believe that the only way to free British society from ingrained imperialist thought would be to break up the UK itself. Having retired to Kelso he became a strong supporter of Scottish Independence.
I am mortified we never met. We emailed each other quite frequently, and a couple of planned meetings fell through because one or the other of us was unwell. He had to cancel a planned talk on Independence at Doune the Rabbit Hole as his health deteriorated. In June he contacted me aware that his health was failing. He had things he wished to say before he left us, on what he had learnt from his experiences and on the authoritarian tendencies in the British state. I discussed this with Alex Salmond and we all agreed the Alex Salmond Show would be the best venue for this. Clive asked that we wait a few weeks until he had recovered strength from his latest rounds of chemotherapy. Sadly that strength never came back. He deserves to sleep well after a good life lived.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
That is a beautiful tribute, Thank you Craig Salty tears here.
Speaking here:
ScotIndyPod 172 – Clive Ponting (part 1 of 5)
Nov 13, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Izn9nd3v8M
and on video in Dumfries 1st March 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIX4oALBr8U&feature=youtu.be
Nuance, balance & context appears to be beyond you in this post.
Shame
And the bear said “You didn’t come here to hunt, did ya.”
And it is clearly beyond you to identify it, trollbot.
That must be a bot it seems to have no relevance to Craig’s moving obit for Clive.
Third paragraph first sentence – surely popular should be unpopular.
Thank you for this tribute to a true hero.
Thank you Craig. I shall miss Clive P’s comments.
Aren’t there some middling oil reserves under the Falkland’s waters, and don’t they remain untapped? A bit deep, maybe? I would expect such to have figured in the US “compromise”.
I have been told on very good authority at the time of the Falklands war, that the sole reason for carrying out that fatuous war was to :
improve that despicable woman’s credential;
and to safeguard the oil reserves that have been barely touched in the waters around the Falklands.
Another reason I’ve heard for maintaining the UK’s hold on the Falklands is that it gives the UK ‘rights’ of access in Antarctica. We wouldn’t want to miss out on exploiting that pristine wilderness would we ?
An excellent article. Two horrible leaders – Thatcher and Galtieri – neither gave a toss for the young armed forces personnel they sent to their death. Both did so for political gain. Thatcher got the gain Galtieri got the chop. Just more deaths due to the British Empire heritage of colonies around the world.
” and change British society fundamentally to one based unquestionably on the notion that the only human motive is private greed.” I agree in general terms with this statement since England constitutes the greatest percentage of British society but it would be more accurate to have said English society rather than British society. Scotland did not go down this road. Scotland did not vote for Thatcher/Tories or the idea that greed is good.
But some of the most infamous Scottish families benefited from the enslavement of people throughout the British Empire eg Jardine Matthesons via drug dealing in China or the collaboration of certain certain families aiding and abetting in the Highland clearances plus plundering what belonged to the indigenous population of Ulster ( that is the traditional province of Ulster) . All races and nations have small minorities which are indifferent to the rights and needs of others. Scotland as well England or Outer Mongolia is no exception to thus
John+Deehan
I am aware of the historical points you make but see no relevance to my post which referred to the 1980s and England taking on board Thatchers creed but Scotland did not.
Amen.
He exposed mass murder at great personal risk, yet he is the one who was put in the dock and demonized. Plus ca change. I am sure he will be there at your shoulder when you face the corrupt Scottish establishment.
they keep using the same tools, don’t they.
I’ve read a few of Mr Ponting’s articles, he came across as one of the good guys, he’ll surely be missed.
“It is worth noting that the Argentinians had occupied the Falklands without one single British casualty. ”
The UN issued a report in 2016 that shows the Falkland islands are located in Argentine territorial waters, unsurprisingly the Westminster government rejects any attempts by the UN to negotiate a solution to the matter with Argentina.
Territorial waters normally only extend a maximum of 12 miles from coast.
A long time ago so some memories fade.
If I recall Gen Al Haig was attempting to negotiate some agreement.
Lord Carrington resigned.
A few years previously the UK was willing to buy off the inhabitants.
Main thing I recall is that the French had sold the Junta a load of duff Exocet missiles and had they worked as they should have done ‘ The Flotilla ‘ ( that was how the UK’s Task Force was described ) then the story could have been different.
Oh and Max Hastings was the first ‘ embedded ‘ UK journalist from the media.
Oh as well – It was the Sun that won it!
‘ Gotcha! ‘
We have now improved a great deal from those shambolic days.
We have an aircraft carrier with no aircraft and some other boats.
Best not prod China and Russia too hard – it’s not paid for yet.
Don Mccullum has planned to go and photograph the war, as he had so many others, for his boss Harold Evans. But Murdoch had taken over the Times and installed Brillo pad Neil as the new editor. McCullen found his place on the British ship out to the Falklands had been mysteriously cancelled, so never brought back any of his harrowing photos, and unlike every war through the 70s the first of the 80s was a PR success.
“ But Murdoch had taken over the Times and installed Brillo pad Neil as the new editor.”
————
Andrew Neil replaced Frank Giles as editor of The Sunday Times, not The Times.
I stand correct re Brillo pad
Very sad news. I am reminded of the song ‘Shipbuilding’ by Elvis Costello among images of orange life rafts from the Belgrano in the South Atlantic.
On youtube
RIP
” It is worth noting that the Argentinians had occupied the Falklands without one single British casualty. ”
I never realised they were such nice, considerate people. I could almost forgive them the 15,000 to 20,000 of their own citizens apparently murdered by the regime.
Actually it wasn’t for want of trying, they trashed the RM barracks in an early morning attack, hoping to catch the British troops asleep but they’d had some warning and had moved out.
Belgrano was escorted by Exocet armed destroyers and was to act as a distraction for an air attack to approach the task force from the opposite direction. This has all been admitted by the Argentine Navy. It’s direction of travel is irrelevant and it most certainly was not heading for home.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-was-right-to-sink-the-belgrano/
Kempe.
You link to a site that deleted hundreds of comments from Scots who queried why there were very few if any royal navy ships protecting Scotland’s coast a few years back the UKDJ is nothing more than a British propaganda site. I’d believe Mr Ponting over the UKDJ every day of the week.
So what? The decision to sink it was political, not military.
The article you have linked is merely propaganda for the troops, and the Argentinian officers’ statements merely reflect the universal, global contempt of those who hold power for those who work, suffer and die at their behest.
Well done guys. Poisoning the well I think it’s called.
https://www.historynet.com/sin-the-belgrano.htm
You can throw up as many links as you like Kemp, however, Mr Ponting tells it like it is.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18634416.clive-ponting-whitehall-mandarin-yesser-dies-aged-74/
Kempe’s link confirms that the decision was political:
– “Woodward had contact with Belgrano but lacked permission to attack the cruiser. He therefore requested a change in his task force’s rules of engagement (ROE) and that Conqueror be permitted to attack Belgrano. In what British Secretary of State for Defense John Nott later called “one of the easiest decisions of the whole war,” Prime Minister Thatcher and her War Cabinet agreed to change the ROE and ordered Conqueror to sink Belgrano and any other Argentine ship it encountered, even outside the TEZ.”
Leaving aside that the Argentinian invasion could have been averted through diplomacy, if precautionary action was indeed needed against the Belgrano, it could have been warned off or disabled rather than sunk.
But if this decision was so innocent, why the extreme effort to cover it up? There was no issue of national security, it was an attempt to control public perception; the government wanted to look like tenacious heroes rather than powerful bullies.
Clark.
You wrote – “Leaving aside that the Argentinian invasion could have been averted through diplomacy”
But it wasn’t.
“if precautionary action was indeed needed against the Belgrano”
It was not needed. Remember, the exclusion zone was always about warning neutral, non military civilian ships that within that zone, they might be considered a threat and attacked.
“it could have been warned off or disabled rather than sunk”.
No. The Argentine Navy, did not need any warning. They were belligerents in the conflict. This was not the case of illegal fishing, or drug smuggling by unarmed ships. So why would a submarine give away it’s position and risk attack itself? And it most certainly would have been attacked.
“But if this decision was so innocent, why the extreme effort to cover it up”?
I don’t see it that way.
“There was no issue of national security, it was an attempt to control public perception; the government wanted to look like tenacious heroes rather than powerful bullies”.
No, definitely not. If it were up to me, I would have chosen that option every day of the week and twice on a Sunday. I would not gamble with the lives of our forces personnel. There was no ceasefire, both sides were trying to secure their objectives. Are you seriously suggesting our troops should always enter conflicts with an arm tied behind their backs?
Regarding your post below, my friend had to scrape his best friend’s brains of his face on Tumbledown, he suffers to this day with what he saw and did. Yes, he HAS to believe it was worth it, for his own sanity in nothing else.
Some folk must seriously believe war is a game.
– “Yes, he HAS to believe it was worth it, for his own sanity in nothing else.”
Honesty with one’s self is the path to sanity, not rationalisation, which leads to delusion. Honesty is the more demanding choice, as some things cannot be resolved, but it is still better than descending to the racism of devaluing others’ lives merely because they live and get killed far away and are subjects of some other government.
– “Some folk must seriously believe war is a game.”
Galtieri and Thatcher in this case.
Clark, you wrote.. “So what? The decision to sink it was political, not military”.
The political decisions are the rules of engagement. The targets are military decisions. Politicians overrule the military… often.
There were two other submarines to the north of the islands looking for the Argentine carrier group. Now, that carrier group found the UK task force before we found it. Only weather prevented them from launching their aircraft against British forces.
In the mean time, Belgrano was sunk to the south. This resulted in the carrier group being withdrawn towards Argentina.
One of our other submarines found the carrier and tried to engage it. It was itself attacked and took evasive action. It later reacquired the carrier and was ready to attack but could not, as it had just passed into Argentine territorial water and the new rules of engagement (allowed the sinking of Belgrano) prevented the carrier being sunk, although it itself continued in hostilities.
Good and bad fortune prevailed against both sides in the conflict.
A political decision against UK forces by UK government… and silence…
– “…before we found it.”
– “Only weather prevented them…”
– “One of our other submarines…”
You seem to see “us” and “them”; “Britons” fighting “Argentinians”. Such division is how nationalistic jingoism is generated and maintained. It is the perspective of those who hold the power to expend others’ lives in war. It depends upon both racism and classism.
Kempe.
From wikipedia:
“In 2003, the ship’s captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not “sailing away” from the exclusion zone, and had orders to sink “any British ship he could find”. Captain Bonzo stated that any suggestion that HMS Conqueror’s actions were a “betrayal” was utterly wrong; rather, the submarine carried out its duties according to the accepted rules of war”.
I was in the RAF at the time. I did not “get it” then, or now, what this “big deal” was all about. The Belgrano was a threat. End of.
Whilst Craig makes valid points in his article, worthy of debate about whistleblowers. The sinking of the light cruiser Belgrano is was the correct.
Wiki, lol. Edited by Philip Cross.
Funny how many apologists for the killing of over 300 Argentinians have turned up on a thread commemorating the bravery and integrity of Clive Ponting. What a coincidence, armchair generals with fake identities.
Ian.
https://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/23/captain-of-falklands-war-cruiser-general-belgrano-dies-in-argentina
One not edited by Philip Cross.
“Although the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano was involved in a controversy as to where it actually was, or heading for, when torpedoed, inside or outside the exclusion zone imposed by the British, Captain Bonzo, in spite of Argentine claims of a deliberate “criminal action” always sustained it was “an act of war”.
He also described the 323 Argentine sailors that went down with the old Second World War II cruiser as “heroes”.
“The sinking of the cruiser was an act of war. It was not a crime. It was a licit most unfortunate and lamentable action. Crime is war. We were in the front and we suffered the consequences”, Captain Bonzo was quoted at the time”.
Now, I agree with Captain Bonzo.
I have no issues with Clive Ponting. He did what he believed to be the right thing. In war there are always casualties. Thankfully the sinking of the Belgrano meant that the task force faced fewer threats. I believe significantly fewer threats.
What gets me is that our forces are sent, obey their orders and put their lives on the line as that IS what they are paid to do. Incredibly, some people think; and worryingly, really believe our troops should be sent into a conflict with instructions to… “remember, don’t hurt anyone”!
Craig is certainly correct on one point. Those islands and their ungrateful inhabitants were not worth it. Sadly, those brave veterans who lost their best friends on Tumbledown, Sheffield etc., have to believe it was worth it.
You are the “armchair general” Ian. I bet you have never served. Further more, NEVER in a conflict/war zone.
My friend Brian who lost his friend on Sheffield never believed it was worth it. I accompanied him to the virtual state funeral of Thatcher, and amid all that disgusting pomp and circumstance we turned our backs.
All the world is a war zone for capital, poverty kills by attrition, and what justification is it that Argentinian generals will expend the lives of those paid to work as readily as British or any other generals?
Thank you for the Exocet. Glad that is cleared up to your satisfaction, complete with fictitious account of my position.
The sarcasm of your second paragraph doesn’t make its implied point right. Britain did not fight the Falklands war in order to help the population of Argentina, any more than they fought WW2 to help the population of Germany or the inmates of concentration camps. Prior to the war they had supported the military dictatorship in Argentina including by selling weapons to it. Similarly they sold arms to the fascist regime in Chile under Tory hero Augusto Pinochet.
It’s not surprising the royalist British regime’s marines had had some warning, given the enormous British-descended presence in Argentina. The Tory government wanted Argentina to invade. They wanted war. In any case the trashing of a barracks is not comparable to the killing or injuring of human beings. Argentinian forces accepted the British marines’ surrender and as far as I am aware they treated them properly as prisoners of war, respecting the Geneva convention. That’s something that most military types without heads made of bone from one side to the other might actually want to recognise.
“The Falkland Islands are one of the UK’s most pointless surviving colonies, though unlike most at least are not a tax haven”
Which might be the case, but that does not invalidate the desire of the population at the time not to be part of fascist Regime in Argentina. Or do you really want to defend the takeover of an island with majority of English descendants clearly in favour of continuing to belong to the UK by a very undesirable Regime like that at the time? May I remind you what Argentna was like at the time?: “The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar de Argentina) for the period of United States-backed state terrorism[1][2][3] in Argentina[4][5] from 1976 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and right-wing death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[6] hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism, left-wing Peronism or the Montoneros movement.[7][8][9][10]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
I cannot believe you so blithely ignore the threat to the liberties and maybe even lives by that regime to the inhabitants of the Islands who except for the proximity to Argentina had very little in common with their latino culture.
Oh, so if proposition A is not the case, its polar opposite is automatically true, eh? Craig, a diplomat, made his position clear, and it bears no resemblance to what you infer:
– “The Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri was as obnoxious as Thatcher, and also a desperately unpopular leader looking to unleash a wave of nationalist support. […] After Galtieri sent his forces on April 2 1982 to occupy the Falklands, the United States were leading international efforts to broker a compromise agreement, when all possibility of a peaceful resolution was destroyed by the UK sinking the battleship General Belgrano.”
“The Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri was as obnoxious as Thatcher, and also a desperately unpopular leader looking to unleash a wave of nationalist support.”
So a true fascist is “as obnoxious” as a still democratically elected leader who acts within a set of rules that limit his/her power? I find this statement by Mr. Murray rather dismissive as to the real crimes of the Thugs in Argentina and insulting towards a however unpleasant but elected and legally acting prime minister.
And really trying to do diplomacy with thugs like Galtieri?
Why not retroactively exonerating Chamberlain for his attempts to mollify Adolph?
To make it very clear: I have very little use for the real Nazis like the Brazilian, Argentinian, German or Ukranian type etc. and based on the history of my family – one beaten almost to a mental cripple by SS officers, one stuck for a year in Börger Moor KZ,raised in a city that was still in 1949 quite heavily destroyed – and gladly would participate in hanging each single Nazi from a lamp post if there were enough of those – lamp posts I mean.
I therefore find any attempt to somehow compare those with non nazis or the ones a “free” press labels such because of partisanship immensely tasteless and find it hard to believe that Mr. Murray would engage in such diminution of the fascist evil.
I apologise for my inadvertent disregard for your relatives, and agree that Craig could have written “even more obnoxious” or similar.
But your original inference against Craig’s argument is still wrong. Craig was not “defend[ing] the takeover of” the Falklands; he was criticising needless killing to rouse political support through jingoism, which he made clear applied to both governments, British and Argentinian.
@ pier mortice
Who the hell is Adolph?
Is that your entry for the, “Top pedant of 2020” award?
Imagine trying to put up the Tory government under Margaret Thatcher as some kind of opponent of all the world’s most obnoxious regimes because it cared so much about those who suffered under them. Especially the left-wing disappeared in Argentina and Chile, right? Thatcher’s was a government that called the opponents of the white supremacist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia “terrorists”. They’d have loved to impose a Pinochet-type solution on the left and the labour movement in Britain, nearly did it in the early 1970s, and would love to do it now too, if only there were a left and labour movement that provided a threat to them. The Tories are thugs through and through.
Your point about the inhabitants of the Falklands wanting to remain under British rule is in danger of getting swamped when you say such things. I haven’t asked them but I doubt it’s got anything to do with parliamentary democracy. After all, they don’t participate in the parliamentary democracy of the colonial power, do they?
The war propaganda in 1982 inside Britain was overwhelmingly “Argentina has attacked a British possession” rather than “Britain must liberate the Falkland islanders”.
PM: “I cannot believe you so blithely ignore the threat to the liberties and maybe even lives by that regime to the inhabitants of the Islands who except for the proximity to Argentina had very little in common with their latino culture.”
Now make the argument that it’s OK for us to boot the inhabitants off their island, forcing them to live somewhere else as refugees in another culture, for the sake of providing a military base for our good friends the Americans.
Somehow the principles that we found so compelling on the Falklands just don’t apply when it comes to the Commonwealth citizens of the Chagos Islands.
clearly it’s ok if the leader belongs to a democracy, no matter how corrupt.
«“The Falkland Islands are one of the UK’s most pointless surviving colonies, though unlike most at least are not a tax haven”
Which might be the case, but that does not invalidate the desire of the population at the time not to be part of fascist Regime in Argentina.»
In “realpolitik” these issues are only somewhat relevant. Also, contrarily to our blogger’s imagination, the Falklands do matter, they come for example with a large Exclusive Economic Zone, and with a large claim to a sector of Antarctica. Plus a pretty strategic position like many other otherwise useless UK islets around the world.
Ah ‘realpolitik ‘, that hoary old excuse beloved of excuse makers. A strategic position so vital that it has never been used strategically. Just another relic of Britain’s vainglorious acquisitive colonialism, one it should have shed a long time ago.
in realpolitik these kinds of self serving decision have f all to do with national interests, and everything to do with politics alone.
Spoken like a true little Englander. ‘Latino culture’, in a Latin American part of the world. Oh, the unspeakable horror, and worth fighting a war over, and flagrantly killing ‘latinos’ when entirely unnecessary. Yes, you can be proud of our plucky troops and their vainglorious wannabe little Churchill. Remind you of anybody else on the current scene?
“and flagrantly killing ‘latinos’ when entirely unnecessary”
I really like your defense of a Fascist Government.
The ‘latinos’ referred to here are the poor soldiers and sailors who lost their lives not the fascist government. And as pointed out by someone above, we have never shirked from selling these fascist dictators weapons to suppress their populations.
Are you sure the majority of Falkland islanders were of English descent in 1982? Many were, but many were of Scottish, Welsh or Scandinavian descent too.
“There is a danger in history of believing that everything that happened was inevitable.”
TINA Craig?
It was Thatcher that coined the phrase.
Brought this article to mind.
https://meurer.substack.com/p/breaking-up-with-tina
Lovely tribute. I remember the furore his revelations caused. Brave man.
Thanks for the excellent tribute. The Guardian obit. also mentioned Clive Ponting’s later revelation concerning another nasty secret concerning the incompetent exercise in germ warfare that the British govmt undertook in 1952. Based on his information, an article appeared in The Observer which described how “….the crew of a British trawler was accidently doused with plague germs during abortive Anglo-American attempts to develop a ‘biological bomb’ in highly secret experiments which have never been made public.”
«It is worth noting that the Argentinians had occupied the Falklands without one single British casualty.»
Because the UK side simply surrendered, it is not as if the argentine soldiers were only armed with truncheons.
«On 2 May 1982 when an advanced British nuclear submarine sunk the old second world war cruiser Belgrano, killing 323 Argentinians in the most horrible of fashions, not a single British person had been hurt in the Falklands War. The claim that the ancient Belgrano was a serious military threat was always spurious.»
That’s not how you fight wars. The Belgrano, even if it were useless and unlikely to be involved, was still around the place, and sinking it was something that happens in war; for one thing that meant that the argentine junta largely kept their navy out of the action since then.
Eliminating risks by intimidating the enemy is perfectly legitimate.
I was amazed that the UK side did not bomb argentine mainland airfields and ports, it was excessive restraint. No such restraint was shown in later operations in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, etc.
«Clive Ponting, a Principal level civil servant in the MOD, blew the whistle on the fact that it was not, as claimed, heading towards the Falkland Islands when it was destroyed, but was in fact steaming away.»
Political deception is quite a different thing, even if whichever way it was going was really quite irrelevant.
«The truth of the matter is that the decision was never a military one, but was a murderous political decision, to make inevitable the war»
The war was inevitable, and it was started by the junta, and there were substantial military benefits from the sinking of the Belgrano, like the disappearance of the argentine navy. Regardless killing armed enemy soldiers in war can hardly be described as “murderous”, they were not about to surrender, they put themselves, or their junta put them, in harm’s way.
«the vast surge of Tory popularity»
Lots of people who were losing their jobs and futures to thatcherism loved it. Too bad for them, their children, and grandchildren.
«from the easy military victory which ensued.»
It was a very difficult victory, because of the extreme logistics of the situation, and the much reduced state, also because of thatcherism, of the armed forces.
The expert in fighting wars holds forth, finding you can make excuses for any atrocity under cover of ‘they had it coming them anyway, tough luck’ school of macho posturing.
next we learn that the u.s. invasion of grenada was a very difficult victory, entirely justified by fake concern over a few medical students who weren’t in danger.
It seems to me that the Falklands war did have one significant success, since the British victory led to the removal of General Galtieri from power and an end to the death squads.
Truth is she had no problem with S American fascists who disappeared their own people. Old Augusto was a dear riend.
was the iraq war a significant success too? that’s how it was justified postwar, after the wmd lies became too obvious fore even the mainstream media to cover up.
“The Argentinian dictator Leopoldo Galtieri was as obnoxious as Thatcher”
Really?
Galtieri and the Junta were responsible fot at least eighteen thousand deaths and many more toirtured. It is possible to dislike and despise Thatcher without losing a sense of proportion as you have.
«Galtieri and the Junta were responsible fot at least eighteen thousand deaths and many more toirtured. It is possible to dislike and despise Thatcher without losing a sense of proportion as you have.»
Indeed. BTW on the “Galtieri” side the junta also leased some particularly nasty regiments of the argentinian armed forces to the USA for massacring central american leftists, so responsible for several thousand more deaths and tortures.
It seems also little known that between that junta and other eager participants in “Operation Condor” and related ones, the victims of political deaths, abductions, tortures, arbitrary jailings, in the USA’s “near abroad” of central and south American vastly exceeded for decades the number of victims of soviet domination after Stalin in their “near abroad” in eastern Europe etc., and the same for the victims of the chinese communists after Mao.
Blissed
The question is : did Thatcher not know about this and not complain about it until it became a political issue for Britain? I don’t recall Thatcher castigating her friend Ronald for perusing these death squads.
Thatcher was a great admirer of Galtieri’s rival, Pinochet, another one fond of “necessary massacres”, but at least Pinochet was less willing to go do the massacres abroad.
Indeed since Chile and Argentina are strong rivals and have several disputes, I suspect that Chile helped a lot the UK during the Falklands war.
As to death squads, G Williamson boasted in the press that the UK now have them too, eliminating potential future enemies of the state named in “kill lists”, even if some members of the armed forces are/were not enthusiastic about them or helping the USA ones:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/chilcot-inquiry-black-ops-in-iraq-caused-split-between-us-and-uk-7130996.html
“Some senior British officers were unhappy at what was going on and the involvement of the UK’s SAS and the SBS. “Why are we helping to run Latin American-style death squads?” One British commander, himself ex-SAS, demanded to know. The SAS were, on at least two occasions, barred from carrying out such missions in the British-run south of the country.
Questions were asked about how information was being obtained from suspects in Balad. There was an unofficial inquiry into the treatment of prisoners at the base, although no evidence was found to implicate Maj Gen McChrystal.”
Yes, his death is very sad.
However, I do think there is some mythology about the Falklands War.
What I actually think happened is that the Conservatives hit the bottom in late 1981 and that a small recovery took place at the same time that the government was boosted by the ‘Falklands Factor’. With the war over, the Conservative recovery carried on while the ‘Falklands Factor’ faded out.
A successful war only gives a temporary boost as we saw with George H.W. Bush. Winston Churchill did not even have that, did he?
There was no ‘Falklands Factor’ by the time of the 1983 general election.
«There was no ‘Falklands Factor’ by the time of the 1983 general election.»
There was one, even if perhaps nowhere as big as the SDP factor, the party that was founded to make Labour lose elections. The votes in that and previous and next elections:
1974: 72.8% 29.27m/40.07m: 11.45m Labour, 10.46m Conservatives, 5.34m Liberals
1979: 76.0% 31.23m/41.10m: 11.53m Labour, 13.70m Conservatives, 4.31m Liberals
1983: 72.7% 30.72m/42.19m: 08.46m Labour, 13.01m Conservatives, 7.78m SDP+Libs
1987: 75.3% 32.57m/43.18m: 10.03m Labour, 13.74m Conservatives, 7.34m SDP+Libs
1992: 77.7% 33.65m/43.24m: 11.56m Labour, 14.09m Conservatives, 6.00m Liberals
Obviously the Conservative vote was stationary, but the SDP took away at least 3.5m votes from Labour, fulfilling their aim to ensure that thatcherism would continue.
It was the electoral system which stopped the SDP/Liberal Alliance from replacing the Labour Party. They c.25% of the vote and 23 seats while Labour had c. 26% and 208 seats. The near success of the Alliance was largely due to the lurch to the left in the Labour party. One can argue that it was correct and a better way, frustrated by the media and the coming ashore of North Sea Oil which enabled Thatcher to spend more, but Labour was rejected by most voters.
Michael Foot by all accounts was like the gift that kept on giving too. A good man; a genuine intellectual deep thinker, but a gentle pacifist at the wrong time in history, in 1983. Such people rarely win through in the UK, being a nasty piece of work or lacking empathy is seen as an essential characteristic many voters seem to crave in leaders, sadly. Maybe it’s tabloid driven machismo, I dunno?
War in the falklands
SPD split
Ridiculous press smears against the LOTO
Sounds like yet another case of the establishment throwing everything at the left.
Suppose there are parallels. The Gang of Four were actually well-liked, respected figures though, quite unlike Chuka’s mob who left Labour to form the electorally ill-fated Independent Group(change UK) or whatever they ended up calling themselves
Lord Jenkins was a friend of Blair, he led the Jenkins Commission on vote reform, coming up with his AV+ proposals that now adorn a Whitehall shelf gathering dust. Lord Steel has been involved in controversy over new Jeremy Thorpe revelations, and he was suspended from the Lib Dems over his admission about former MP Cyril Smith. Lord Owen resurfaced briefly to campaign against AV in the referendum in 2011, “No to AV, Yes to PR’ was his message, he promised to campaign tirelessly for PR, then vanished after the referendum.
I remember thinking at the time that the Gang of Four were standing on a tottering pile of newspaper headlines (including I think the Guardian and Observer – centrists undermining the left as ever). As soon as they had done their job and destroyed any chance of a genuinely socialist and pacifist Government taking office, the frenetic promotion started to slide. Leading in the end to assimilation by the Liberals (where they formed an internal opposition to the more left wing elements of that party, now also exterminated by Orange Bookers) and, ultimately, the shame of the Coalition Government.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
It is correct that the Thatcher Monetarism scam was over by her first year – as the great deindustrialization to destroy the class solidarity of the postwar years finally got its foot pushed hard In the pedal – after decades of Planning and infiltration Of the a labour hierarchy by the Atlantic Bridgets and the old martial aristos and the ancient City. They had tried to oust Wilson and finally succeeded.
The same plan was enacted in the US with the same Chicago School gobbledygook. Which led to the insertion of the Actor with his Morning in America shtick.
Thatchers controllers fast tracked the destruction of staunch localities which were the impenetrable Red Wall. Within months instead of a transition over a generation. They didn’t expect to last into a second term without help and destruction of Old Labour – the SDP deep moles were launched with the Limehouse declaration.
That sort of worked – but it was not enough.
The fact was that the additional patriotism red button was needed and fast – the Junta were pushed into the invasion by the global robbers who are the pathocracy to make sure that the Labour voters would be distracted further.
The PR and advertising gurus were told to recreate and sell a better stronger Thatcher and the mass media instructed to trash Foot and support the SDP.
All were rewarded well – just look at their payoffs.
Without the continued trashing of the postwar covenant with the majority of the British populace – there could have been no Big Bang and the turning on of the limitless government money creation straight into the pockets of these bankers and the explosion of offshore trust funds and tax EVASION industry that straddles the Atlantic and the world now.
The Gipper himself would also have failed. Heck Grenada was invented as much as the Falklands.
Anyway it all led to the complete takeover of old labour by ‘Blairism’ after which the SDP weren’t needed anymore!
I don’t believe the Yanks really wanted a peaceful solution – Haig was kept Yo young in the air most of the time, shuttling so he couldn’t do much harm and Carrington was forced into resignation.
The purpose was to entrench a 5+1 eyed hegemony which we have endured for decades now which planned to take over the oilfields not find dangerous new places to drill such as the South Atlantic.
The takeover of Russian resources would have ensured the monopoly of energy supply to a surrounded China.
The best laid plans …though.
So, anybody even slightly left-wing than Foot is a Tory – have I understood you right?
No L and does that comment even scan? I know my thumb typed posts are often un fluent but I hope my meaning is understood.
Left/Right are an invention of the ancient Pathocracy- just as Capitalism/Marxism is – To hide the very Top from all the Below and keep the below fighting between themselves like so many Stooges.
The Old Great Game played out over millennia and with many a proxy war is finally ending – we are the dumb marionettes who are the bad guys and will finally lose and it will take a couple of generations for the real history and truth to come out.
We may not survive if our insane slave owners decide to use the ‘nuclear option’ the new one which supposedly will leave the foe dead and our side alive – the latest scientific secret weapon using genetics and viruses…
But that is a story for another post – this one may hopefully inspire some of the current Empires apparatchiks to search out the truths and be actually Civil as Clive P and our own Ambassador here have been.
DG said “It is correct that the Thatcher Monetarism scam was over by her first year ”
I find this assertion highly curious, as it appears counterfactual.
Would you care to explain?
ta.
Did you bother clicking the link at the top of my comment?
The polls were clear.
The O/P table of votes tells the resulting proof.
Good Heavens Dungroanin!
That strikes me as a Bizarre response!
I fail to see how _polls_ answer a question about _Monetarism_.
Did you honestly misread the question, or is that some kind of deflection?
I engaged with you honestly, because it seemed that you might have had some kind of point to make.
Apparently not.
Monetarism the great break from Keynesianism FAILED at the first hurdle.
It was a LIE.
Maggiie equating the public finance with a household ‘purse’ was a lie.
Taxes PAYING for public spending is a LIE.
Good heavens? Are you clutching your pearls as you say that?
?
I’m no fan of Thatcher but am prepared to credit her as justified on this one. Intelligence had intercepted a signal that the Belgrano was planning to engage the British fleet. This was revealed thirty years later when declassified, as Thatcher had said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080490/Belgrano-Britain-WAS-right-sink-ship-attacked-Task-Force.html
The Argentinians were using Swiss Crypto AG machines, recently stunningly revealed to have been compromised by the CIA
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/
Oh dear. What a load of drivel.
What the fuck is going on with all the bullshit establishment trolls tonight. Poor Clive.
Oh gods help us. Another pseudo-historian collecting sources from the DM and WP.
Surely Thatcher would have made that point, if there were any truth in it, when questioned by Diana Gould. Instead, she came across as a broken record, typical politician evading the question, primed to keep repeating one line that the public wants to hear.
“The Falkland Islands are one of the UK’s most pointless surviving colonies”
That’s a rather stupid statement given that the Falklands people almost unanimously want to be a British colony.
What is about a war like the Falklands ? As a young adult looking on from abroad, the whole exercise seemed mad, Thatcher seemed mad. I cannot understand how such an undertaking was ever in the interests of ordinary people and how they could find it good and support its leaders. This jingoistic fervor is both perplexing and frightening.
If you are an unemployable young person (because all the jobs you might have had have disappeared) the only occupation that can swell your chest and put a strut in your stride is joining the military. “Ordinary people” get a lot of their national identity from their military and no right wing politician will overlook the extra oomph put in their tank by a dose of ripe jingoism. That is, as Labour realised after 2019, one reason why the Red Wall fell. The average Labour voter there does not support pacifism, and loves Trident. Those of us who hate the military and the bomb cannot compete with the sexiness of a military uniform and the prospect of killing foreigners with high tech weapons producing big bangs,
same thing happens in the u.s. of course. more frequently, being the u.s.
It was definitely in the interests of the Falklanders, presumable at least some of which could be classed as “ordinary”.
Change to the status of colonial relics like Falklands and Gibraltar, are often justified by the wishes of the people of the colony to keep it under British rule.
It always seemed strange that colonies with a smaller population than the average parish should determine our nation’s foreign policy.
What a worthy tribute.
A real Englishman. A man of principal, who held Power to account! He is a loss to his adopted home more than many realise! God bless him!???
Does anyone remember Ian McDonald who appeared regularly to give the news on the war?
‘Voice Of Falklands War’ Ian McDonald Remembered
Ian McDonald became renowned for his restrained, and at times emotionless, style of delivery.
https://www.forces.net/news/falklands/voice-falklands-war-ian-mcdonald-dies
Does anyone remember La Thatcher getting into a paddy with a lady called Diana Gould who challenged her on the Belgrano’s position?
https://youtu.be/3JZlP5qQVtE
On my player that is followed by another video where Thatcher appears in Downing Street, accompanied by Nott, making her famous ‘Rejoice Rejoice’ speech. S Georgia had been recaptured.
https://youtu.be/qHwCbIEVmG0
Borges, the writer, famously commented that the Falklands war was like two bald men fighting over a comb.
The Falklands (and South Georgia) themselves are near worthless, just a step above France’s Kerguelen. Their position and the surrounding sea are quite valuable instead.
Like the Orkney ads Shetland archipelagoes might be valuable for Argentina? Equally “only” 8500 miles from colonial home, but just a few hundred miles from mainland.
Atavism isn’t re-awakened, per se – it is the phenomenon of re-awakening, itself. I think.
Anyway, a good man, as were those who helped him through it all.