A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:22 am UTC

iChef wrote:Didn't Cromwell get a state funeral..... of sorts.

Also even though Thatcher was a very divisive PM she still represented a very real portion of the British people. The same way Bush and Reagan did in America. I don't see how there is any real harm in offering a state funeral or why so many people would get worked up about it. Hell we offered Harry Truman a state funeral (which was declined) and he nuked Japan.

Read upthread. State funerals are more readily offered to Heads of Government in the US than they are in the UK.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby iChef » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:38 am UTC

I saw that they are more common here than in the UK, I was more wondering why that might be, and why they feel so strongly about the issue. It seems to me the best possible outcome that would please the most people is to offer a state funeral and then have her decline it. They honor the former PM, but don't have to actually have the ceremony, everyone gets to save some face.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Zamfir » Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:22 am UTC

iChef wrote:I saw that they are more common here than in the UK, I was more wondering why that might be, and why they feel so strongly about the issue.

Because your presidents take on at least some of the symbolic and ceremonial position of UK royalty. It's why many countries nowadays separate the roles of president and of prime minister.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Puppyclaws » Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

iChef wrote:I saw that they are more common here than in the UK, I was more wondering why that might be, and why they feel so strongly about the issue. It seems to me the best possible outcome that would please the most people is to offer a state funeral and then have her decline it. They honor the former PM, but don't have to actually have the ceremony, everyone gets to save some face.


I am not sure that her declining it would do very much to salve the people who feel she should not be offered it in the first place. People who do not like Margaret Thatcher tend to have pretty strong feelings on the subject. The question (in my mind) is not so much about the ceremony itself, but about whether the British government wants to give the stamp of approval to her policies and actions both as PM and in her public life afterwards.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:37 am UTC

iChef wrote:I saw that they are more common here than in the UK, I was more wondering why that might be, and why they feel so strongly about the issue. It seems to me the best possible outcome that would please the most people is to offer a state funeral and then have her decline it. They honor the former PM, but don't have to actually have the ceremony, everyone gets to save some face.


This would not be an ideal solution - which would be not offering her one at all. By offering someone a State Funeral you are declaring in some way that they are a National Figure, representative of the State rather than any of the particular sections within it which they have come to transcend to the point that every citizen broadly feels they are deserving of honour. This plainly isn't the case with Thatcher where the mere mention of her invocation of her name is enough to send whole regions of Britain into vitriolic cursing and others into praise and adulation. She is a divisive figure - the State should not ignore this. Offering her a State Funeral is ignoring it and alienating the sizeable portion of its citizenry who despise her viciously.
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

Lampang
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:01 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Lampang » Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:37 am UTC

No. It's an insane idea and - for all the reasons above - I can't imagine why anyone would think it remotely sensible.

Besides, Frankie Boyle has already made the best suggestion: give everyone in Scotland a shovel and they'll dig a hole deep enough to hand her over to Satan in person.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:10 pm UTC

Can't you at least let the miners join in?

User avatar
canoemoose
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:15 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby canoemoose » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:45 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Can't you at least let the miners join in?


No doubt they'll be on strike.
22/Male/Female/Single/Yep
(Age/Gender/Interested in/Status/Don't you hate people who just jump on the bandwagon)

Windows 7, Server 2008R2, Ubuntu, Android, iOS user

alex_b
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:53 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby alex_b » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:00 am UTC

I think that with all things British it is important to look to tradition. The tradition in the post-war years (excepting Churchill) has been to have a private funeral followed by a memorial in Westminster Abbey. Whatever the particular politics of Thatcher (of which I am not a fan) it is important to preserve this tradition to avoid politicizing the Crown, just as when the time comes Brown (also not a fan) should be elevated to the peerage (if it still exists) and should be given a KG. As a State Funeral would be a break from tradition and IMHO this requires extraordinary circumstances, I don't think it can be justified here (or in Blair's case who served almost as long).

User avatar
FierceContinent
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:30 pm UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby FierceContinent » Sat Aug 04, 2012 7:19 pm UTC

whichever is cheapest.
I'm sure she would appreciate that.
The greatest Science Hero is almost certainly Norman Borlaug. His selectively bred crops have saved many, many people from starvation.
Just to be clear, the number of lives Norman Borlaug is credited with saving is in the BILLIONS.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceHero

User avatar
Horselover Frost
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:36 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Horselover Frost » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:32 am UTC

Now that she's dead, it seems she's getting one. Against her stated wishes, no less.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby yurell » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:57 am UTC

Horselover Frost wrote:Now that she's dead, it seems she's getting one. Against her stated wishes, no less.


I thought she got a ceremonial funeral?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Horselover Frost
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:36 pm UTC
Location: NY

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Horselover Frost » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:05 am UTC

yurell wrote:I thought she got a ceremonial funeral?


I'm a little fuzzy on what the actual difference is (I am not from the UK), but, to paraphrase the New York Times, it was a state funeral in everything but name.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:16 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
distractedSofty wrote:
Azrael wrote:
distractedSofty wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You mean a former head-of-state shouldn't be allowed a state funeral?
Thatcher was Prime Minister, not Queen.
... which is why we're discussing a State Funeral instead of a Royal State Funeral or Royal Ceremonial Funeral.
... my point was that Thatcher was never head of state.
Head of Government, then.

A distinction that remains irrelevant considering the list of individuals who have received State Funerals.


I would agree. Being head of state does not appear to have been a prerequisite in the past, so I don't see the relevance here. The question is mostly if her history is noteworthy enough to join that group.

Thatcher is the only British PM I can name off the top of my head since Churchill as a foreigner. Her name had serious pull. Her policies reformed the country to significant effect on a scale that few do. I understand that some people disliked those policies, or at least some of them...but it's hard to point at any famous leader who hasn't had to deal with that. Not being up on UK politics, I was given to understand that her handling of the Falklands was a big part of her fame. Do her detractors admit that was a good thing, or do they also take issue with it? While it isn't the same as fighting off Hitler, exactly, repelling invaders is the sort of thing that tends to make one get held up as a hero.

I'm not strongly on either side...but my misgivings have more to do with her wishes and the conflict with her ideology than her fame. She seems to have been notorious enough, certainly. But if she actively didn't want one, and the massive spending was counter to her desires, how much would such an event actually respect her memory? I'm not certain here.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Alexius » Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Not being up on UK politics, I was given to understand that her handling of the Falklands was a big part of her fame. Do her detractors admit that was a good thing, or do they also take issue with it? While it isn't the same as fighting off Hitler, exactly, repelling invaders is the sort of thing that tends to make one get held up as a hero.

Very few people think that Britain should have handed over the Falklands in 1982 in response to the invasion, though some do take issue with the decision to sink the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano while it was outside the exclusion zone that Britain had declared around the islands, and steaming away from them.

On the other hand, I have heard people blame Thatcher for the invasion in the first place. Argentina had made noises towards trying to invade the Falklands in 1977 during James Callaghan's ministry, but backed down when he sent a naval task force. Thatcher's government had made severe cuts to the Royal Navy- just before the invasion, they had announced the withdrawal of HMS Endurance which was the only permanent British naval presence in the area. It had also been announced that HMS Invincible, an aircraft carrier that had just been completed and played a key role in the war, would be sold to Australia. It has been said, probably correctly, that had Argentina waited another year or two Britain might not have been able to take the islands back- at least not without a humiliating amount of US help.

They had also "downgraded" the islanders' British citizenship as a side-effect of an immigration law. The combination of these actions made it seem like Britain might not respond to an invasion. While I don't think the Thatcher government deliberately caused the war in order to get votes, their handling of the conflict certainly wasn't exemplary. They certainly did claim it as a success for them- Thatcher even took the salute at the victory parade, which is normally reserved for the monarch. It has been given as a reason for their victory in the 1983 general election. On the other hand, Labour leader Michael Foot's manifesto has been described as the "longest suicide note in history".

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby leady » Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

I love the Belgrano nonsense

"Prime minister, why did you sink the flagship of the enemy navy when it was 0.5 miles outside of your arbitrary exclusion zone and retreating"

"war duh"

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:24 pm UTC

I think the controversy boils down to two things. That it came just after comprehensive peace talks had been given the green light by Argentina (although Britain did not know of them many around the time thought we must have and were keeping it secret) and that it appeared to be retreating (not that this matters the only things relevant are a ships capabilities and its location, only a neutral harbour is safe under the laws of war anyway). Things were made worse by it being completely able to defend itself against a nuclear submarine, rumours that said submarine had nuclear weapons (it didn't) and it being full of very young conscripts with minimal training.

I do think it was right to order the sinking but I can understand the controvesy at the time.

Had Argentina waited a year or two the Junta would probably have collapsed.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:50 pm UTC

Horselover Frost wrote:
yurell wrote:I thought she got a ceremonial funeral?


I'm a little fuzzy on what the actual difference is (I am not from the UK), but, to paraphrase the New York Times, it was a state funeral in everything but name.


Almost nothing. The main difference is that the gun carriage carrying her coffin was pulled by horses not sailors.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby yurell » Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

And an act of parliament.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:28 pm UTC

Alexius wrote:Very few people think that Britain should have handed over the Falklands in 1982 in response to the invasion, though some do take issue with the decision to sink the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano while it was outside the exclusion zone that Britain had declared around the islands, and steaming away from them.

On the other hand, I have heard people blame Thatcher for the invasion in the first place. Argentina had made noises towards trying to invade the Falklands in 1977 during James Callaghan's ministry, but backed down when he sent a naval task force. Thatcher's government had made severe cuts to the Royal Navy- just before the invasion, they had announced the withdrawal of HMS Endurance which was the only permanent British naval presence in the area. It had also been announced that HMS Invincible, an aircraft carrier that had just been completed and played a key role in the war, would be sold to Australia. It has been said, probably correctly, that had Argentina waited another year or two Britain might not have been able to take the islands back- at least not without a humiliating amount of US help.

They had also "downgraded" the islanders' British citizenship as a side-effect of an immigration law. The combination of these actions made it seem like Britain might not respond to an invasion. While I don't think the Thatcher government deliberately caused the war in order to get votes, their handling of the conflict certainly wasn't exemplary. They certainly did claim it as a success for them- Thatcher even took the salute at the victory parade, which is normally reserved for the monarch. It has been given as a reason for their victory in the 1983 general election. On the other hand, Labour leader Michael Foot's manifesto has been described as the "longest suicide note in history".

I have questions about this foreign policy philosophy you posted. Why is reducing defense spending tantamount to surrendering territory? Is it because of the context of the Argentine claims on Falkland? Like would you expect the same from the US regarding South Korea? The sequester is in place now, so we haev less defense spending. Does that mean we're inviting North Korea to invade? If that's too farfetch, does this signal that China is free to take it?

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:40 pm UTC

The USA is still more than capable of total military domination over North Korea, even with other commitments. The UK defence cuts made retaking the Falklands a very tight run thing and without an aircraft carrier, or had it been lost, it would have been a disaster. It doesn't make the Argentine invasion right but that is hardly relevant.

Being unable to defend or retake territory against a hostile nation that wishes to have that territory is very similar to conceding the territory.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:15 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:The USA is still more than capable of total military domination over North Korea, even with other commitments. The UK defence cuts made retaking the Falklands a very tight run thing and without an aircraft carrier, or had it been lost, it would have been a disaster. It doesn't make the Argentine invasion right but that is hardly relevant.

Being unable to defend or retake territory against a hostile nation that wishes to have that territory is very similar to conceding the territory.

Here's the sticking point, paraphrasing:
Britain (Thatcher) purposely cut defense, knowing full well that it could cause a war.
All the other stuff is just evidence that the UK cut defense spending. I think that is a flawed theory. There's more to war then just basic I spent more money on guns then you. Therefore, you can't take my butter. If the UK really wanted Argentina to back down, they could just nuke Buenos Ares and then threaten to nuke another city unless they surrendered. But they didn't, they sent in men and ships, with subsequent casualties.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Alexius » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Here's the sticking point, paraphrasing:
Britain (Thatcher) purposely cut defense, knowing full well that it could cause a war.
All the other stuff is just evidence that the UK cut defense spending. I think that is a flawed theory. There's more to war then just basic I spent more money on guns then you. Therefore, you can't take my butter. If the UK really wanted Argentina to back down, they could just nuke Buenos Ares and then threaten to nuke another city unless they surrendered. But they didn't, they sent in men and ships, with subsequent casualties.

Withdrawing from territory is not the same as simply cutting defence. The Endurance was primarily a coast-guard type ship, so its removal was a big signal that the UK no longer cared about the South Atlantic.

I'm not arguing that Thatcher deliberately started the war, just that it happened due to mistakes made largely by her government. And it was mostly non-military actions that led to it- the governor at the time of the war had been appointed with the intention of paving the way for the islands to be handed over, and Britain had made other moves that signalled that they intended to hand them over. Note that the invasion caused Thatcher's foreign secretary (responsible for the government of the Falklands) to resign, not the defence secretary (responsible for the cuts to the Navy).

And if Britain nuked Buenos Aires in 1982, it would probably have either started WW3 or resulted in a UN-backed Russian invasion of Britain unless Thatcher was handed over for trial. Nuclear weapons were very much off the table (though a few veiled threats were made).

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:49 pm UTC

You know what else led up to the war? The last minute decision by the Junta in Argentina to invade. Or the crippling stagflation in Argentina combined with an oppressive genocidal government looking for a distraction from domestic problems. Or you could blame it on the wrong assumptions and precedence set by previous invasions. The Junta assumed the British wouldn't respond to a fait accompli. There's also rumors that the US wouldn't interfere as reward for the Iran Contras support. So, what was the point of assigning blame again?

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:57 am UTC

So, what was the point of assigning blame again?


We are discussing Thatchers legacy. Surely it is reasonable to ask to what extent she was responsible for the loss, albeit temporarily, of British Territory. Nobody would question a discussion of wether Chamberlains appeasement policies were a factor in WW2.

Nobody is saying that the Junta aren't responsible for the decision to invade, but that doesn't mean that Thatcher doesn't have to bare some of the responsibility, her policies encouraged Argentina to believe we would not defend them.

Do you similarly hold that we can't blame Thatchers government for the Poll Tax riots? Thatcher gets all the credit of her success but all her failings are the fault of others and we shouldn't assign blame?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

When we discuss people's legacies, it's important to realize that we're correlating movement x with person Y's support of movement x. If jesus had died as a baby, do you really believe there wouldn't be a bible? They'd just write the same story but about how Bob led the jews from Egypt.

It's 2013, Argentina is signaling moves that it wants the Falklands again despite signing a treaty and losing the war. The UK is under severe austerity and has less military force than ever. Argentina has a safer border from Chile, so they don't have to worry about an attack from there, can we expect an attack from them? Can we blame James Cameron for starting the next war in the Falklands? I'm sorta playing around right now, but I have a problem with such definitive statements that Alexius made. I'm not saying a person has no impact on a nation's course, but don't overdo it.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

Argentina is now a democracy and couldn't politically mount an invasion, but also the islands are now defended. Even if everything else was the same Argentina could not possibly manage an invasion. Though it is true we couldn't retake them if they managed. That said whatever happens I do agree it would be very harsh to blame James Cameron for an invasion of the Falklands. David on the other hand if it happens while he is PM would have some questions to answer. The idea that Britain has a weaker military than ever is a little off though and compared to Argentina the gap is wider than it was in the 80s.

Thatchers policies prior to the war did make it easier for the Junta to believe that they would succeed in taking the islands, and that Britain wouldn't care if they did. It is of course impossible to say that even a throughly defended position would not have been attacked but drawing down the defence at a time when the government of Argentina was looking increasingly desperate does look like a mistake.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:30 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Though it is true we couldn't retake them if they managed.


That seems... doubtful.

The powers that be might well decide that the expenditure of political capital, men and materiel was too great for retaking the Falklands to be worth it, but the idea that the U.K would be incapable of taking the islands seems a bit short-sighted.

The U.K has (even after wide-ranging military cuts) the 4th-highest Defense budget on the planet (Argentina is 49th) - one of the world's three blue-water navies, and maintains a response-force task group at full readiness. There are legitimate concerns about a lack of fixed-wing aircraft until 2016, but Argentina has an outdated air-force with pilots with no combat experience, whilst the RN has the anti-air facilities of the type-45 destroyers. This might well be enough, if coupled with aggressive strikes on Argentine air bases, either from RAF Widdewake, or else submarine-launched cruise missiles. There's no contest between the quality of the respective force's ground troops.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sigsfried » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:43 pm UTC

Well I am going on what numerous people much better informed than me have said including General Sir Mike Jackson and Admiral Sir John Forster Woodward. They may or may not be right but I think this is drifting too far from the original point. After all there is no way Argentina could take the islands now.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Ormurinn » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:48 am UTC

sigsfried wrote:Well I am going on what numerous people much better informed than me have said including General Sir Mike Jackson and Admiral Sir John Forster Woodward. They may or may not be right but I think this is drifting too far from the original point. After all there is no way Argentina could take the islands now.


Yeah, opinion is split amongst the defense establishment - there are those who think we could, and those who think we couldn't. I'm of the opinion that we could - but the government of the day would probably balk at the cost.

You're right that it's purely academic.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:43 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
sigsfried wrote:Well I am going on what numerous people much better informed than me have said including General Sir Mike Jackson and Admiral Sir John Forster Woodward. They may or may not be right but I think this is drifting too far from the original point. After all there is no way Argentina could take the islands now.


Yeah, opinion is split amongst the defense establishment - there are those who think we could, and those who think we couldn't. I'm of the opinion that we could - but the government of the day would probably balk at the cost.

You're right that it's purely academic.

It came up because Alexius claimed that cutting defense spending is tantamount to surrendering territory. I think we ended up moving a bit closer in positions, in retrospect.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Alexius » Tue Apr 23, 2013 7:24 pm UTC

sardia wrote:It came up because Alexius claimed that cutting defense spending is tantamount to surrendering territory. I think we ended up moving a bit closer in positions, in retrospect.

You're putting words in my mouth. What I claimed was that withdrawing your garrison from territory that another country has made attempts to invade may not be the best way to discourage further such attempts.

The other cuts didn't help, and another major British cause of the war (the main cause, of course, being Argentine internal politics) was the decision to downgrade the islanders' British citizenship- which you haven't addressed.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:10 pm UTC

I went back and reread your old post
I'm not arguing that Thatcher deliberately started the war, just that it happened due to mistakes made largely by her government. And it was mostly non-military actions that led to it- the governor at the time of the war had been appointed with the intention of paving the way for the islands to be handed over, and Britain had made other moves that signalled that they intended to hand them over. Note that the invasion caused Thatcher's foreign secretary (responsible for the government of the Falklands) to resign, not the defence secretary (responsible for the cuts to the Navy).

The British made moves that signalled they were gonna hand over the islands? The UK wanted to hand the islands over to Argentina?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:17 pm UTC

That seems like sketchy logic. If the Argentinans thought the islands were to be given to them, why the need to invade? You don't fight for what you're going to be given for free.

Could they be better defended? Well, yeah. But everything always can be. Not having enough military forces to repel a surprise attack on a distant part of the country isn't normally considered enough to make you in the wrong. The invading force is still the one engaging in the unjust war...mere opportunism should not be confused with moral standing. Certainly, taking them back after the invasion would fall pretty squarely into any normally accepted defintion of a just war, too. If there's a significant way to blame Thatcher for this, there clearly has to be additional elements to the story that are missing.

I would confidently say that the UK could retake the islands again, if need be. For one thing, I don't see the Argentine forces as being able to counter UK submarines.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That seems like sketchy logic. If the Argentinans thought the islands were to be given to them, why the need to invade? You don't fight for what you're going to be given for free.

Could they be better defended? Well, yeah. But everything always can be. Not having enough military forces to repel a surprise attack on a distant part of the country isn't normally considered enough to make you in the wrong. The invading force is still the one engaging in the unjust war...mere opportunism should not be confused with moral standing. Certainly, taking them back after the invasion would fall pretty squarely into any normally accepted defintion of a just war, too. If there's a significant way to blame Thatcher for this, there clearly has to be additional elements to the story that are missing.

I would confidently say that the UK could retake the islands again, if need be. For one thing, I don't see the Argentine forces as being able to counter UK submarines.

Really it reminds me of Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. There was a lot of incompetence, and well-meaning actions that made the attack worse than it ought to be. I think I separate incompetence and innocent mistakes because I don't blame Roosevelt for Pearl Harbor, but he wasn't blameless, sorta since Presidents don't directly control national defense.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Alexius » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That seems like sketchy logic. If the Argentinans thought the islands were to be given to them, why the need to invade? You don't fight for what you're going to be given for free.

Could they be better defended? Well, yeah. But everything always can be. Not having enough military forces to repel a surprise attack on a distant part of the country isn't normally considered enough to make you in the wrong. The invading force is still the one engaging in the unjust war...mere opportunism should not be confused with moral standing. Certainly, taking them back after the invasion would fall pretty squarely into any normally accepted defintion of a just war, too. If there's a significant way to blame Thatcher for this, there clearly has to be additional elements to the story that are missing.

I would confidently say that the UK could retake the islands again, if need be. For one thing, I don't see the Argentine forces as being able to counter UK submarines.

I don't think her actions in respect of the defence of the islands pre-war were morally wrong, just that they may not have been the correct course of action.

And as for the sending signals etc., if Argentina had not invaded the islands probably would have been handed over to them peacefully at some point in the late 80s, regardless of the wishes of the islanders. Large parts of the British government certainly did want to hand the islands over. When Rex Hunt was appointed governor, he was told that his job was to prepare for this- he was accused of having "gone native" when he spoke in support of the islanders' wish to remain British.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 23, 2013 9:51 pm UTC

Incorrect in hindsight or blatant incompetence in the face of obvious information?

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: A state funeral for Thatcher - why or why not?

Postby Alexius » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Incorrect in hindsight or blatant incompetence in the face of obvious information?

Hard to say, and probably differs from action to action. I lean towards hindsight for the decision to sell HMS Invincible- the politics that went into the existence and design of that ship are bizarre, deciding to sell it to Australia at the end sort of fits with the whole saga (which dates back to the mid 60s). And it was only one of a class of 3.

I lean more towards incompetence for the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance- Thatcher should have been aware of previous Argentine attempts to take possession of British territory in the South Atlantic.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests