Margaret Thatcher on Nationwide questioned over the Belgrano
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 май 2013
- 24th May 1983 during the general election campaign, Margaret Thatcher appeared on Nationwide and was questioned by a voter, Diana Gould, on the sinking of the Argentine warship the General Belgrano during the previous year's Falklands conflict. In 2011 it was revealed that the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement against the British when it was sunk, but as Defence Secretary John Nott later wrote: "I remain astonished...that anyone should consider the momentary compass bearing of Belgrano's passage to be of any consequence whatever. Any ship can turn in an instant." The Argentine navy has admitted that the sinking was a legitimate act of war.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...
Even the captain of Belgrano said that his ship was a legitimate target.
I was in the Falklands War, so I have more right to say that Thatcher was right.
@114744751539355858931 and has it ever occurred to you that if Thatcher didn't give the order to sink the ship then you might not actually have needed to be in the war and many on both sides might have been spared being killed and maimed?
Her time in power was coming to an end and so she needed to engineer whatever she could to take people's minds off the state she had reduced the country to so that everyone had a common enemy to become sidetracked over.
I'm not really sure I understand your logic either as if someone else had been in the war and thought Thatcher wasn't right then would they have more right to say that too? You can't both be right can you?
‘It was absolutely not a war crime,’ said the Belgrano’s captain, Hector Bonzo, in an interview two years before his death in 2009.
‘It was an act of war, lamentably legal.’
Meanwhile, the Argentine admiral Enrique Molina Pico later admitted the location of the Belgrano outside the Exclusion Zone ‘did not mean it was withdrawn from the war’.
‘The integrated naval force had been deployed to carry out an attack on the British fleet in a co-ordinated operation with other naval groups,’ he wrote.
‘The heading away from the enemy fleet was only momentary, as the commander saw fit to wait for a more convenient time (to attack).
'The Belgrano and the other ships were a threat and a danger to the British.’
DasTubemeister I don't believe I made a judgement either way as to whether or not it was a war crime and my main basis of argument is to ask why set a specific distance for an exclusion zone and then sink a ship outside of it?If you want to argue that Argentina took liberties when Britain's forces were halfway around the world then that's fair enough but by the time the Belgrano was sunk that was no longer the case and Argentina were posturing knowing Britain had a far better all round professional fighting force compared to the many conscript kids the Argentinians had to call up and they knew there was only ever going to be one result in the end.I just don't personally believe Thatcher did everything she could and exhausted all other avenues to prevent it becoming an all out war that would cost lives on both sides and feel that becasue she stood to personally benefit from it. People tend to think you are unpatriotic if you have any criticism of this war but what's so unpatriotic about not sending your own people to be killed and maimed if there's a possible better solution?
I would like to add that all the documentation released in recent years along with US intelligence supports the fact that the Argentine Navy were conducting a pincer movement around each side of the island to ambush the British fleet. The only reason Belgrano altered course, was to try and shake off HMS Conqueror. It almost achieved this by entering waters too shallow for Conqueror to follow. Argentine carrier 25th May had already achieved this. The Submarine following 25th May reported lost contact. The British Fleet were going to be attacked.
+amazed66 I understand that this is over 2 yrs ago. It is strange that you put a war in a scale of neighborhood conflict with the use of "if". During wartime the ability to hurt your enemy goes against the ability of predicting chances that less people could get hurt.
In a fight I would hit the enemy where it hurts as the moment becomes available reducing the chances of prolonged combat and wasting time with the "IF" hypothesis. Trust me or not, trust history. The enemy loves you for second guessing yourself at all times. Guess why.
Margaret Thatcher doing Zoom Meeting before it was cool
Yeah, take that back. Zoom meeting are not cool.
@@norabatungbacal6636 Haha, true that.
Cool day they buried her nearly got it before but now no more shit from tan bitch
Mrs Gould is doing a better job of opposing Thatcher than the entire of Michael Foot's Labour Party election campaign
the bottom line was the Belgrano was an enemy ship afloat on the high seas in time of war, and the royal navy considered her threat to Her Majesty's Ships, they dealt with her accordingly.
A ship sailing away from the war zone is not a "threat".
Thank god for you sir x
It wasn't a war, it was conflict.
That being said, I'd have given the order to sink it anyway.
@@fureuropa-gegennwo1259 Captain Bonzo disagrees.
@@fureuropa-gegennwo1259 No, the captain of the ship admitted that it was only a momentary withdrawl to prepare for a counter attack.
The Argentinian navy was planning on executing a pincer attack around the Falklands to strike the British fleet. On top of this, while the exclusion zone barred any ships of any nation to enter, Argentinian ships were still fair game. The captain of the Belgrano himself stated that it was a "legal" action and that had it not been sunk, it would have led an attack on the fleet that would have resulted in many more losses.
As a civilised country it’s right that we have strong scrutiny of what our leaders do. That’s one of the reasons why we are a great country. But I can tell from this that prime minister Thatcher was totally correct based in the facts. The more I learn about Mrs Thatcher the more I find her a colossus of British politics . One of our greatest prime ministers.
That ship could have changed course, entered the Exclusion Zone and destroyed one of our ships. Then Thatcher would've been heavily criticized for not taking action when she had the chance. War is a dirty, cold and ruthless business! I admire Thatcher for being a strong and decisive leader. She didn't always get it right, but she was always willing to make tough decisions. I wish she was around now. The best PM of my time!
@@Aerojet01 Exactly. Hector Bonzo, Captain of General Belgrano, declared that his vessel was a legitimate target for attack and has absolutely no truck with the silly arguments of the lefty woke arseholes, who still complain that she should not have been attacked. Civilians need to butt out when talking about military matters, of which they have NO idea.
If not thee greatest???
Tell that to the mining communities.
Thatcher could not say at the time that the Belgrano was in a pincer movement as it would reveal that the British had broken the Argentine communications encryption and had listened into their plans to attack the British fleet. Thatcher had to keep forcing across half an argument as the key piece of information had to remain secret.
The sad thing is that Diana Gould was lauded as someone who'd dragged Thatcher over the coals, and the Belgrano episode was used as an attack on British power for years, when in fact it was Mrs Gould that was utterly wrong and Thatcher who was justified. We need fewer Mrs Goulds and more Thatchers in my opinion.
Very astute observation, Paul T. Well done.
Yes and no.
Like, I actually agree that the military action was completely justified.
But espousing a strong, sound, logical given the facts known to the public, anti-war argument, even if I would not personally agree with it, is very reasonable and callable to the country.
I am more hawkish than most but doves absolutely have their place. I wish more and sung more urgently before the Iraq war. If only because not engaging in that calamity would likely have left the much more justified wars in Afghanistan and across the region in better stead for both our combatants/allies and the civilian populations.
Your opinion is delusional. Thatcher didn't give a shit about anybody but herself. When she cried after finally being forced to quit, she was crying for herself. What kind of leader does that.
Mrs Gould = Legend.
@@RankinFitch8 The fact there was a conflict in the first place was due to poor ratings in the polls...the Tories would have been out...and the miners and working class...many of whom were serving in the Falklands...saved...both their lives and livelihoods. Instead...as expected...a jingoistic wave of sentiment sent them back into power...thanks to the excellence of our troops back then...and the rest...is history...PS This woman has done more damage to this country than Hitler could have imagined...and I would most certainly not believe a word she uttered...her lies were proven after the Strike...as were those of many coppers and legalised thugs and thieves who shafted this once great nation. Thus,,, just as she left many dead beneath the waves...so our future lies dead and buried beneath the ground...by the traitor this country has ever seen...a law unto herself...and her demonic supporters...all out for themselves. Silver bullets were far too good for the majority of them...but I am sure that hells fire and the devil himself will keep them warm.
Mrs Gould has a right to speak her mind... Which is what she wouldn't have had in Argentina.
That's what absolutely phenomenal about Britiain. Freedom of Speech.
It is a sign of strength of British democracy which enables her to directly ask the PM about matters.
@@NikhilSingh-007 Yes, well, until the Public Order Bill is passed... that will seriously curb the ability to protest. 😡
@@NikhilSingh-007 there is no freedom of speech in the UK, this isn't the US
@@NikhilSingh-007
Correct .
In the UK, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression: Everyone UK Citizen has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
Ha, the death stare from Mrs T at the end towards Mrs Gould.
Yeah, she's looking pathetic. I love how Gould is making mincemeat of her arguments again and again.
@@rolandthele1683 were we watching the same clip?
@@rolandthele1683 you should go to specsavers mate
@@rolandthele1683 read the caption for the video.
Took a few torpedoes but she sank Mrs Gould in the end! And the Belgrano was a pre-WW2 light cruiser, Mrs Gould, not a fucking battleship! Shouldn't have questioned when you didn't have a clue! Great when the facts DID come out... the fact that the Argentinians admitted that the Belgrano WAS planned to turn and make a two-pronged attack on our fleet and that its sinking was legitimate. Well done the Iron Lady.
This exchange passed the Bechdel test
I would add that the captain of the Belgrano said in an interview in 2003 that his orders were to temporarily sail west, but then to turn and sink British ships, not to make port, also in the admiral of the Argentine navy at the time has later said that the sinking was legal and that they knew that area was a combat zone and that the ship did indeed pose a real and true threat to the British navy, so with this information regardless of whether you like thatcher it was the right decision.
04:53 This aged like a fine wine.
I'm no expert in shipping but even I, as that lady was insisting that it was sailing away, said to myself that it could have been doing a u-turn.....
@@Jez2008UK wauw. Could have.....
But we never know.
What we do know is that it was sailing away.
It is just very sad to see people still believing in this crap we have been told.
A British historian (who you might not like) once said: If the soldiers who stormed the beaches at Normandy could see Britain today, they would not go up those beaches.
What a wonderful country it has become thanks to people like Thatcher and all the rest of em.
"He had Weapons of Mass Distraction, eh, eh, Destruction i mean"
McNamara: "Gulf of Tonkin? Nah, didnt happen." (58000 soldiers and how many Vietnamese people died as a result of that?)
Yup, we must keep supporting the puppets on strings, like Thatcher was.
And yeah sure, these are examples of the other "Country". This Corporation known as the United States, still under control of the Crown obviously.
And fighting for the interests of a single state. Which we could call the 51st state of America, i guess.
Anyways, yeah. Very true, all of this stuff Thatcher said.
But if you actually listen to what she says, she actually destroys her own argument completely.
But she is an idol, so yeah. Eternal flame above her head as well i assume.
Just image her not wearing a headscarf in Iran these days, ey? You would not have no Thatcher.
But to believe she had power? Ha.
Ha Ha.
But yeah, it could have, it might have. But it never got the chance because of the preemptive strike.
Something Great Britain is allowed to do.
If Germany does a similar thing against the Bolsheviks who were planning to take over Europe (they first tried to invade Poland in 1919, then they again attack Finland in 1939, and heck, 17 of september they also occupy half of Poland. Why wait? Well, it looks better if Hitler attacks, because then he is the enemy. Why Barbarossa? Well, Obvious. Just look at what was being build up by Stalin close to the borders.....
That was no defense force.
Btw, what did Great Britain do prior to WW2, like say: In between the ending of WW1 and WW2?
What exactly were they doing with their fleet of ships?
Blocking?
And the list goes on and on.
History, it would be something extraordinary if only it were true.
As for this ship: Thanks to this great puppet on strings many died. And it seems there was a peace offer on the table?????? Or did i hear this incorrectly?
Anyways: We all know war is profitable for some.
And those "Some" are the same "Some" that control the puppets on strings.
So to still actually believe this crap, and to even come up with nonsense like: It might have done a u turn.......
Man, go fishing.
Little Red Riding Hood is a fairy tale, the Bible is full of fairy tales, and the nonsense of what Thatcher is talking about is fairy tales.
But i can see why many want to believe in it, because it makes sure plenty die. And that is what its all about.
TO get rid of certain people, basically.
Preaching Freedom and Equality.
Dips.
outside the exclusion zone
@@Zeyr01 She probably shouldn't have said this a likely only did as she was getting riled. It gives the Argentines a big clue that they had access to additional intelligence and likely had cracked their comms code (which they had)
If she hadn’t given the order to sink the Belgrano, then these same people would be blaming her for not taking the chance to sink it.
Bollocks.
@@RankinFitch8 This one words proves Mr Court’s point completely. What a joke you traitors are.
exactly
Lady Thatcher handled this question so well.
+Interestingly Interested what makes you think that she was lying? The evidence today shows that she was not.
+Interestingly Interested So. Can you show me the evidence that she'd said these things? The interviews or speeches? Where she said that the ARA Belgrano was INSIDE the exclusion zone when it was attacked? That it was sailing TOWARDS the task force? Etc? Please? Can you direct all of us reading what you have written,,, to the links that you have which has obviously made you say what you just wrote?
Interestingly Interested So you don't have anything to hand but other than
"she was just blatantly lying, about several points, but namely the Belgrano's position, direction, level of credible threat, also that the Argentines had offered a peace treaty 16 hours before the Belgrano was sunk"
LISTEN!!!! I'm no fan of Thatcher. In fact I am quite the opposite being once one of her "one in ten" unemployed. I hated her. But I truly believe in justice. I could put her on trial for many things....but not this. Credit where credit is due and fair is to be fair. I AM anti conspiracy, lies, bullshit and anti injustice. Where ever it manifests.
Google?? I did!! The evidence is IRREFUTABLE!!!! When Cpt Hector Bonzo, the captain of the Belgrano himself along with the official stance of the Argentinian navy and with Admiral Enrique Pico ALL state that the attack was a legitimate act of war and that the Belgrano was maneuvering to a pre agreed position to await "Zulu" time for a concerted pincer attack on the British fleet in cohesion with task group 79.1, then I read what you write and think to myself that this is wrong,
Here.
www.lanacion.com.ar/702442-general-belgrano-crimen-o-acccion-de-combate
That was an Argentinian site. I can give you many more Argentinian links that disprove IRREFUTABLY what you claim.
YES it was outside the exclusion zone. YES the British had pre warned before this attack that any threat to the task force both inside or outside of the exclusion zone would be a legitimate target. YES the British knew this because they had managed to intercept the Argentinian naval signals and codes and most crucial, the Norwegians had broken into Soviet satellite data and were able to pass this to Northwood HENCE the thirty year secret so as not alert the Soviets that they had managed this. YES the Peruvian peace proposal had been received AFTER the attack AND previous proposals had been rejected by the FASCIST government in Argentina so why do you think that the Peruvians would have made a difference.
It takes a grown up to realise that he may be wrong. Your move. I asked you for evidence. You said it was too late. I think you are lying.
Joe Chamberlain crap. she's a murderer
By lying repeatedly.....Stick to facts...the Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone on a heading of 278 degrees when it was sunk, the trend of its course over the previous 18 hours was out of the declared zone of hostilities. The Belgrano was sunk against the agreed convention governing the rules of war in relation to that conflict. The sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime......sorry to all the flag waving fuckwits ....facts are facts
"I will finish" Love that, I think I might use that line if I ever get interrupted lots of times. I don't agree with her politics but you can tell she's a strong leader
Putin is a strong leader. The world doesn't need strong leaders. It needs intelligent leaders.
She was a psychopath who really flucked this country up.
Same here
@@63Baggies such as Brazil´s Bolsonaro at present, leading the country to a hole
@@63Baggies crap..didnt agree with everthing she did but this country was knackered before she came in.
I don’t think naval commanders in WW2 woul believe that 40 years later the Prime Minister leading a nation in a war of defense would be called out for sinking an enemy ship because it was sailing in a certain direction. Thatcher stood her ground very well and you could see the lady start to crumble once she was proven wrong.
Could you imagine Churchill grilled over sinking the Bismarck?
What lady are you referring to who started to crumble? Maggie herself?
@@juanchoresultay2704 No, the other woman.
@@bradykim8438 You mean Ms. Diana Gould ? Oh ok thanks again
Nonsense. Thatcher was rattled. And her sudden change from soft spoken to spitting image voice clearly demonstrates that. Sinking a ship in order to win an Election. Horrible Bastard she was.
If Britain had left the Belgrano alone and concentrated efforts elsewhere who's to say it wouldn't have turned around again and come back ? She had no choice but to sink it.
the media will always find faults so they have sometihing to air
The Thatcher movie has an admiral saying the Belgrano had been constantly maneuvering.
Quite fair.
The captain of the general belgrano has said as much.
They were a warship intent on killing British soldiers and sailors. That doesn't make them evil. They were doing their job, just as the British submariners who ultimately sunk them were doing.
Would focusing British aggression on the northern task force been a better use of resources? Probably. And it may have saved lives. But it was an understandable decision given the known situation at the time. The GB was sinkable and it's escort carried french exocet missles that needed to be removed from the theater as quickly as possible. As the sinking if the Sheffield showed.
The Belgrano was bound to turn around and come back again and apparently Argentine Commanders etc have admitted this even though it seems obvious anyway?!!!
The woman had balls as a prime minister you wouldn't have crossed her
Yes, precious little of strong leadership now.
@@Willsey
It's intentional.
Like those who wanted scarecrow-halifax for arch-appeaser of voracious 'dolf, instead of Churchill the predator-slayer..
Strong leadership nowadays is thought of as bigoted and forceful, and as such, the entire West is *doomed.*
I'm a leftist but I have to give Thatcher credit. She had way more gall than Major, Blair, Cameron, etc.. She had more gall than today's politicians.
Excellent comment because you recognise that wether you were in agreement with her politics or not, she had principles and defended them. She is of an age of politics nearly gone. As she was Prime Minister, the grinning smiling, baby hugging PR driven PC lunatics were taking over. And I think today’s unscrupulous weak minded MPs are the result.
AND she had Regan in her pocket, something that no other PM since has managed to do.
I get that but by sinking the Belgrano, she potentially saved hundreds of British lives.
Left or right, liberal or conservative Country comes first.
She did the right thing.
To be fair, I feel we live now in a far more accountable age through technology. Walking around with phones in our pockets constantly connected to the world means we're made far more able to access and criticise our politicians.
Don't agree with many things Mrs Thatcher did,, but a heavily armed warship full of enemy combatants in seas it had no business being there, what were they doing? sightseeing.
This is the only ship in history that has never been sunk. The General Belgrano keeps resurfacing !
The year is 1940
"can we shoot this luftwaffe plane that's flying in the English Channel?“
" seems to be flying back towards Germany, so no"
Stuff of absolute insanity
The year is 1939
And yes, the "Phony War" is still going on.
The answer is:"Don't engage unless attacked first." You see there was this belief Hitler might just be satisfied with Poland so there was no reason to "provoke" him needlessly. Especially not when the Luftwaffe reportedly had way more aircraft and RAF needed every single month to catch up in production.
The year is 1938
And yes, giving Hitler access to Czechoslovakia and its vast industry (including their huge amount of tanks and trucks) without a fight seems like a good idea...
In 1940 after Hitler had invaded Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium and France it became *very clear* he was willing to escalate the war.
But you see during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 things sort of changed dramatically. And why? Well, anything rash could result in a full scale nuclear war. Holding back and flexing the muscles was the way to fend an enemy off.
Now here this: In 1982 general Galtieri wasn't even a quarter of the threat Hitler was in 1940. On top of that Britain's economy wasn't really prepared to take the hit of an escalating war. And let's not forget that the USA liked Galtieri and his "fine methods" of making political prisoners "vanish without trace". He was one of their South American "vassals" who kept the reds at bay with ruthless brutality.
Sinking the Belgrano was the right decision - in hindsight. But suppose the crazy Argentinian general was a little bit more like Hitler and decided to throw everything he got - including his entire air force as a reply he "meant business" too?
Yes, the real victory here is that Galtieri turned out to be so inept and even managed to make his own people hate him. Yes, luck turned out to be on Maggie's side as the war was short.
@@equestriangirly2296 it's not quite a discussion of threat level, if you at war then you are at war, you don't hold back on some sort of humanitarian grounds like the caller in the video is questioning.
sir i shot it
nails and heads
@Brit-Flick Reviews an enemy ship going back to base isn't 'in retreat'. That's giving off the impression its being chased and is waving a white flag
Even the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, said that they were a legitimate target. All warships, regardless of heading, have the capability to turn.....
except the bismarck
@@DPwatkykjy She did, up til the point a torpedo from a Swordfish took out her steering gear..
And a rocket too.
Rocket doesn't need heading of ship, it is only need within the range.
The reporter is mad.
Gotta love how frank and blunt the British are. You rarely see that in America.
if you are at war and the other side has a battleship you sink it, Its not a game ffs
***** No, she did not lie; the intelligence suggested that the Belgrano was doing a pincer manoeuvre which would have meant it was turning round; this is why it was not sailing away.
dlk1dlk1 Hence the "in 30 years all the facts will be revealed". The stuff about the Argentinian fleet maneuvers was related to British intelligence intercepting and decoding Argentine fleet messages, and she isn't exactly going to reveal stuff like that in an interview.
It may have been one of the Norwegian listening posts that got the info from the Soviets which apparently helped the argentines a bit. But its only speculation on my part, (I am Norwegian)
As we now know, the Belgrano and accompanying destroyers were part of a pincer movement to destroy the British fleet. The other half of the pincer coming from North of the Falklands - which included their aircraft carrier. It is also now known that an Argentinian submarine had been operating near the British fleet and had fired on HMS Broadsword. Only faulty torpedoes meant the British fleet didn’t suffer any losses. In the end sole responsibility for the loss of the Belgrano and its crew lies with General Galtieri.
Fuck his damned memory and all those degenerates on his High Command and Ministeries who've sent the bravest and Most Honorable boys. Heroes who gave their lives for one purpose only, one determination only, the defence of their Nation, while the traitors they had as commanders had the salvation of their own asses on power. Why did they have to come up with the uttermost sin of sending conscripted young boys ill equiped to survive themselves in such hostile cold south Atlantic weather, moreover they were given outdated and barely usable re sold to 0WWII. Those filths did not gave it any thought that they were sending innocent genuine Heroes towards nothing less than the Royal Marine.
Honestly, this interview makes me proud to be a British citizen.
Only Britain holds itself to such high standards that people will, rather eloquently, fight *FOR* people they are at war with if they think the action was unjust or unnecessary.
You need to get that mentality back! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Absolutely agree with you, after all our differences I must salute british citizens like Mrs.Gould, and thank from.the bottom of my wounded but not broken Argentine heart.
@@robertoeduardodatini2737 we didn't want this war to happen. We haven't wanted lots of conflicts in the last hundred years.. but we will not trampled on. We have been fighting wars since this island was established. People really don't like admitting so many things.. these genuinely not many people that can speak the truth .. I take my hat off to you sir for doing so... I hope Argentina can pull each other together and thrive in the future
Oh stop. What you purport to be virtue is in reality suicidal ideation.
@@jaredcoffin3907 So you don't mind if people are unnecessarily or illegally killed?
There's no rules or ethics required in war. Just kill everything and everyone?
That's the american approach to war, not the British.
There’s a story that Goebbels told his wife if Berlin was invaded she and their children should surrender to the British, because “The British will display honour in victory.”
Enemy ship near a war zone = legitimate target
Not according to the rules the British set out.
@@Poliss95 the exclusion zone was for neutral ships, any argentine military ships are fair game wherever they are
Even a ship leaving the war zone= V E R Y L E G I T I M A T E
@@Dr.G.J you know it can turn around and go back into a war zone? So yes
@@obiwankenobi3574 Exactly. When the woman says that it was sailing away, it was actually weaving in and out of it. Warships don't just go in a straight line. It just happened to be on a bearing going away when it was sunk because it was weaving.
What part of "it was a danger to our ships" do you not understand?
"Now, you accept that. Do you?"... Genius!!!
It had exocets... we all know what they can do. Belgrano was a legitimate target
The Belgrano didnt have exocets, it just had sea cat missiles. On the other hand, the escort ships of the belgrano were armed exocets
Falklands Islands = British.
Thatcher didn't need to explain her actions as Argentina was the sole aggressor!.
Fighting Force and not only aggressor to the British.. at that time they were aggressive with their own people.
Fighting Force The Spanish took residence of Falklands seriously and they expelled the British in 1772. The British did find Falkland Islands in 1592 and the islands were named after Viscount Falkland. Then the Argentinians achieved independence from the Spanish and laid claim to the island then in 1832 the British reasserted possession.
It has never been exclusively British, different nations have laid claim to the islands but most famously it has been the British. So for nearly 200 years it has only been the object of tit for tat between Argentina and the UK. Oh how our foreign policy works wonders!!!
+david simpson Whats your point? Falklands Was 100% British in 1982 and still is to this day, Stop trying to give me a history lesson on who has layed claim to the islands. I know.
But that bitch was dumb
"Argentina the aggressor" My god that is what you really think?
The other boy had already told you the true and you said that in that time it was from British...so...acording to you, if I had stolen you your car 1 week ago, you dont have the right to fight for him?
Come on!
I don't care what anybody says, Margaret thatcher was a proper PM.
I don’t care what you say Brian, Thatcher was an evil divisive hypocrite who destroyed large swathes of our country and society, the effects of which we are still seeing in our community’s today.
@@northern_lights9333 but when it comes to war she was quite an effective leader.
@@dando1898 she was exactly what we needed during the Falklands war
Brian your hilarious!!
Most likely living with a rainbow 🌈and a Ukraine flag outside your semi in Berkshire.. all jabbed up and virtue signalling on any social media outlet you have the audacity to use.
aww aye steal milk out of children mouths aye proper pm 🤣🤣🤣
In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been maneuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone. 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. In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal.
Definitely a war crime, from your crappy little country, US lap dogs
"Accepted rules of war" FFS listen to yourself.
@@RankinFitch8Well how would you conduct a war?
@@RankinFitch8it's an enemy warship. It could be tied up at the dockside and it's a legitimate target fgs. What planet do you live on?
In 2011 it was revealed that the Belgrano was engaged in a pincer movement against the British when it was sunk.
Well said Margaret Thatcher you had a duty to protect to do what you did..... It should never had been in British waters anyway...
Even the belgrano’s captain admits that they were moving into position for an attack
Like her or loath her but I guess that everyone has to admit that Thatcher was a commandeering political leader and that she has left her mark on the history of the world.
But for all her supposed love of the country she wrecked the coal industry and sold off all our utilities with the result that most of them are foreign owned. The coal mines are flooded and could not be reopened except at vast cost. She kept us in the EEC with all that entailed and her stool pigeon Major sold our railways which again are mostly foreign owned.
this lost the Tories precisely 0 votes at the 1983 General Election
Thatcher did many questionable things. On this she was 100% right - she did a great job on the falklands
Yeah right. Withdrew the Endurance giving Argentina the green light to invade.
If she hadn't done that there would have been no conflict.
Yeah...in order to win a General Election by appeasing gullible people like you.
@@Poliss95 Argentina invaded a sovereign nation - they paid the price
@@RankinFitch8 we defended our nation and crushed the invaders; ignoring shameful cowards like you
I was never a fan of Thatchers after the miners but she was correct on this call because if that ship had killed our lads that woman would have been on here condemning her for letting those lads down. Our PM as a duty to protect our citizens and as far as I know those lads were our citizens and hero’s.
but you dont tell people how you got cheap mortgages and free houses worth 200k
imagine fighting WWII with the likes of this Gould woman at the helm.....we'd all be living in the Third Reich by now.
How true, we seem to have a virus now, hardly a warship, hardly except for those with age and comorbidities something to concern ourselves with. The enemy now are far more deadly than a warship. Warships can be dealt with, deceit is a different matter.
Old bat.
Indeed, Thatcher saved the people of Great Britain from the threat of Argentina ruling over a some of rocky islands. Who gives a fuck. It's one of the dumbest wars in history
It was a war...if belgrano had turned and turned her guns on the royal navy or commenced shore bombardment (with her big gunnery) Britain would have lost the war. Furthermore we didn't start the Falklands war, don't get upset that we finished it.
Funny how women in media today say they are the first to come and have a voice, to discuss politics, but look at these women discussing politics and hard decisions decades ago...
Argentinian Captain - "The attack on the Belgrano was a legitimate strike in a time of war, and had the positions been reversed I would have surely done the same."
British leftists - "WAR CRIME!!!"
Churchill would have annihilated the entire Argentinian fleet.
Well, I am not British. I do not understand the controversy. Belgrano was an Argentinean naval vessel. Britain and Argentina were at war. So, it was a legitimate target. Why shouldn't they have sunk it?
anyone with some knowledge of body language can see the anger in her face
I know. When she starts saying that ‘only in Britain’ you can see in her face that she is absolutely furious. And rightly so. Bottom line is that after The Belgrano was sunk the rest of the Argentine Navy did not come anywhere near to The Falklands.
Huge decision to sink it but it left the Argentine government in no doubt that the gloves were off.
yep
@@cookerldc what did the peruvian deal include?
@@ComradeHellas
I don’t know and neither did the UK government as the details had not reached them yet but I am sure it would have included some sort of duel ownership of the islands which both sides would have turned down.
I felt the same level of anger at the ridiculousness and utter lack of knowledge and rudeness of that female Gould.
The last British PM with any conviction and backbone.
Yeah? How’s that conviction doing any good for us now?
Very much so!
Churchill would have sunk all Argentine navy! They can count themselves lucky.
The Belgrano was in a pattern of moving towards and away from the islands. It was part of a pincer movement towards the fleet. And carrying exorcet missiles
Yes it was..people dont realise that cruiser was a serious threat to the british task force at that time.It may have been old but it could outgun anything the british had down in the south atlantic then..plus it was armoured,,british exocets possibly would have had much inpact on the ship as they are designed to rip through modern warships with little or no armour,,woodward had two weapons at his disposal to sink that ship..one being the 1000lb bomb carried by the harriers,,but they needed good weather,,the other being the mk8 torpedo,, which both date back to ww2 as did the criuser...Ironic
Well done on quoting part of a movie....🙄
a enemy ship, is a enemy ship that means you have to sink it first before it sinks you, you would never believe that in a war would you.
Thank goodness you aren't in control of nuclear weapons. FFS
@@RankinFitch8 what’s a enemy ship got to do with nuclear weapons, obviously you need some education on what a war is.
The Falklands and those people who had elected to stay part of Britain were depending on action to restore that decision. The sinking of the Belgrano despite the loss of life was a necessary act of defence and a proper tactical and strategic part of battle. Any decision otherwise would of most undoubtedly cost the lives of British military personnel.
“One day all the facts will be revealed.” Pity it took til 2011.
Por ley en casi todos los paises del mundo los documentos y secretos de guerra solo pueden ser públicos después de 30 años.
Even 33 years later and thousands of miles away, I can feel her sheer charisma. Great Britain could sure use her today, I daresay.
She`s a dark puff of smoke now. Only the good shine like a star
she was a real cunt to us up North
She always sends a tingle down my spine. A true lady and hero.
the only prime minister weve had with balls, brilliant woman
Winston Churchill??????? Not denying thatcher was brilliant. But don't agree with your point there
Baley Faulkes-anstee they were both wankers.
daz boyce she was a bastard bitch who treated scotland & its people like shite the most hated woman not only in scotland but the north of england as well
Mhm
I doesn't take balls to send other people's children to be maimed and killed.
Even the Captain of the ship admitted she was right
I'm liberal but this makes me cringe. The Belgrano was obviously manoeuvring, as confirmed by the captain afterwards.
Gosh, you can really tell how much stress Mrs Thatcher was under during that period, totally understandably. Furthermore, I totally agreed with her when she said the "only in Britain" bit. I'm 59 years old and for me, she has been our best prime minister to date and most probably will ever be in my entire lifetime. As they say, they don't make them like that any more.
Oh yes, she was stressed alright; stressed as to whether the British military would retake the islands and save her political skin.
Hmmmmmm Warship sunk in a war zone imagine that.
Wasn't a war-zone though was it , dumb dumb?
@@shabad0009 This video came back up on my recommended list but I missed this comment.
war
noun
a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
war zone
noun: warzone
a region in which a war is being fought.
I hope this helps with the basics
As much as I despised Thatcher, she took the advice of the RN Admiralty. After all, it's that what a Commander in Chief is supposed to do.
Following this spat on Nationwide there was a huge row between the editor and of course Denis Thatcher but I believe this may have led to the demise of Nationwide later in 1983. Gould was slagging off Maggie over the sinking of the Belgrano and I believe the way she was pretty harsh about it.
4:33 to 4:51 so very true indeed.
Exactly Maggie - only in Britain does a P.M. having to defend the sinking of any enemy ship! And what would the Belgrano have done if it hadn't been sunk? Wreaked havoc amongst our Navy no doubt!!!
Like her or hate her she had balls 🙄
Both the lady who was questioning and Thatcher argued intelligently and with strength.
It basically falls into the situation if you allowed the ship mercy and allowed it to leave, how will you not know in the future it would come back to be a threat ?
Fairly horrible, having to waste time and energy explaining your decisions to this Gould woman.
Marcel Pfister it is when Thatcher clearly didn't want to confirm it by specifically denying for a second time that the ship was sailing away form the exclusion zone and when challenged on it would only say it was deemed a threat and not say again that it wasn't sailing away.How convenient too to hide behind a 30 year time span when she was very likely to be dead or in no fit state to have to answer to any of this either.
It doesn't matter which direction this Argentine ship sailed. She had it sunk and I commend her on it. Also, she doesn't owe any explanation to some Mrs Gould from wherever.
Marcel Pfister so you have basically just admitted you really don't care if lives on both sides could have been saved via any other means and you commend her for sending some of our troops to an early grave regardless?Oh and the reason she owes an explanation to Mrs Gould and every other person in this country is because she and all of us are the electorate, where some might have even helped put Thatcher in power too. She also owed an explanation to the families of every member of the British forces killed during this war too.
amazed66 LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED ON BOTH SIDES, IF THE ARGENTINES HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FALKLANDS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
I’m afraid you need a lesson in Parliamentary Democracy Son.
The PM is not obliged to explain the Government and it’s decision making to anybody outside the House of Commons. The fact that these discussions and programs took place at the time is a credit to Britain and her Politicians. Diana Gould’s stance here is appalling. It is illogical especially given the facts we know 35 years on. This is why I think the whole thing was contrived as a personal attack on Thatch. Dennis was suspicious of the BBC. I think he was right.
The shooting war had started on the second of April,when Argentina illegally invaded the islands.
The battle to recapture the islands started with the recapture of South Georgia, a few days before the Belgrano was sunk. The actual battle for the recapture of The Falklands started on May 1st,with the bombardment of the airfield at Stanley,by Vulcans,Harriers and warships.I was onboard HMS Glamorgan on 1st of May, bombarding the airfield. Too late for peace !
The exclusion zone was to warn neutral ships to stay away.
If you have been there like me,under threat from Belgrano,instead of being an armchair warrior 32 years later,then you would understand where I am coming from.
By the way, I am not a Tory, but I believe she did the right thing, andThatcher ruled the country until1990.
Illegaly
Haha nice joke
The issue is when the RN and the UK government had shown sufficient armed response to the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and its Navy to indicate it was intent on fighting for the Islands. Reclaiming Sth Georgia even with the damage to the Argie sub was a different issue and the fact in the bombing raid of Argentine AF and Argentine Navy on the task force, had only been countered by one or two old Argentine aircraft shot down and possibly 30mm AA from sea harriers into Argentine jet fighters, this was not a sufficiently clear response to initiate war, given the similar controversy over the start of the full scale involvement of the US Forces after a couple of incidents in ther Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 or the fact the shooting down of a USAF U2 and a USN Recc RCF8 Crusader over Cuba in 62 did not lead to war.
Are people that naive to think they didn't know what they were doing to have that ship sailing in and out of a no go zone......She had to make a decision and it was the correct one to protect the troops
A warship can change its course at anytime. It doesnt just stay on a course of 280° forever. Even the Captain of the Belgrano said so, and he said that his orders were to attack any British ship he came across.
Junta invaded falklands so it was legit to declare war against argentina . Sinking of General belgrano just helped to initiate that and they started a war and there was no need of appeasement .
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the Belgrano kept changing courses , moving towards the the Isles then changing direction
You ARE wrong....even about the name of the ship lol
@@RankinFitch8 edit* Belgrano but it was skirting the edges of the exclusion zone
composure in the face of child like behaviour. no need for the legitimate argument. temperament shows it all.
Maggie seems practically refusing to answer the question.
Atsushi Takayasu she answered the question she forgets to add the belgrano was in a convoy preparing to attack a british fleet
We need someone like thatcher today. I'm not a supporter of thatchers policies or views at all but she's the strongest pm since Churchill
if she was strong how did the Argentinian invasion even happen with nobody noticing? that is a fantastic cockup by security and intelligence and it got swept under the rug
@@kentallard8852 Someone is strong doesn't mean it stop other bad ppl attack him/her,
Strong my arse. She was a self serving disgrace.
God bless Maggie!
Laque Tepario
Don't be like that. You should be nice to the Islanders. With all that lovely oil to exploit there will be opportunities for you guys to use your talents (waiting, washing up, room cleaning, laundry services).
Laque Tepario At least the British are not hypocritical. You think it's all about rocks and soil and peat? It's about people. Those who live there and have lived there for nearly two hundred years. The British are not demanding that Spain hand over Ceuta or Melilla. But Spain is demanding Gibraltar against the democratic will of the Gibraltese and you if think Argentina has a legal right then answer this question for me. Why doesn't Argentina go to the international court of justice in The Hague? Tell us all!! Please explain?
WE ARE NOT SMELLY PIRATES!!!!!!. DO YOU WANT THE UK TO ANNEX THE REST OF STUPID ARGENTINA. ARGENTINA IS THE WORST COUNTRY IN SOUTH AMERICA. YOUR DICTATOR DELIBERATELY ANNEXED THE FALKLANDS WITHOUT THE UK KNOWING. JUST LIKE WHAT HIROHITO DID TO PEARL HABOUR. GOD BLESS MARGARET THATCHER. DOWN WITH THE FASCIST REGIME OF ARGENTINA. I SUPPORT THE GENICIDE ON THE SINKING OF THE BELGRANO.
@@laquetepario8396 the uk has owned the falklands way before argentina ever became a country called argentina.. keep your garlic gob shut
Thatcher made the right decision.
I don’t see the problem with sinking an enemy ship at war. Why should you restrict the power of your fleet, at war, when your troops are under danger? It’s ridiculous
If she didnt sink the ship the woman would question her on why didnt she do it.
+commandoslayer Maybe not that exact women, but a women yes.
it is war and warships get sunk in war!!!!
Of course, like the HMS Invincible
@@agustinalem1390 dalyhistory.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/falklands-then-and-now-aircraft-carriers/ LOOK ATTHE SECOND PICTURE AND STOP BEING A FUCKING IDIOT
@@mariacornwallis1602 it was sunk and replaced by HMS Ark Royal 1 or the HMS Illustrious. Sorry mate, I don't care about the lies your governmet told you. 🤷♂️
The three ships I showed you are the Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible..... If there are three ships in the picture which was taken in 2009 which one did the Argies sink? I think you are the one that should stop listening to the Argentine Ministry of Propaganda.
@@agustinalem1390 I take it by the lack of your response that you have realised that you are talking a load of shit
What's all the fuss about, Mrs Gould? During a war, any enemy ship, wherever it might be, is a legitimate target!
It's highly appropriate that Diana Gould's maiden name was Prigg.
Only in Britain could a fascist junta invade British territory, utterly unprovoked, and you have the British left doing Britain down and supporting the enemy.
The Belgrano may have been outside the exclusion zone. But it had already been made clear to the Argentine that ships in the exclusion zone *would* be attached, and ships outside it *might* be attacked. Outside the exclusion zone didn't make them scot-free.
As Alan Clark wrote, "So what does it matter where it was when it was hit? We could have sunk it if it'd been tied up on the quayside in a neutral port and everyone would still have been delighted."
And it's very interesting that these people go on about the Belgrano but have nothing to say, and no-one to condemn, over HMS Sheffield.
I miss her
imagine winning an astounding victory, saving hundred, probably thousand of lives and then being questioned "why the fuck did you do that ?"
Imagine fighting a whole ass war over a pile of rocks off the coast of Argentina lmao. One of the dumbest wars in history. Very stupid that anyone's navy was there at all.
@@csb8431I’m sure the people of the Falklands are glad you weren’t PM in 1982.
Mrs Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister she lifted many out of poverty, she allowed Council tennants to buy their homes and gave people dignity, I seen my parents and my own living standard improve tenfold under her Government. My parents bought their house when I was a teenager and secured my inheritance, her policies and her decency are so sadly missed today.
nwlman But she harboured paedophiles, brushed the sex abuse and abusers under the carpet and also look at the mess we are in, all because of Thatcher
nwlman that has to be the funniest post I've read on here for a long time and especially the bit about lifting people out of poverty and the dignity part, which is only marginally funnier than you actually thinking selling council houses was a good idea.
What's quite telling though from you is your Thatcher's children attitude of "I'm all right Jack" in the final part of your post and so that's all that matters. Have you thought about trying to look at the bigger picture to see why selling council houses was a bad policy and what it then did to the housing market, rather than just think about how you benefited yourself from a largely flawed policy?
Greatest prime Minister we will ever have, that’s right the 80s was a golden era to get yourself out of poverty, working class became middle class though her, and we left the shitty 70s when. Most people were on strike, our reputation as a country then was known as the sick man of europe
The MOD report this to the Police and they would prosecute the sailors involved in sinking the General Belgrano today.
The bismarck wasn't a threat at the time of it sinking either, nor was the Tirpitz
Exactly, that's why it was wrong to sink those ships.
I'm quite unsure about her but I will say this, the politicians we have to put up with these days could learn a thing or two from this woman
Maggie done the right thing
No
One of the traditional functions and potential of a naval officers was to create a situation in which a naval ship or group commander could actually, take the action, fire, closely pass or take to initiate the conflict that they judged was necessary in the political interest but which the political leadership could not start. This action and the events leading up to it in many ways involved naval officers initiating and setting in train events causing a war for the general political interest. The possibility of this sort of traditional action and perogative had often been viewed as obsolete and no longer available in the age of nuclear deterent. However as in various actions of NK and in the 71 Indo Pakistan war and the Vulcan raids in this war the mere potential threat of a USN CVN was not sufficient to stop threats.
it was on a zig zag pattern apparently...
the captain of the ship has also acknowledged it was a legitimate target...
I find Mrs Thatcher most amusing and entertaining - I want more! Especially her Tommy Cooper 'impression'
And which British ships did Argentina decide not to sink?
In 2003, the ship's captain Hector Bonzo confirmed that General Belgrano had actually been manoeuvering, not "sailing away" from the exclusion zone.[28] 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.[29] In an interview two years before his death in 2009, he further stated that: "It was absolutely not a war crime. It was an act of war, lamentably legal."[30]
The idea that Britain should have to give any kind of warning to Argentina in a WAR that Argentina started is completely asinine.
She was absolutely fierce!
Say what you like about her and yes some of her decisions were wrong but she held Britain as her upmost importance to defend, she is a legend that unfortunately we will never see again in this country due to this politically correct climate. She makes me proud to be British
The two countries were at war. I don't care what course the Belgrano was sailing and nor do I care whether the Belgrano was inside or outside the exclusion zone. War is not nice.
Firsty its a crusier not a battel ship.
Secondly it wasn't sailing away it was part of a task force that was to encircle the British task force. And any one who's been in a navy should know that even if it was heading away that would be not relevant as a ship can chage course in a singel second.
Thirdly
A ship doesn't need to be heading towards a target to be a threat. For example the bismark was heading to France not a convy when it was sunk.
And the guns posed on the ship was a threat to British ship
And fourthly in hine sight it saved more lives as the gun on it would out fire any ones on the British ships and when it was sunk it send all Argentina war ships back to home ports
It wasn't a Battleship it was a old WW2 cruiser, it was sailing near our Navy in time of WAR!!! It was a target and sunk, the same way the Argantinians sank HMS Sheffield.
I must learn to mimic her eye contact skills. I bet I'd get a decent deal with the mortgage broker with a sharp suit, a low tone, and an immovable stare.
She right.. Absolutely right...
Couldn't understand why sinking an enemy war ship, note that, a war ship, not a merchant ship, not even a military transport ship, during a war is a problem. It was bearing 280, away from the Falklands, and outside the exclusion zone, yes, but anyone with a sane mind should know that a ship could change its course before you could say "Geese". With the speed of a cruiser that is more than 30 knots, she was a threat not even that remote.
I'm a Thatcher supporter, but it's interesting to see her snookered by a member of the public in a way Her Majesty's Opposition (leader Michael Foot) seemed incapable of doing. Mrs Gould should have been Prime Minister