How Britain sank the Belgrano

#falklandswar #royalnavy #belgrano

[danielcooney]

Belgrano, ex USS Phoenix, that ship survived pearl harbor

[lordcirrhosisofliver]

The exclusion zone was not "any ship outside this zone is safe" what it actually meant was "ANY SHIP inside this zone is in danger". it was a warning for civilian ships to stay away, not a promise that argentine warships were safe so long as they didn't get too close. The british could have sunk any argentine warship in port if they wanted to, warships are valid targets in war no matter where they are.

[anonydunfgoog]

And Maggie Thatcher received intense criticism for giving the order, after which she said "Only in Britain would a Prime Minister be criticized for sinking an enemy ship during time of war"

[fuferito]

I'm here to read ludicrous pro-Argentine comments whinging on how the sinking of an Argentine warship during a war is supposed to be a "horrible war crime" even though Belgrano's own captain, Hector Bonzo declared that she was a legitimate target under the rules of war.

[wyldhowl]

Oddly enough, the UK government decided not to sink all that they could have - they had the Argentine carrier in the sights of another sub at the same time, but decided not to destroy it. They felt that too much overkill might have turned public opinion too much against Britain out of grief, rather than just making the generals look like fools. Say what you will about the motives (mercy, or politics?), but they were quite concerned to keep the war about the Falklands, not Britain against Argentina itself.

[jimtheudb]

If you want to be amazed, look up how the Vulcan bomber reached the Falklands to drop its bombs.

[anandmorris]

Argentina has a wonderful Navy. You can see the fleet at the bottom of the South Atlantic.

[davidford]

Something I think a lot of people don't understand is that the Total Maritime Exclusion Zone was just that, an exclusion zone, not an Engagement Zone. Any non-British ship within the zone would be engaged, but being outside the Zone didn't mean you wouldn't be engaged, just that it wouldn't happen automatically. The Belgrano was a military vessel belonging to a nation actively engaged in hostilities with Britain and was a fair target. Britain would have been well within it's rights to sink the entire enemy navy, and to attack the airfields from which it was being attacked, but we played nice and largely limited ourselves to the Islands. If they had tried this with America, their entire military would have been destroyed, their cities bombed, and they'd have had a new government by the end.

[djakers]

If the Argentinians didn't want to be engaged by the British, they should not have engaged the British.

[Natski]

Star wars is popular in Argentina, but I hear they don't like when "The Empire Strikes Back"

[cliveherbert]

The Belgrano wasn't there for a Picnic, it was there to attack British ships, in a classic Pincer Movement with the Argentine Aircraft Carrier to the North. There was no wind that day to launch aircraft. The Belgrano's Captain Hector Bonzo stated his intention was to sink ships & the Belgrano was a legitimate target. Belgrano's sinking caused all Argentine warships to withdraw permanently.

[MBCGRS]

I flew with Argentine Airforce pilots 25 years after the Falklands. They were convinced they'd won the Air war & sunk Hermes. We would smile buy them another round and say 'lets talk about Rugby'.

[sirwholland]

Oversimplified. Belgrano did move into the declared exclusion zone. HMS Conqueror was waiting for permission to fire under the ROE. That decision authority rested with Thatcher/COBRA - by the time Thatcher’s “sink it” order came back down the chain, Belgrano had departed the EZ. The debate is if Belgrano remained a legitimate target. To me it is not a debate, Belgrano was a belligerent military target operating in support of military operations of the hostile Argentinian forces on the Falklands. Belgrano’s maneuvering from the “will be engaged” EZ to an operating belligerent “may be engaged” outside the EZ makes no difference, “a fleeing felon is still a felon” and Belgrano remaining a fully mission capable belligerent capital military unit.

[russellmoore]

I can still remember watching the war coverage on the nightly news.

[paulmasterson]

If you start a war you have to accept the consequences. We British lost ships, but accept that as part of war and mourn our dead. Other people complain endlessly about a warship being destroyed during a war.
,

[garyberkman]

Lesson #1: don’t start a war with countries with nuclear submarines, especially if you have none.

[PaulHeath-jf]

Looking at all these comments. I think its fair to say that people are still a bit touchy about the Falklands. I watched it on the news as a kid. Then joined the British army seven years later.🇬🇧

[erbilgary]

I was a young Royal Marine 19 on LSL Sir Bedivere en passage to The Falklands War inside the exclusion zone. I recall the bridge pipe informing all onboard that the Belgrano had been sunk. There was no elation or cheering but a sombre mood as it meant that war was imminent.

[kjamison]

FAFO. Even before it was a meme.

The junta underestimated the response from the UK. Margaret Thatcher was never going to be intimidated by anyone.

[indigohammer]

For a Military Government who "Disappeared" 30, 000 of it's own citizenry, what do you think they would have done to the inhabitants of the Falklands?