Falklands: Papers Show Rare Friction for Thatcher and Reagan

[Sheilbh]

Cheap rhetoric.

Why do you say that?

What some ways?  The UK fought the war using its own resources.  More or less US support wouldn't have changed that.

America's a global power with global interests and we shouldn't assume that emotion alone will stop them from selling us down the river. So we need to have the resources to fight our own wars, including if the US is unhappy with that. We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.

[CountDeMoney]

We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.

Little late for that, don't you think?  The only thing you guys left the Royal Navy to its name is the color.

[Sheilbh]

Little late for that, don't you think?  The only thing you guys left the Royal Navy to its name is the color.

Don't remind me

[Admiral Yi]

Why do you say that?

Gives you upside with France and no downside with the US,

America's a global power with global interests and we shouldn't assume that emotion alone will stop them from selling us down the river. So we need to have the resources to fight our own wars, including if the US is unhappy with that. We certainly shouldn't depend on the US (or any other power, however elaborate our alliance relations) for anything essential to sending a task force like we did to the Falklands again.

The UK didn't request US military assistance in the Falklands.  What you describe as selling down the river was a suggestion of a negotiated settlements, not the withdrawal of crucially needed military assets.  The so-called Gaullist critique has no traction here.

[Ed Anger]

They should be happy we let them use the fancy new Sidewinders. Airstrip One needs to pipe down.

[Sheilbh]

Gives you upside with France and no downside with the US,

He said it years later when he was retired - publishing his memoir I think. Thatcher worked hard to ensure that whatever the issues (and that Reagan-Thatcher transcript show there were issues) they were kept quiet and she worked closely with Reagan on other issues.

What makes you think it may not be true?

The UK didn't request US military assistance in the Falklands.  What you describe as selling down the river was a suggestion of a negotiated settlements, not the withdrawal of crucially needed military assets.  The so-called Gaullist critique has no traction here.

I think supporting joint sovereignty - and no withdrawal of Argentine troops - over the UK's territory isn't terrible supportive.

Without the ability to send a taskforce without American support (which we never would've received) the invasion would've succeeded. That's why the Gaullist critique of needing to maintain national ability to act is entirely appropriate here.

Edit: And it's worth pointing out that US support - and the last attempt by Reagan to push the Brazilian peace plan - happened after the recapture of South Georgia.

[Admiral Yi]

What makes you think it may not be true?

Real time satellite intel vs. Exocet blueprints.  Which do you think mattered more?

I think supporting joint sovereignty - and no withdrawal of Argentine troops - over the UK's territory isn't terrible supportive.

"Support" is one of those words that can mean just about anything.  What do you mean by it here?

Without the ability to send a taskforce without American support (which we never would've received) the invasion would've succeeded.

wut?

[Sheilbh]

Real time satellite intel vs. Exocet blueprints.  Which do you think mattered more?

France provided considerably more than that and as I noted they provided it from the start of the invasion, not just once the UK was already engaged.

But yeah, Weinberger came through in the end and offered total support from the beginning.

"Support" is one of those words that can mean just about anything.  What do you mean by it here?

The general colloquial meaning. The UK's sovereign territory had just been invaded, the people who were being fought over overwhelmingly wanted to stay British and stay in a democratic country. That seems to me to be one of the rare occasions when you'd just expect your allies to line behind you in support, even if it's just rhetorical. The US couldn't precisely because she was a global power and because the US government was divided on the rights and wrongs of the issue.

For the next month the US pushed peace plans that would have, as Thatcher, rewarded aggression. Once the UK taskforce was engaged the US supported the UK far more.

wut?

If Britain didn't have the military capability to reply the Argentine invasion would've succeeded. Either they'd have won or we'd have had to accept a face-saving 'joint sovereignty' plan that did not include the withdrawal of Argentine troops.

[CountDeMoney]

If Britain didn't have the military capability to reply the Argentine invasion would've succeeded.

But it did succeed.  It was the occupation that kinda failed.

[Admiral Yi]

The general colloquial meaning can be anything at all.  Do you mean you would have preferred the US to come out with some tub thumping public statement a la McCain about we are all Falklanders today?

If the Gaullist critique boils down to the observation that the US is not going to fight your wars for overseas posessions for you, then the next question is: so?

[Sheilbh]

The general colloquial meaning can be anything at all.  Do you mean you would have preferred the US to come out with some tub thumping public statement a la McCain about we are all Falklanders today?

That would've been nice. I would've preferred the US not to have spent a month acting like the UN when there's a relatively clear issue of invasion.

If the Gaullist critique boils down to the observation that the US is not going to fight your wars for overseas posessions for you, then the next question is: so?

So don't depend on the US too much. You need to be able to fight your own wars. There may even be times when your interests collide and you need to be able to act despite US oppositions (short of military opposition, obviously).

More broadly I think the Gaullist critique is therefore a bit cynical about alliances, whether it's NATO or Europe.

[Admiral Yi]

So don't depend on the US too much. You need to be able to fight your own wars. There may even be times when your interests collide and you need to be able to act despite US oppositions (short of military opposition, obviously).

More broadly I think the Gaullist critique is therefore a bit cynical about alliances, whether it's NATO or Europe.

My point is the Gaullist critique is not particularly specific to de Gaulle, France, or the US.  Nobody is expected to fight other people's wars for them.  And nobody should be disappointed or surprised when they don't.

[Sheilbh]

But that seems to go against the post-war history of alliance building, of the UN and the whole idea of the 'international community'. Various countries do expect other countries to fight their wars for them, or to support them in some way (see Rummy) and when they don't it's a problem.

From the perspective of a medium sized country like the UK or France that means always maintaining the capability to act independently, even if that makes you a less useful member of a wider alliance. In terms of NATO for example most European countries adapted their armed forces to do a specific job within the alliance. If they each insisted on maintaining forces that could act alone then the alliance strategy would be less effective because you'd have lots of miniature militaries rather than parts that can naturally slot together.

That's less true now because NATO's changing and isn't about fighting the Soviets anymore. But I still think it's a useful perspective for Euro-countries like the UK or France especially at a time of austerity. Do we choose to specialise in what we're very good at in a broader international context (eg. special forces) or should we risk specialisation for being able to operate independently?

The counter-point to the Gaullist perspective seems that alliances have failed rarely in the post-war world. Generally we have all fought together, so maybe it's more useful being a handy specialist than an irritating generalist.

[Razgovory]

Wait, were sat images streamed real time in 1980?  I thought they still sent film down by capsules.

[Admiral Yi]

If you're talking about obligations under the UN charter to come to aid of any country that is invaded, then again that's a criticism that should be leveled against all signatories, not just the US.  Nothing to do with the Gaullist critique.

Executive summary: the Gaullist critique as it relates to the Falklands is rubbished.  Your preference for a less equivocal statement of condemnation of Argentina's invasion is noted and not dismissed, though as you yourself mentioned, explained by the US' global commitments and interests.  Your previous statement about the US selling the UK down the river is judged a clear case of over egging the pudding.