« Tories seek to establish true cost of Gordon Brown's attack on pensions | Main | Cameron advisers draw up secret plan to abolish monarchy »


As has been rehearsed many times, if we had given in then little of our territory would have been safe and we would have depreciated as a free country with influence in the world. The whole country rallied around but looking back and thinking of today we seem to have lost so much of our belief,


Compare Thatcher's success in restoring Britain's world status with Blair's legacy.

Can I recommend to those who haven't seen it the interview on 18 Doughty St of John Nott on the Falklands. I might disagree with him on some of his ideas on defence and Britain's role but it is a very honest appraisal by a man unafraid of recognising his mistakes.

The leadership shown by Thatcher & the Armed forces, the courage of the men who fought across hard terrain and at a considerable cost in lives and injuries, remind of of what this nation can achieve. Shame that the servicemen, and the others like dockworkers who supported them, have not since received the investment and support they deserved.

La dama de hierro de la Pérfida Albión...¿Dispuesta a usar armas nucleares contra la ciudad argentina de Córdoba en la Guerra de las Malvinas?

Then spake Sir Richard Grenville: "I know you are no coward;
You fly them for a moment to fight with them again.
But I've ninety men and more that are lying sick ashore.
I should count myself the coward if I left them, my Lord Howard,
To these Inquisition dogs and the devildoms of Spain."

The Revenge : A Ballad of the Fleet

Alfred Tennyson

Someone else would have continued after Margaret Thatcher and Labour and the Alliance would still have lost. Margaret Thatcher would have had to resign because failing to keep the Falklands would lose her the confidence of the house. I suppose it would have been Geoffrey Howe, Willie Whitelaw, John Biffen, Norman Tebbit, Jim Pryor or Francis Pym who would have succeeded her. A lot of the reforms would have happened anyway, in fact Margaret Thatcher wanted to go far further but was constantly held back by wets in the Conservative Party and in the cabinet and actually the reforms that were introduced were a sort of compromise anyway, no doubt other leaders would have had some other compromise which would have introduced a lot of it.

I thought the Falklands was one of her greatest failures actually. That is a war that should never have happened and Carrington and Nott were right to offer their resignations.
Having said that Mrs Thatcher showed her resolve in that crisis and it was the making of her as a PM.
Students of that period might also note that the French were more helpful to us than the Americans were. It says a lot about Mrs Thatcher that she strove to preserve her strong relations with President Reagan after the less than wholehearted support his govt gave Britain during that war.

The US was allies both with the UK and Argentina and as such was reluctant to get involved although it did offer some very powerful US naval vessels for sale and loan which would have enhanced the British Navy substantially.

Supposing Greece and Turkey were at war in a border dispute (as they nearly were in the mid 1990's when the 2 countries navies were on the point of engaging and it was called off at the last moment over some islands in the Aegean, a British PM would face the same problem as the White House did in the Falklands.

Ah yes, America's supposed unhelpfulness in the Falklands War. While the US Ambassador to the UN was very much on Argentina's side, and some Americans thought the Monroe Doctrine ought to apply the US did provide some very concrete help - namely the use of their base on Ascension Island. Now, Ascension may be a British Colony, but if you look at the terms of the lease that base is completely under American control. (Angry about that? Take it up with Mr Churchill).

Incidentally, have a look at what the American President had to say about it at the time:


Now, the French were also very helpful in their rhetoric, but could someone remind us what their actual contribution to victory was?

Gildas - one thing among others - they provided the codes to the Exocets which "our boys" in intelligence then used to disable any they could reach (though few in Argentina itself). There was at some cost to the French as many potential purchasers of French weaponry went elsewhere as a result of French support.

So true Ted.......but South Africans and Israelis tried to supply Argentina with Exocets and French Intelligence worked to stop them.

The Monroe Doctrine 1823 was created by Canning and enforced by The Royal Navy to keep France out of the Americas after France invaded Spain in April 1823 since Chile,and the other Spanish colonies were emerging British markets

The Royal Navy nuclear submarines patrol in coordination with French SSBNs...reality is we have few allies and many enemies

Anyone seen the BBC latest comments page:

"The Falklands War: What do you Think?"

There are 28 comments (at present). 27 are supportive of the war, 1 negative and unsupportive.

Guess what the BBC have chosen to post on their root news story; "UK expresses regret over falklands dead"?


Yup, you've guessed it. The one unsupportive one: "The war wasn't right and diplomacy wasn't even tried
" Paul Goddard from London.

See here for comments:


It beggars belief.

Peter Hatchet, that's awful. There must be some complaint system through which we can make it clear how unacceptable that is? It is surely biased and disproportionate.

Thatcher showed her true colours during the war. She was brave, strong and true. By far and away the greatest post-war Prime Minister and perhaps, bearing in mind the significant all-round changes she brought about, potentially the best ever.

I don't agree that these changes would have come about anyway. Howe, Joseph and Lawson certainly contributed ideologically as much as she did to Thatcherism, but it was only under her leadership that those ideas became realities. Unlike the other neoliberals post-Heath, Thatcher didn't just know how she wanted Britain to be, she knew how she was going to get us there. Nobody else could offer that sort of leadership - there's only one person like that in every generation.

She was Britain's saviour - and that isn't an understatement.

Thatcher didn't just know how she wanted Britain to be, she knew how she was going to get us there. Nobody else could offer that sort of leadership - there's only one person like that in every generation.
There were other people who also had a clear vision of how they wanted Britain to be, things would have ended up differently, in some cases maybe with much more radical reform - there might have been less privatisation or more, the new leader might have been much bolder regarding shrinking the state or taken a far tougher position on Law & Order - someone implimenting a real crackdown including arming police and introducing Capital Punishment on a 3 line whip and not introducing things such as PACE might have gone down even better with the people Margaret Thatcher appealed to.

Margaret Thatcher became the leader and so it is assumed that she was the only one who could have carried out such a reform programme, someone else who had succeeded her at that time might have failed to win an overall majority in 1987 or in fact it is possible that they might have remained in power longer perhaps preventing the ascent of John Major and being Prime Minister for 20 or 30 years.

*Ah* "..if "if's" and "ands" were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers."

It is amusing to speculate on what 'might' have been, but ultimately pointless.

There were plenty both inside and outside the party who had grave reservations about Margaret Thatcher - who was often "out on a limb" whilst leader.

I cannot think of anyone else who would have had the resolve to push through the reforms she did in the face of so much opposition. Despite what others may "claim" now.

Hindsight makes experts of us all.

Ash 23:01:

I did complain by submitting a comment to the BBC last night.

Surprise, surprise, it hasn't been published. And I don't expect it will be either.

The BBC think they're totally objective and fair-minded and it simply does not occur to them that they're bias. When someone accuses them of bias, I am sure they think "right-wing nut, just ignore him" and carry on as before.

I expect the excuse they'll offer for this is that "his was the first comment... blah.. blah.. blah.", "it was the weekend.. no moderators available... blah.. blah.. blah", "stimulate debate... blah blah blah.."

What the BBC cannot accept is any support or promotion of anything "traditionally" British - including patriotism, pride British history etc - as they feel this undermines their "progressive", "internationalist" and "multicultural" agenda. The two are mutually exclusive to them.

Comes from staffing the organisation full of guardian-reading arts graduates I guess.

Why was my comment deleted - you have allowed much worse in the past?

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker