When on 20 March Endurance was ordered from Port Stanley to South Georgia, it was too late, removing the one deterrent to an Argentine landing and leaving the Falklands exposed to attack.
Exactly, Sir, what sort of deterrent do you believe an underarmed (fitted for but not with 2 x 20mm at the time, iirc) naval icebreaker, albeit with a few marines on board, would have been? Against an invasion force of a submarine, a Type 42 destroyer, a corvette and amphbious assault ship with several full marine companies and armoured vehicles? In your extensive military experience?
And then this:
Lombardo's cobbled-together invasion took place on 2 April, leaving Thatcher initially stunned and humiliated. Though bloodless ...
The family of Argentinian Lieutenant-Commander Pedro Giachino, as well as those of the three Argentinian casualities of the South Georgia invasion, might disagree with you. As well as the small number wounded in the initial attacks. Mostly bloodless, I'll grant. But that's supposed to be the difference between mere hyperbole and professional journalism, wouldn't you say?
Some Falklands photos:
 | |
| San Carlos Water, below a typical Falklands sky |
 |
| 1982 War Memorial, Port Stanley seafront |
 |
| Argentinian Military Cemetary, north of Darwin. Note both the gravestones: this is just wrong. |
4 comments:
What branch of the Forces were you in, SE? I was going to ask this over at Tim Worstall's but I didn't want to derail the thread.
Army.
What is wrong about the headstones?
"Soldado Argentino. Solo concido por Dios"
An Argentinian Soldier. Known only unto God.
What is wrong is that given the recency and relatively small scale of the conflict, that the graves aren't properly identified so the families have somewhere as a focus of their grief.
Post a Comment