Movies about The Falklands War?

[dowie]

Comedy value, the nonsense you spout about the French is usually accompanied by nonsense about the Americans, hence it's usual to mock both together.

That's not what a straw man is lol.

That is a massive straw man - what are you even refering to - again I made no criticism of the Americans yet you refer to me posting nonsense about them.

Not really, as an EU/NATO ally they were pretty much instant in their cutting of ties to Argentina and their support for us.

Completely missing the point - I've just illustrated where that lobbying was required.

You're referring to Dassault employees who had worked/lived in Argentina for years, it's sad that they chose to break the law and their orders in order to help their friends but it's no fault of the French as a whole.

One of them was a French Agent working for their national intelligence service.

Would have been nice if true

What do you mean would have been nice? How is it nice... It is/was true.

Would have been nice if true, and posting an edited excerpt from an official document in order to pervert the context doesn't make it true. The only reason we knew of the danger of Exocet's making their way to Argentina via Peru is because the French warned us that they suspected Peru would violate their contract and ship them to a third party hence why they had refused to give them the missiles and sent their ship away empty (as detailed in the part of the report you redacted). Hence why the report also states that as a result of that fear France had halted shipments to Peru until after we retook the Falklands, despite legal pressure from Peru and the fear of losing their military contacts throughout South America (and pretty much begs them to tell them when we think we will have the islands back by so they can make arrangements).

I've not redacted anything.

The part you posted is essentially Thatcher trying to statesman by strongly wordily asking him to do the thing he's already informed her he will be doing

That's false.

Oh, and if you read the rest of the document you will see the part where the government are mad at Israel because instead of stopping arms sales to Argentina they have stated shipping them by air instead to get them there faster, but hey it's more fun to try and paint the French as bad guys right?

No - re-read the post - the comment was about the French... why does replying to a comment about the French require whataboutery re: some other countries.

You're posting a lot of nonsense tbh...

 

[Superficial]

And how exactly do you propose the French government should have stopped them from doing something they had already forbidden them to do, considering they were 11,000km away and had no clue it was happening?

LOVING your pathetic editing of my post to exclude the fact that the Team leader was STILL employed are you actually trying to say there should have been no consequence? Wake up! People involved were still working there in 2012 is inexcusable but hey don't take my word for it:

It's bordering on an act of treason

Pierre Lethier, Former French spy chief

In an interview carried out in 1982 by Sunday Times journalist Isabel Hilton, the team's leader, Herve Colin, admitted carrying out one particular test that proved invaluable to Argentinian forces.

"The verification process involves determining if the missile launcher was functioning correctly or not. Three of the launchers failed. We located the source of the problem and that was it. The rest was simple."

The BBC made efforts to contact Mr Colin to request an interview, but received no response. The French company he still works for, Dassault, told us that after 30 years that it was unable to confirm whether or not it had authorised the work his team carried out in Argentina at this time.

But it is now clear that, thanks to tests they carried out, the Argentinians were able to fire Exocets at British forces from three previously faulty missile launchers.

Francois Heisbourg, who at the time was international security adviser to the French Minister of Defence, Charles Hernu, insists that his government did not know that the technical team was there. But, he says, the fact that it evidently was is inexcusable.

"" he says.

If I were you I'd forget the sarcastic responses Ubersonic you've boxed yourself into a corner here the better play for your argument is to admit as I will that the cooperation was freyed at best when you count all the French ministers comments in hindsight, an admittance that they knew the team were there, what they did and nothing was done about them after all the facts were known despite admitting that their behaviour was unnaceptable.


Can we imagine how the Americans would react if a British team had helped the North Vietnamese despite an order not to and we'd let them live out there lives without punishment.

 

[ubersonic]

That is a massive straw man

Okay I think you need to Google the meaning of straw man

I made no criticism of the Americans yet you refer to me posting nonsense about them.

No I didn't, I simply said that the type of rant you posted about the french is normally accompanied by an equally dumb one about the Americans, so I mockingly trashed your argument about the French while also trashing the one about the Americans before somebody else posted it.

Completely missing the point - I've just illustrated where that lobbying was required.

You haven't, because it wasn't required, hence why I pointed out it wasn't xD

One of them was a French Agent working for their national intelligence service.

Spying on the Argentinians, for them/us.

What do you mean would have been nice?

You said it was nice, I simply added it would have it if was true (NB: I don't actually agree it would have been nice, I was just tounge in cheek pointing out it was untrue).

I've not redacted anything.

You posted part of a document out of context in an attempt to portray it as something it wasn't.

That's false.

Wrong, read the document you quoted.

No - re-read the post - the comment was about the French... why does replying to a comment about the French require whataboutery re: some other countries.

Ignoring the fact that it wasn't whataboutism (you may wanna Google the meaning of that too) the point being made was to further diminish your argument by pointing out that in your effort to selectively quote/twist the original document to paint a false narrative of the French, you're completely ignoring that it condemns another of our allies for actually doing even worse than you imagine the French did

 

[dowie]

-double post

 

[dowie]

No I didn't, I simply said that the type of rant you posted about the french is normally accompanied by an equally dumb one about the Americans, so I mockingly trashed your argument about the French while also trashing the one about the Americans before somebody else posted it.

You're backtracking now - you referred specifically to me... the dumb argument here is coming from you as you're again attacking some straw man position. If this isn't the case then please do quote me...

You haven't, because it wasn't required, hence why I pointed out it wasn't xD

No you haven't and it was as already pointed out.

Spying on the Argentinians, for them/us.

LOL - yeah really helpful for us, they got the missiles working and cost British ships and lives... how is that a price worth paying? You're completely full of it if you're trying to justify that.

You posted part of a document out of context in an attempt to portray it as something it wasn't.

No I didn't I gave the context.

Ignoring the fact that it wasn't whataboutism (you may wanna Google the meaning of that too) the point being made was to further diminish your argument by pointing out that in your effort to selectively quote/twist the original document to paint a false narrative of the French, you're completely ignoring that it condemns another of our allies for actually doing even worse than you imagine the French did

Again, re-read the thread, I'm talking about the French because the poster I quoted mentioned the French! You then throw in "what about Israel"...

You've got a very naive grasp of world events tbh... especially the made up excuse you gave for the French engineers/agent - obviously they were spying for the French, that didn't give the UK an overall benefit - getting those missiles working was a massive help for the Argies. Sure France offered help to the UK (as already acknowledge) but they required further lobbying re: the missiles and planes destined for Peru. They were also straight back in with arms deals right after the conflict ended.

 

[ubersonic]

You're backtracking now - you referred specifically to me

I didn't, read it again.

No I didn't I gave the context.

You selectively quoted part of the text out of context in order to give the impression that the UK government had to pressure the French into helping us when in reality that couldn't be further from the truth.

Here's pretty much the contextual timeline of the events being discussed:

1. War breaks out.
2. France cancel all remaining orders to Argentina (a stark contrast to our other "friend" Israel who instead accelerate orders/production to Argentina).
3. France provide us with classified details on the missiles and aircraft they sold Argentina including how best to counter them, in addition they send over a squadron of planes/pilots so our pilots can train against the very aircraft they will soon face.
4. France get worried that Peru may transfer the weapons they have on order to Argentina, despite this being forbidden by their contract, so they suspend sales to Peru too.
5. Some of the Dassault employees living/working in Argentina decide to disobey their instructions and continue assisting the Argentinians.
6. Peru gets mad that the ship they sent to France to collect the weapons they paid for was turned away and threaten France with legal action.
7. France tells the UK about the situation with Peru but stresses nothing will be handed over until after we retake the islands, but could we please hurry up as this is hurting their brand in south America.
8. The UK thanks France for the heads up and being a good ally, and agrees to inform France when we expect our land invasion to begin so they can time the release of the Peruvian missiles to ensure they cannot make it to Argentina in time to be of use to them.
9. In an act of showmanship Margaret Thatcher sends the French PM a strongly worded letter leaning on him to do all the things he has already informed her he was going to do.

Part 9 is the letter you posted an excerpt from, assuming you never intended to mislead people do you see now how it completely perverts the context?

 

[dowie]

I didn't, read it again.

Yes you did, don't lie when I can quote you directly - note the word "you" in bold below - are you still going to deny this:

the nonsense you spout about the French is usually accompanied by nonsense about the Americans

You made the claim - back it up then! What are you referring to?

You can't because you're just lying, you've attacked a position you've attributed to me that you've made up yourself.

You selectively quoted part of the text out of context in order to give the impression that the UK government had to pressure the French into helping us when in reality that couldn't be further from the truth.

No, that is the truth

1. The UK thanks France for the heads up and being a good ally, and agrees to inform France when we expect our land invasion to begin so they can time the release of the Peruvian missiles to ensure they cannot make it to Argentina in time to be of use to them.
2. In an act of showmanship Margaret Thatcher sends the French PM a strongly worded letter leaning on him to do all the things he has already informed her he was going to do.

Part 9 is the letter you posted an excerpt from, assuming you never intended to mislead people do you see now how it completely perverts the context?

How is a private message "an act of showmanship"? She lobbied because they were being pressured by Peru.

So far you've ignored the planes.

You've denied the fact that the French refused to tell us even how many missiles they'd sold the armies until after HMS Sheffield was sunk.

You've given a weak, handwaving response to the French Engineers that assisted the Argies in getting the missiles working in the first place (which cost British ships and lives). When it was pointed out to you that one of those Engineers was an Agent working for French intelligence you've given some vague claim that he was helping us with intelligence... though you don't specify how he's supposedly helped or why that apparent help was valuable enough to arm the Exocets and lose British ships and lives. Especially considering that MI6 ended up committing a lot of resources in order to try and stop any more missiles from reaching Argentina at any cost.

But apparently the French Agent in the team that helped get the 5 missiles working was somehow helping us????

Now you're claiming a private message was a "act of showmanship" when it was nothing of the sort - it was Thatcher trying to make sure the French didn't go ahead with the shipment to Peru that both the UK and France knew would end up with the Argies

 

[JonnyT]

Once the Americans had ditched Haig's 'Shuttle Diplomacy' they did provide assistance;

They provided the Royal Navy and RAF with the latest version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missile, specifically the AIM-9L; this differed from earlier versions in that it was 'all-aspect', meaning that it could lock on and track an aircraft from any angle; previous versions required aiming towards the rear of the target, and the jet exhaust ideally. This was a significant factor in the Sea Harrier's success against Mirages, Daggers and Pucaras.

Although Ascension Island was a British territory, it had been leased to the Americans, partly as a satellite station for Cable & Wireless, and also as a potential diversionary airfield for the Space Shuttle.

When the British were asked about how much fuel they needed to operate from Ascension, the Americans were taken aback, commenting that we couldn't possibly use that much. The British Top Brass replied that it was their intention to try! Accordingly, Tanker loads of fuel were arriving on a daily basis.

To give the Task Force some form of anti-radar SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) capability, we were able to purchase the Shrike missile, used successfully in Vietnam. This was mounted on makeshift pylons on the Vulcan, and SEAD missions formed the basis of several follow-on Black Buck missions, including, famously, the inpumptu visit to Brazil

 

[zola25]

Although there are few if any movies, there are many excellent books on the Falklands conflict. I'd personally recommend the following:

The Battle for the Falklands - Max Hastings
Hostile Skies - David Morgan, Sea Harrier pilot
Four Weeks in May - David Hart Dyke, Captain of HMS Coventry which was sunk
No Picnic - Brigadier Julian Thompson
Amphibious Assault Falklands - Commodore Mike Clapp

My two personal faves though are:
100 Days - Admiral Sandy Woodward, overall commander of the task force
Sea Harrier Over the Falklands - Sharky Ward, Sea Harrier squadron leader
These two contain plenty of different opinions and some back and forth in recent editions that gives insight into why certain things played out the way they did.

Personally next I need to read up more on the Argentinian point of view.

 

[ubersonic]

Yes you did, don't lie when I can quote you directly *proceeds to show a quote that shows I didn't*

Oh-kay.

No, that is the truth

I honestly don't know how to deal with this... you're just flat out lying at this point. Should I just post the full document? lol.

How is a private message "an act of showmanship"?

Because she then told her cabinet that she has sent a strongly worded letter to the French PM so she could look good. She knew the letter was pointless as she was just pointing him in the direction of doing what he had already told her he was going to do when he made her aware of the Peruvian situation.

It basically went like: "Hey, there's this issue but don't worry we've got it covered :thumbsup:" - "Hi, we are concerned about this issue and need you to look into covering it, understand?"

You've denied the fact that the French refused to tell us even how many missiles they'd sold the armies until after HMS Sheffield was sunk.

I never denied any such fact, as there isn't one, I simple pointed out that your assertion was factually incorrect.

You've given a weak, handwaving response to the French Engineers that assisted the Argies in getting the missiles working in the first place (which cost British ships and lives).

I haven't, It's deplorable that they did that (yet somewhat understandable as from their POV as living/working in Argentina and thus feeling more comradely to them than the British). And I agree that Dassault's decision not to reprimand/sack them is questionable (assuming they were actually instructed to cease work and the company didn't just assume they would due to the political situation ofc).

When it was pointed out to you that one of those Engineers was an Agent working for French intelligence you've given some vague claim that he was helping us with intelligence.

The agent in question was a Dassault employee in Argentina, but not one of the ones directly involved in the missile fitment. And yes he was helping us with intelligence as the info he gathered was being passed to us by the French.

Now you're claiming a private message was a "act of showmanship" when it was nothing of the sort - it was Thatcher trying to make sure the French didn't go ahead with the shipment to Peru that both the UK and France knew would end up with the Argies

Nonsense, read the document you quoted the letter from, it's all in there. At the time she sent the letter she had already been told that France wouldn't be giving any missiles to Peru until after our campaign had progressed to the point they would be useless to Argentina, and the only reason she even knew of the Peru issue is because the French PM explained it at the same time as the aforementioned.

 

[dowie]

Comedy value, the nonsense you spout about the French is usually accompanied by nonsense about the Americans, hence it's usual to mock both together.

Still waiting for you to back up this claim....

The rest is going around in circles tbh....

 

[Dis86]

Still waiting for you to back up this claim....

The rest is going around in circles tbh....

It's like the ship seizing thread all over again. He couldn't lie straight in bed.

 

[b00merang69]

opps wrong thread.

 

[dowie]

It's like the ship seizing thread all over again. He couldn't lie straight in bed.

LOL, that was an amusing one - apparently the ship should have been immune to EU sanctions because it wasn't owned by an EU country or something... even though it was stopped in EU waters.

 

[ubersonic]

Still waiting for you to back up this claim....

It's really not a difficult concept, normally when people spout the nonsense you did about the french they accompany it with nonsense about the Americans (because I guess trashing both of the countries that made it possible for us to retake the Falklands at the same time is more fun or something) hence it's easy to defeat both arguments at once even if only one is presented in order to preempt the other.

The rest is going around in circles tbh....

Well yeah, you refuse to acknowledge your lie was debunked and keep trying to double down on it, even though you have the evidence in your possession. There isn't really much I can do to help you there. It's like you're holding a banana, looking straight at it, and telling everyone it's an orange

that was an amusing one - apparently the ship should have been immune to EU sanctions because it wasn't owned by an EU country or something

That one wasn't a difficult concept either, the EU doesn't force its sanctions on non-EU countries, hence why EU ministers said as such after we seized the ship and the EU refused to back us on it.

 

[dowie]

It's really not a difficult concept, normally when people spout the nonsense you did about the french they accompany it with nonsense about the Americans (because I guess trashing both of the countries that made it possible for us to retake the Falklands at the same time is more fun or something) hence it's easy to defeat both arguments at once even if only one is presented in order to preempt the other.

It's not a difficult concept if you actually expressed yourself properly in the first place, instead it seems that what you wrote isn't what you actually intended.

Perhaps you should have written "spouted", as in referring to simply what I posted (and better still added in some additional clarification that you're referring to what others apparently usually post) - instead you said "the nonsense you spout about the French is usually accompanied by nonsense about the Americans" i.e. referring to something I actively do.

Glad we've got that clarified, would have been easier if you'd just provided better clarification in the first place though.

That one wasn't a difficult concept either, the EU doesn't force its sanctions on non-EU countries, hence why EU ministers said as such after we seized the ship and the EU refused to back us on it.

Apparently only a difficult concept for you, you don't get some magical immunity from EU laws just because some ship is owned by another country. Otherwise why not just register a yacht in Panama too and start transporting drugs through EU waters... you already made yourself look silly in the other thread with that one.

 

[ianh]

Just regarding the "secret codes" - it wasn't codes at all, it was the operating frequency, PRF, power output etc of the radar inside the missiles nose cone which was given. With this info you can them jam the missile much more easily if (and its a huge IF) you have 'reprogrammable whilst at sea' jammers within the fleet, which we didn't at the time. Our jammers way back then were preset to known specific Warsaw Pact missile frequencies. The requisition of reprogrammable jammers and the American Phalanx system were the highest priority for the UK RN after the war.

 

[Dis86]

Just regarding the "secret codes" - it wasn't codes at all, it was the operating frequency, PRF, power output etc of the radar inside the missiles nose cone which was given. With this info you can them jam the missile much more easily if (and its a huge IF) you have 'reprogrammable whilst at sea' jammers within the fleet, which we didn't at the time. Our jammers way back then were preset to known specific Warsaw Pact missile frequencies. The requisition of reprogrammable jammers and the American Phalanx system were the highest priority for the UK RN after the war.

Great info! thanks

 

[DampCat]

This thread, honestly.

Americans only finance films about Americans unless they have a big name foreign director pushing (Dunkirk etc).

If they can't push their hoo-rah propaganda, there's not much point.

 

[Roar87]

This thread, honestly.

Americans only finance films about Americans unless they have a big name foreign director pushing (Dunkirk etc).

If they can't push their hoo-rah propaganda, there's not much point.

Americans finance movies that perform well at the American box office which is their largest market, most people in America like watching movies they can relate to, crazy concept I know.