Talk:Falklands War

Falklands Conflict, not Falklands War.

War was never actually declared: technically, there was no "Falklands War". The term seems to have lapsed into the vernacular in the intervening years since the conflict; it should more correctly be referred to as the "Falklands Conflict". Alexibrow (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title per WP:CommonName, "Conflict" mentioned in lede. What more could one want? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A formal declaration of war is not a requisite for the existence of a war. If I remember correctly, the Vietnam War was never declared, either. "War" is better here than "conflict", to set apart the article about the long and ongoing sovereignty conflict (detailed somewhere else) and this article, which is specifically about the 1982 armed conflict Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before example. There is an option to search the talk pages archives at the top of this page. (Hohum ^@) 15:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, there are plenty of wars which were never declared.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What value is served by "(Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas or Guerra del Atlántico Sur"? I can see that adding (aka South Atlantic War) [1] would help readers. This is the English language Wikipedia, and anyone searching Wikipedia for Malvinas rather than Falklands will easily find this article already Malvinas_Islands--Flexdream (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of convention we provide both the English and Spanish language names. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Do you think it would help to also add 'South Atlantic War' as I've come across that term being used. --Flexdream (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not come across that one myself, you have to balance WP:DUE coverage of what may be a WP:FRINGE term. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Position of third party countries

I'm not convinced this belongs in the aftermath article, which deals with the period after the war. This section deals with the position of 3rd party countries during the war. I would suggest those changes are undone. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 15:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just made swathe of changes, mainly reference maintenance, so please be careful not to undo those when reinserting it. (Hohum ^@) 17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it ocurred during the war and therefore I added a short paragraph about the circumtances and reasons of support. But a deep and in extenso analysis of every country's support as intended in the reinserted (unreferenced and incomplete) section belongs more to the aftermath than to the main article. This view is the reason why the (sub-)sections "The visit of Pope John Paul II", "MI6 activity", "Norwegian intelligence", "Soviet intervention" and "Survival and recovery of wounded British soldiers" are in "Aftermath" and not in the main article as chronologically expected. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede Grammar/Slashes

Don't really see the grammar issues with the current lede, that has been recently the subject of changes. Could you identify what the issue is? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No major issues, just think it looks a bit untidy when a word (like "or") would do; especially in the case of Falklands Conflict/Crisis, which makes it look like it's one long term rather than two separate ones. My reading of MOS:SLASH indicates that they should be discouraged where possible. Best, JonC^Talk 09:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I was unaware of that aspect of MOS. As its largely a matter of personal preference I've self-reverted. No dramas. Sorry to have troubled you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for discussing. I see you've worked pretty hard on this article so completely understand the revert. JonC^Talk 13:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Before the British attacked the Falklands, the British and Argentine governments..."

How is that neutral? The Argentinian forces invaded the Falklands, and the British launched a counter-invasion: "attacking" on the British behalf doesn't come into it. --90.220.162.146 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Argentine couter-attack plans

According to D. J. Thorp's book published in 2011, there is limited evidence, mostly based on radio signals interception and captured documents, that the Argentine forces on West Island planned a counter attack against the remaining British forces at San Carlos Bay for June 15. This, of course, was cancelled due to the ceasefire on June 14. (Thorp, D.J. The Silent Listener - British electronic surveillance, Falklands 1982, Spellmount, 2011, pages 145-148, 182-183. Template:ISBN-13) SV1XV (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I find that difficult to believe as they had no ships and no helicopters by that time. How did they plan to get across Falklands Sound? Swim? And in full view of the Royal Navy, without naval or air support. Mmmm, sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - West Falkland would have been under surveillance, and any evidence of forces gathering for a counter-attack would have been published well before now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this source (p. 146), the Argentinians had salvaged and repaired one of their ships. The author does not give evidence about the name of the ship but he "strongly suspects" that it could be the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso. I am also unwilling to believe this story as well, so I prefer to discuss it on the talk page. SV1XV (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I like this bit in the about the author section - He personally briefed Col. Mike Smith VC (contrary to standing orders) before the battle of Goose Green. - So who is this unknown VC recipient Col Mike Smith. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In his book (chapter 10, "The battle for Goose Green", p.116), Thorp states that he briefed Lt. Colonel H Jones, of 2 Para, who is subsequently called "Colonel H". SV1XV (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well thats BS for a start, Colonel H did not get any of the SIGINT available as part of his planning. One of the lessons of Goose Green was sharing of SIGINT with land forces in the Falklands. Also the ARA Bahia Buen Suceso was disabled by Harrier attack and subsequently grounded after breaking loose in a storm. A useless hulk she was towed out to sea and used for gunnery practise. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts (planned counter-attack and briefing of Colonel H) are supported by weak and limited evidence, but they cannot be easily disproved. Obviously Thorp was very careful when he chose the material for his book. SV1XV (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher should be in the Commanders and Leaders section. She made many decisions in the war, the biggest decision was probaly the sinking of the belgrano. (Epdavies100 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

No, because she was not a military commander. For information, Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano, the war cabinet approved a change in the rules of engagement that permitted the attack to take place. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It says commanders and leaders, which includes the military's civilian overseers, not just "military commanders," i.e., persons of military rank with operational or field command of forces. The war cabinet itself includes the Prime Minister -- who was Thatcher in the case of the Falklands War. She was therefore a "leader" of the war effort. The World War I entry lists two British Prime Ministers as "leaders" (Asquith and Lloyd George) and the Second World War entry lists Churchill, none of whom were "military commanders" at the onset of war. Churchill's military service was long past by the start of World War II (he retained a ceremonial role in his former regiment as patron -- titularly Colonel-in-Chief -- but that role was a non-operational one and held, in many cases, by patrons of non-military background). The position of First Lord of the Admiralty is also typically held by civilians and was in any case relinquished when Churchill became Prime Minister. Moreover, the British Armed Forces entry states that, "[c]onsistent with longstanding constitutional convention . . . the Prime Minister holds de facto authority over the armed forces." So Thatcher did have personal authority to make decisions during the war, although in practice she probably did so in consultation with her cabinet. One need not be a flag officer in order to be a "leader" of the armed forces under the British constitutional order. "It is commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's [armed forces] deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise and is not statutorily bound to consult others." Thus, it's fair to say that Thatcher should be included in the commanders and leaders section of this article. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to know how to respond to you as your IP address is hopping all over the place. I take it you're familiar with wikipedia as you have knowledge of syntax and the use of the talk page. The section in question is for military leaders, not civilian Government. Per this convention we do not include the civilian Government. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You may begin by addressing the substantive points raised, rather than expressing puzzlement about IP addresses. The section in question says "commanders and leaders." It does not say that it is only "for military leaders." There is no convention that civilian government be excluded, or Churchill would be excluded (are you denying that Churchill was a war leader?), as would Roosevelt, since the Commander-in-Chiefship is "[u]nquestionably" a "civilian office." That there is no such convention is clear: the leading article on World War II includes both Churchill and Roosevelt. The principle of civilian political leadership having supreme authority over the armed forces is a venerable constitutional principle, based on longstanding convention and practice on both sides of the Atlantic. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 751 (1974) ("The military establishment is subject to the control of the civilian Commander in Chief and the civilian departmental heads under him"); Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 325 (1946) (Murphy, J., concurring) ("supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages."); James Wither, Civil-Military Relations in the United Kingdom: Tradition, Continuity, and Change, in Callaghan & Kernic (eds.), Armed Forces and International Security: Global Trends and Issues 73 (2003) ("Since the Bill of Rights of 1689 . . . Britain's armed forces have been subject to civilian control and the rule of law."). There is no convention -- whether internally on Wikipedia or in Anglo-American law -- that the armed forces are not subordinate to civilian-political leadership. Since the convention you're relying on does not exist, Thatcher stays. 220.255.1.88 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I did respond to your substantive point, the point is that the civilian Government did not control the campaign and Thatcher was not a "war leader" as you suggest. The conduct of the military campaign was left to the military commanders with broad directives from the War Cabinet. That the armed forces are subordinate to civilian Government does not change the substantive point. BTW it is desirable to convince people to accept your proposed change via WP:BRD, edit warring and statements like you just made are counter productive. See WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You did not. It's "points" in the plural. And you're incorrect: the Prime Minister as head of the war cabinet has control over the war. This is so even if he leads by directive and delegates operational decisions to those in the field:

1. "Britain's armed forces [are] subject to civilian control and the rule of law." See Wither.
2. The Prime Minister controls the decision to deploy. "It is commonly accepted that" the Prime Minister "has personal discretion in [the] exercise" of the "deployment power," which is "the ultimate power to send forces to war." See the Select Committee.

The evidence is plain. Even if we ignore the civilian leadership's power to control the rules of engagement -- itself an operational change -- the sources still state that they have "control," so your claim that they did not is false.

Nor have you provided any support for your assertion that there is a convention against listing civilians as war leaders. The World War II article clearly lists civilian leadership, contrary to your "convention." The template guidelines do not specify military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leadership. Rather, "prominent or notable leaders should be listed," without regard as to whether they were military or civilian (and indeed, without regard to the type of control they exercised). That approach has the virtue of permitting Churchill to be listed as a war leader.

As far as I can tell, you provide no sources and no basis for your contentions (I have provided several sources to the contrary). There's no basis for your "convention" beyond a citation to an archived discussion that produced no consensus and contained only unsourced assertions. 220.255.1.86 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I have to say I agree with IP. While it remains true that "Thatcher did not personally order the sinking of the Belgrano", she was part of the war cabinet that purposely made that possible. In fact, she was a prominent member of that cabinet. Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "For battles, this should include military commanders (...). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed".

As noted by IP contributor, WWI and WWII articles illustrate this point, as well as Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Gulf War (note John Major), Iran–Iraq War, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, etc, etc. They all list political leaders; that's why the section also says "and leaders". We are treating this article as an article about a battle, when we should be following the standards of that of a war.

I believe it's relevant to note that until 2007 Thatcher was listed as a commander, but in February 2010 she was removed. --Langus (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also agree she should be in there. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres a surprise. No you're wrong Cabinet Government is about collective decision making, it is not about individual leadership. The War Cabinet set broad campaign goals, rules of engagement but it did not lead the military campaign. To put in Margaret Thatcher alone would mislead, she did not act alone as you would have us believe. So again, no I oppose this change to the current consensus. If you're going to insist on Margaret Thatcher then you should put in the whole War Cabinet. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed". Maybe some of them qualify, maybe not. --Langus (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well as they were all Ministers of State that argument is fallacious, being senior members of the cabinet means they're both notable and prominent. And all had the same say, Britain has a Prime Minister not a President, decisions are made collectively not by decree. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not wrong. You are. He did not say that the Prime Minister acts alone (as you would have us believe), he said that the Prime Minister was a prominent member of the war cabinet. Which is true: the Prime Minister is "head of the War Cabinet." That's a "prominent" position, however you slice it: the duties of the office "as Prime Minister and head of the War Cabinet" include "close[ly] working" with "every aspect of the war and every branch of it in every theatre in which it is being fought." See Hansard, Central Direction of the War, 381 H.C. Deb. 224, 227 (5th ser. 1942), and it is "commonly accepted that the [royal] prerogative's deployment power is actually vested in the Prime Minister, who has personal discretion in its exercise." This makes the Prime Minister both "prominent" and "notable" -- more so than his peers.

It's true that the war cabinet engages in collective decision making. But there's also room for individual leadership. Teams require teamwork but do not preclude leadership -- this is obvious to anyone who has played a team sport. More pertinently, it's largely immaterial whether the Prime Minister acts alone (or not): one can be "prominent" whether one acts alone or in concert with others. As Prime Minister and head of their respective war cabinets, Churchill, Lloyd George, and Thatcher were "prominent" and thus merit inclusion. 220.255.1.87 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on including politicians as leaders in the context of conflict, although to an extent that's because I don't like them getting ideas above their station.

Whilst politicians set direction that is then executed through the military chain of command with exceptions to the authority available to the military chain of command passed back to the politicians to allow them some scope for interference. AS already identified hey set the environment within which LOAC is constrained. The point of debate around the Belgrano is a usful illustration. Many ROEREQs will be approved within the military chain of command, but occasionally when a ROEREQ is likely to have a political repercussion beyond the military effect that is passed into the political sphere. Essentially LOAC and ROE are legal and politicians are neither qualified to comment or empowered to do so, a ROEREQ passed to the cabinet would already have been identified as "legal" by the LEGADs, the question being asked is "whilst this is legal, is it politically desirable".

Essentially politicians set political direction, they don't "command" operations.

Also, for what its worth, I'd be more open to including them in a total war situation, such as the WWII example, although I'm still not that keen. The Corporate situation was very firmly not in the same range.

ALR (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like them getting ideas above their station" is not a valid reason. The rest of what you say is unsourced assertion. The Attorney General was part of the Falklands War Cabinet and was consulted on the ROE and the imposition of the exclusion zone in his ministerial capacity. See Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Vol. II: War and Diplomacy 22 (2005) ("The Attorney General . . . was also a regular as a result of the large number of legal matters that had to be addressed"). He was both qualified and empowered to do so. Your ruminations are incorrect. 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you may not see it as a valid reason it is at least moderately amusing. Usefully when dealing with politicians and LegAds that helps to alleviate the general atmosphere of pomposity both species of vermin generate.

I'm still not convinced but it's clear that the majority opinion differs. That's fair enough, it's as arbitrary as any other decision around here.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take an order from a politician...

ALR (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with ALR's reasoning. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That reasoning has no basis in law or fact. Whereas "the chain of command within the police stops with the chief constable" and the government may not "give him or her instructions on the operational use of the police," "[t]his is not the case for the armed forces." A.W. Bradley & K.D. Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law 331 (2003). 220.255.1.90 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

full protection

I've fully protected it for the time being. Can we get some eyes from the military history wikiproject to comment? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that both approaches above are theoretically suitable. In this case, it would make more sense to the reader to maintain the link to Margaret Thatcher in the section above in the infobox but not place her in the list on pragmatic grounds: she was clearly in a different role to other UK personnel, but we can't easily demonstrate that in the limited space. Basically, the IP above has a point that she qualifies to be in the list, but I don't believe it is useful to the reader to include her. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur with Grandiose's reasoning and conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with the opposite approach. It's completely unsourced and at odds with the approach taken in other war articles. Moreover, it's patently useful to know who the Argentine leader's opposite counterpart was. 220.255.1.89 (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a wider ranging discussion on the use of political leaders in war infoboxes to be had, but perhaps here isn't the best place to have it. In this particular circumstance though, I would agree that Maggie should be included in the infobox. This was a war rather than a battle, and the decision to send a task force to the Falklands in the first place was as much a political decision as it was military (if not more so). Added to this, the general format for wars is to include political leaders, as the IP editor has correctly pointed out. Finally, perhaps it's worth reminding everyone that infoboxes are supposed to summarise the article's content. Maggie's name appears five times in the article proper, more than any other name in the disputed field of the infobox. Admiral Fieldhouse on the other hand doesn't appear at all. One might ask the question then, what his role was in this conflict and why he's in the infobox, when the Prime Minister isn't? Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Margaret Thatcher should be listed as a leader Mztourist (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As Admiral Fieldhouse was CINCFLEET of Operation Corporate, I would very much object to his removal. The fact that Margaret Thatchers name appears in the article is not a good reason of itself to have her in the inbox. Prince Andrew gets a mention shall we put him in as well? The infobox is supposed to list military commanders and leaders, Margaret Thatcher was part of the War Cabinet, whose role was to defined objectives, rules of engagement etc. Further the War Cabinet was about collective leadership, we either put the full war cabinet in to be consistent or limit to military leaders. To pick only Margaret Thatcher is to imply she acted in a presidential fashion and thats misleading. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it implies. What it implies is that Thatcher acted in a prime ministerial fashion, as a prominent war leader. She was head of the war cabinet. Her inclusion is a reflection of her prominence. "War is an intensely prime ministerial activity." Peter Hennessy, The Prime Minister: The Office and Its Holders since 1945 103 (2000). It's a "unique role," that is "define[d]" by "her responsibilities and powers during war." Id. In practice, the modern conduct of war is "the domain of a few people," and "in extreme cases can become the Prime Minister's war, as with . . . Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands." Nigel White, Democracy Goes to War: British Military Deployments under International Law 26 (2009). Thus the war cabinet has been described as a "commission with the Prime Minister as the dominating and directing force . . . supplemented by [a] system of delegation." Maurice Hankey, Government Control in War 41 (1945).

Historians have unambiguously described Thatcher as a "war leader." See, e.g., Hugh Rogers, Review of Battle of the Falklands by Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins, 71(2) Naval Review 163 (1983) ("She emerged as a remarkable war leader."); Christopher Collins, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill Archives Centre ("As a war leader, Thatcher proved impressive to the electorate"); Peter Byrd, British Defence Policy: Thatcher and Beyond 110 (1991) ("Thatcher was personally converted by the events of 1982 into a successful war leader."); Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945-2000 203 (2006) ("the Falklands . . . elevated Thatcher from a mere politician to a successful war leader."); Duncan Watts, A Glossary of UK Government and Politics 262 (2007) ("Her role as war-leader enabled her to adopt the Churchillian mantle"). There is nothing misleading about this. Thatcher's role was to lead. To claim otherwise is to defy history.

What's misleading is your insistence that the infobox is reserved for military leaders to the exclusion of civilian leaders. Neither the template guidelines nor other war articles support that practice. 220.255.1.92 (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)