Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reagan's Last-Ditch Falklands Plea Revealed
Sky News ^ | 28th December 2012 | Alistair Bunkall

Posted on 12/28/2012 10:11:00 AM PST by the scotsman

'Ronald Reagan issued a last-ditch appeal to Margaret Thatcher to abandon her campaign to retake the Falklands and to hand over the islands to international peacekeepers, according to official documents made public today.

Files released by the National Archives at Kew, South West London, under the 30-year rule show that as British troops closed in on final victory, the US president made a late-night phone call to Mrs Thatcher urging her not to completely humiliate the Argentines.

However, his request fell on deaf ears as a defiant Prime Minister insisted that she had not sent a British task force across the globe just "to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group".'

(Excerpt) Read more at uk.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; commonwealth; gurkha; gurkhas; reagan; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 12/28/2012 10:11:06 AM PST by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

I hope this is not true. Reduces my respect for Reagan.
On the bright side, he followed up with real support as an ally ought to.


2 posted on 12/28/2012 10:16:26 AM PST by Little Ray (Get back to work. Your urban masters need their EBTs refilled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Dang. Ronald Reagan’s hero status with me just came off.


3 posted on 12/28/2012 10:20:39 AM PST by MeganC (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Playing Devil’s Advocate...

Argentina in part based their seizure of the Falklands on an interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. Reagan knew he had a major battle on his hands with Soviet proxy states in Nicaragua and potentially elsewhere in Latin America. So perhaps he was trying to maintain some integrity in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?

Just thinking outside the box here.


4 posted on 12/28/2012 10:22:28 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

There is always more to the story.
This could have been a “wink-and-nod” gesture by Reagan - - he may have been asked by the Argentina General to make the call in return for... who knows what?


5 posted on 12/28/2012 10:26:28 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Myths die long, slow deaths. Fact of the matter is, Reagan would be considered a “globalist” under today’s standard, by those who demand ideological “purity.”


6 posted on 12/28/2012 10:27:19 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Dang. Ronald Reagan’s hero status with me just came off.

Why? Of all the great things he did, you're going to let this ruin it?

If it makes you feel any better, Reagan's successful invasion of Grenada really ticked Thatcher off.

7 posted on 12/28/2012 10:28:33 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

It would’ve been nice if this writer had contacted the Reagan Archives, and discovered what his reasoning was at the time. It’s probably on paper, somewhere.


8 posted on 12/28/2012 10:28:57 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Why would this turn you against Reagan.

It shows that even though he did not agree with an ally he stuck with that ally.
I don’t have to agree with everything a friend tells me or that he feels, but that doesn’t make me any less a friend.


9 posted on 12/28/2012 10:30:13 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Having some personal knowledge on what lengths the Reagan Administration went to support the British efforts in the Falklands, this “reporting” doesn’t change how I feel about Ronald Reagan as a great President.


10 posted on 12/28/2012 10:31:27 AM PST by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

I bet that was a disinformation plant story.

psy-ops, to conceal truth.

nobody would have believed it then and nobody believes it now.

(except John Kerry, he believes anything)


11 posted on 12/28/2012 10:32:22 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Get used to the fact that there are very, very few heroes in politics.

It’s all a matter of comparison: Reagan was better than Carter who, in turn, is better than Obama. Where the Bushes and Clinton fall in that group will be determined at a later date when we will also find out who killed Kennedy.


12 posted on 12/28/2012 10:32:35 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Even though it has a liberal hag as the star, I strongly suggest “The Iron Lady.” I suspect the liberal idiots behind the move thought the audience would be aghast at her unbending will on the issues.

For me the only thought was, “DAMM could we use somebody like that now”!!!!!!!!!!!!!


13 posted on 12/28/2012 10:34:30 AM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Let’s keep in mind a context of the times. Argentine was actually an allay of America’s also. America has a special duty to ensure peace reigns in this hemisphere. I think that Reagan was trying to allow Argentina to save some face because if they didn’t the government could fall, chaos and the unknown would ensue. Then who knows what happens in Argentina. Possible communism? As it happened, the government did fall but they didn’t turn to Russia.

As for Britian going it alone as it is said in the article. That’s not entirely true. Reagan cut off arms sales to Argentina, approved the use of our LPH’s for backup in case they lost an aircraft carrier and we sold them missiles and other military equipment.


14 posted on 12/28/2012 10:34:30 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman; All

Reagan did have some extreme Globalists in his admin like Bush and Baker...who were also neo Hispano-Racist....Note the Falkland Is. are the Argos. version of Aztlan-Reconquista

I am more impressed with Thatcher than disappointed with Reagan


15 posted on 12/28/2012 10:35:27 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (Fiscal Conservatives are Neither)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
psy-ops

Indeed.

16 posted on 12/28/2012 10:35:43 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; Ernest_at_the_Beach

There is probably more to this story. It comes to mind that the present president, will certainly jump all over this news to justify his/her decision to condemn any Israeli action against Syria and/or Iran.

On that light note, I wish all my fellow FReeperrs a Very Happy New Year.


17 posted on 12/28/2012 10:37:06 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER (EPA will ruin your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
So perhaps he was trying to maintain some integrity
in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?
Just thinking outside the box here.
a very keen explanation....
wondering; if Ed Meese's, could remarks
/ memoirs, enlighten us.

18 posted on 12/28/2012 10:37:35 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

>So perhaps he was trying to maintain some integrity in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?<

.
Ah, I forgot all about the Monroe Doctrine — to keep the nasty Europeans out of the American sphere of influence. Good thinking.

Of course, an exception is being made when it comes to Islam and its slow but irreversible destruction of the Americas.


19 posted on 12/28/2012 10:41:08 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Haig was pretty pro-Argentine and Jeanne Kirkpatrick was fanatically pro-Argentine.

However Cap Weinberger was fanatically pro-British.

The Administration was pulled in a lot of different directions, though Weinberger won out in the end.

There are three Reagans:

1) The warmongering senile idiot of the Left

2) The idealized, and somewhat fictionalized and mis-remembered “True Conservative” of the Right

3) The real Reagan, who was an impressive person, but who wasn’t either 1) or 2).


20 posted on 12/28/2012 10:43:49 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
Yes, Thatcher was right and Reagan was wrong. He wasn't perfect, but close to it.

If I remember right there were a lot of conservatives that backed Argentina at the time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to the UN, being one of them.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick: “She was one of the strongest supporters of Argentina's military dictatorship following the March 1982 Argentine invasion of the United Kingdom's Falkland Islands, which triggered the Falklands War. Kirkpatrick had a “soft spot” for Argentina's President Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri,[1] and favored neutrality rather than the pro-British policy favored by the Secretary of State Alexander Haig.[5] The administration ultimately decided to declare support for the British, thus forcing her to vote yes to UN resolution 502.”

When it came down to it, he backed Thacher. Since there wasn't anyone recording the call, we may not have the call completely right.

21 posted on 12/28/2012 10:47:07 AM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
It shows that even though he did not agree with an ally he stuck with that ally.

Good post.

That's one of the problems on our side, we'll kick our guys to the curb for the slightest infraction.

The Dems otoh will stick together through thick and thin.....no matter what.

22 posted on 12/28/2012 10:49:52 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog; Lancey Howard; Venturer

Doesn’t turn me against Reagan, It is just disappointing.

Dunno what we could get from Argentina that would be worth making such a call.

The Monroe doctrine is dead, at least since the French took Mexico and put Maximilian on the throne and supported him with the French Foreign Legion. We didn’t do anything about that. Then, of course, there was Cuba. Based on that I don’t see how we could enforce it against Soviets.

I am not disappointed that he wanted to settle it peacefully; I am disappointed by his call for a UN intervention. They were just as corrupt and incompetent during the Reagan Administration as they are today. Why should the British subjects of the Falklands be subjected to them?


23 posted on 12/28/2012 10:52:36 AM PST by Little Ray (Get back to work. Your urban masters need their EBTs refilled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Let’s keep in mind a context of the times. Argentine was actually an allay of America’s also. America has a special duty to ensure peace reigns in this hemisphere.

I totally agree. Central America looked really bad back then and Argentina was helping us in what looked like an uphill battle. The Falklands (or as Jesse Helms said, "The Malvinas") was a brutal sideshow and at the time, a lot of conservatives opposed Thatcher or were neutral. And to top it off, after we alienated our hemisphere, she trashed us on Grenada, which may have been Reagan's greatest move.

24 posted on 12/28/2012 11:03:57 AM PST by Forgotten Amendments (I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

The Monroe Doctrine didn’t make sense when Monroe chucked it out there, especially seeing the wreck 95% of everything south of the Rio Grande became... ironically outside of the areas that the Europeans still control today.


25 posted on 12/28/2012 11:04:47 AM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Oswald killed Kennedy.


26 posted on 12/28/2012 11:08:00 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

Oswald killed Kennedy.


27 posted on 12/28/2012 11:08:24 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Something’s not right with this. We were helping the Brits, but we didn’t make it known.

And with the Brits so close to the Falklands at the time it makes no sense for Reagan to have asked Thatcher to back-off and “give peace a chance”.

Sorry. This is BS.


28 posted on 12/28/2012 11:16:22 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Here’s where U.K. hypocrisy shows itself, today.

They can continue to claim legitimacy for their OCCUPATION of a colonial possesion thousands of mile away, while belittling little Israel for defending the defensible borders it has come to have in defense against the many threats to its existence.


29 posted on 12/28/2012 11:18:57 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist; SeminoleCounty
3) The real Reagan, who was an impressive person, but who wasn’t either 1) or 2).
Coming from you, given your posting history, this lopsided and biased opinion of Reagan doesn't surprise me one bit.

Reagan, in spite of his minor flaws, stands head and shoulders above every other President of the last Century and those we have endured this century.
30 posted on 12/28/2012 11:23:35 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

It’s BUSH’S FAULT !


31 posted on 12/28/2012 11:25:09 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Dunno what we could get from Argentina that would be worth making such a call.

Are you kidding? Another unabashedly pro-Soviet state in S. America? We're playing chess here, not checkers.

32 posted on 12/28/2012 11:35:49 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Reagan, in spite of his minor flaws, stands head and shoulders above every other President of the last Century and those we have endured this century.

My point wasn't that he wasn't a great President, it's that he was hardly the ideologically pure anti-RINO that a lot of people on here vaguely mis-remember him as.

33 posted on 12/28/2012 11:44:58 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I am disappointed by his call for a UN intervention. They were just as corrupt and incompetent during the Reagan Administration as they are today.

And the State Department was as loaded with communists, appeasers, and scum during the Reagan Administration as it is today. Who knows what hand they had in the whole thing? What I find interesting is that Reagan did not make his alleged request of Thatcher publicly through the media, but rather with a private phone call that wasn't made public for 30 years. Keep your eyeballs peeled - - there will be more about this story coming shortly, I'm sure.

34 posted on 12/28/2012 11:55:29 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Nice try, but no sale.

Reagan was a genuine leader in every sense of the word.
That is WHY he is hated by the left and idealized by normal human beings.

Nobody ever claimed he was perfect, and nobody ever had to.


35 posted on 12/28/2012 12:04:51 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

We FOUGHT alone.

And other allies gave us support: Chile, South Africa, Australia, NZ.


36 posted on 12/28/2012 12:08:50 PM PST by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Sorry, I think its no BS.


37 posted on 12/28/2012 12:12:05 PM PST by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Reagan ended the Cold War, earning a place as one of a handful of the greatest men in history.

The world was in hell before Reagan, every moment was shadowed with apocalypse and the instant end of Western Civilization.

Thank God for Ronald Reagan’s vision and skills.

Reagan surpassed the greatness of Emperors and war time presidents, and did it with almost no loss of life.


38 posted on 12/28/2012 12:14:36 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney--guns not for recreation or self-defense"sole purpose of hunting down and killing people".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Yup. Who'd a thunk...
39 posted on 12/28/2012 12:15:44 PM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
"We FOUGHT alone.

That's not what the article talked about. It is not what I commented on. It talked about Britian getting no outside help (or support is the term you use) to go into the islands. It never uses the word fought. By your own post, you tacitly admit that what the article says is wrong. We provided support (your word) or help (their word). If you are going to comment to me and dispute what I say, stick to what I was commenting on in the article. Save your editorials for someone else.
40 posted on 12/28/2012 12:18:09 PM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Speaking of JFK, as possible next SOS and from reading another thread regarding his desire to return communism to the southern hemisphere, might this slurring of RR be an initial appeasement offering to the ruling class?


41 posted on 12/28/2012 12:22:21 PM PST by printhead (Standard & Poor - Poor is the new standard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

That was a brilliant move - keeping it quiet and personal. What a dude!


42 posted on 12/28/2012 12:47:54 PM PST by Little Ray (Get back to work. Your urban masters need their EBTs refilled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Anybody really look up which navy burned down Puerto Soledad and bannished the priates raiding US clipper ships going round the cape to California ? Which by the way enabled the Brits to re-settle the chain.

Reagan offered a lot of important back channel stuff to the Brits. Who might know where the Belasario was and where it was going ? There was and still is a lot going on in South America at that time. If he did suggest this he already knew what their answer would be


43 posted on 12/28/2012 1:02:46 PM PST by mosesdapoet ("A voice crying in the wilderness make streight for the way of the Lord")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

It is no more an “OCCUPATION of a colonial possession” than is the current US government’s presence in the US.


44 posted on 12/28/2012 1:03:32 PM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
Sorry, I think its no BS.

Sorry. You'd be wrong.

And what the hell, saying Australia and NZ helped you? That's like saying the US was supported by Guam and Puerto Rico.

45 posted on 12/28/2012 1:44:03 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

A President putting his country’s diplomatic interests first...

Reagan must be condemned for that LOL!


46 posted on 12/28/2012 1:58:45 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
A President putting his country’s diplomatic interests first...

More than diplomatic nicety. This overthrew the generals. There was a serious communist threat in Argentina. This could've turned out very badly.

47 posted on 12/28/2012 2:17:46 PM PST by Forgotten Amendments (I remember when a President having an "enemies list" was a scandal. Now, they have a kill list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
That was a brilliant move - keeping it quiet and personal.

Exactly.
The scumbag rats would have had TV cameras wall-to-wall.

48 posted on 12/28/2012 2:19:10 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

From what I know, it’s true, but I don’t believe President Reagan deserves criticism for it. Both the United Kingdom and Argentina were American allies at the time. The United States did not want to see two of its allies go to war and it was absolutely proper and in US interests to try and avoid that. It wasn’t in British interests, so Mrs Thatcher said no, but Reagan - rightly - had to give US interests higher priority than British interests. And when it became clear that war was not going to be avoided, and he had to pick a side, he picked Britain.

There is nothing wrong with trying to find a non-war solution to an international crisis, up to a certain point. I think Reagan got it right with the Falklands - he tried to broker a peaceful settlement, but when that failed, he threw his support behind the democracy over a dictatorship, behind those defending a people’s right to self determination, over an invading country, and behind an old and trusted ally with many shared values, over an ally of strategic convenience.


49 posted on 12/28/2012 3:12:36 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
And what the hell, saying Australia and NZ helped you? That's like saying the US was supported by Guam and Puerto Rico.

Not at all. Britain did not formally assist Australian military assistance during the Falklands, but it was made quite clear to the UK that Australia would have provided anything requested and the Royal Australian Navy was of sufficient size and strength to make that offer very meaningful. In particular, we still had an aircraft carrier at the time, capable of operating non-VSTOL aircraft - a capability that the Royal Navy no longer had. Australia's force of six submarines would also have been very useful (and a lot of what they did around that time is still classified, just as a matter of interest). The capabilities of the RAN were, and are, significant in comparison to the RN, and back in the early 1980s, we were still very used to operating together (the last formal imperial model 'combined fleet' had only disbanded in 1975).

50 posted on 12/28/2012 3:32:03 PM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson