Skip to comments.Reagan's Last-Ditch Falklands Plea Revealed
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 ...
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?
That was a brilliant move - keeping it quiet and personal. What a dude!
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
It is no more an “OCCUPATION of a colonial possession” than is the current US government’s presence in the US.
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.
A President putting his country’s diplomatic interests first...
Reagan must be condemned for that LOL!
More than diplomatic nicety. This overthrew the generals. There was a serious communist threat in Argentina. This could've turned out very badly.
The scumbag rats would have had TV cameras wall-to-wall.
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.
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).
Don’t have any problem with trying to find a peaceful solution. That is what friends (or seconds) are supposed to do.
It was proposing UN Peacekeepers as a solution. The UN is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent organization in the world. I would hate to see what sort or horrors they’d inflict on the poor Falkland Islanders.
The French intervention in Mexico was in the 1860’s. I suppose an argument could be made that America’s attentions were elsewhere at that time.
The Brits have no place in the western hemisphere. Remember the Monroe Doctrine.
While I think it’s valid to criticise a lot of UN Peacekeeping operations as you have done, now, the situation was quite a bit different back then. Until the 1990s, UN Peace Keeping operations were fairly rare, and they tended to be undertaken by forces including significant numbers of troops from first world nations. For example, during the 1970s (the period just prior to the Falklands War), there were only three UN Peacekeeping operations, headed by nations such as Finland, Canada, France, and Denmark. In the 1990s, there were 28 UN Peacekeeping operations, many of which were being undertaken by half trained soldiers from countries with significant corruption problems. How UN Peacekeeping operations are undertaken changed dramatically after about 1988.
Even if he was, reverend Wright probably convinced him the national average income was over $250K and they are all supposedly "rich" and therefore, he resents 'em!!!
Your post should read: "I hope this is not true. It would reduce my respect for Reagan."
Oh, it probably is only half-true. Like he said it, but Maggie knew he didn't mean it. That's called diplomacy.
Doesn't make sense based on everything else he did, does it.
As always, the stinging humor comes whipping thru the interspace, blogoshere.
Sorry, but its your opinion on the papers released this week. I have my opposite opinion. These are at least documents we can read rather than speculation.
Just because you dont like whats being presented dosent mean its rubbish.
BTW, the Aussies and Kiwis gave us some naval and intelligence support. Dont disrespect them, they may not be your kith and kin but they are ours.
Our big 3 supports were the US, Chile and S Africa. France, contrary to myth, actually helped us with the Exocets. It was Germany that was the problem with missiles.
Who cares about the Monroe Doctrine?.
Sorry, but last time I looked it was nothing but an American doctrine of intent. It was never law. Oh, and btw, we were in the Western Hemisphere before your country was born.
I never understand why Americans think we were/are supposed to bow down to this mythical doctrine.
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.