Posted on 12/26/2011 11:42:12 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Edited on 12/26/2011 2:44:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Top secret papers are set to prove that the warship Belgrano was heading into the Falkland's exclusion zone when it was sunk, and not heading back to port as the Argentinians claimed.
For decades debate and recrimination has raged over where the ship was heading when it was torpedoed by a Royal Navy submarine.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Technically, she wasn't, and was.
"Treaty cruiser" is a term given to those ships designed to the limits of the 1922 Washington treaty: 10,000 tons and 8" guns. Total numbers and tonnage were not limited
But those ships were limited by the 1930 London treaty. Limits of 8" cruisers were actually 6:5:4. At this stage the US had only built 8, so there were no real restrictions to the building program (the last of the next 10, Wichita, in 1937, as actually a modified Brooklyn class, built to fill out the allocation).
The UK was right on the limit and had to cancel 8 ships authourised in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
Japan was already building the twelvth, but could complete all authorised ships, swiching to to nominal "10,000 tonners" with 15 6.1" guns in the 1931 allocation. This was not what the round-eyed parties expected (The US had less than half her allocation built but really didn't want to spend money building more cruisers during the Depression, and the UK really wanted smaller 6" cruisers built in larger numbers for her strategic needs)
The London treaty also imposed tonnage limits for 6" cruisers - 143,000 tons total for the US - but as at the time the US only had 10 small preWashington Omaha class, techically the first 8 Brooklyns fell within the London treaty limits.
London Naval Treaty limits of 8” cruisers were 18 US, 15 UK, 12 Japan.
They are harboring them even today, those that are still breathing and waiting for their appointment at The Pearly Gates. The family that lived across the street from us were unreconstructed Nazis. Mom and Pop were born in Argentina to German parents, who sent them back to Germany to be educated by the Reich. The returned to Argentina after the war and were reintegrated into the German society there. They had very little to do with the Argies and spent most of their time at one of the many German social clubs there. Daughter Ingrid was SMOKIN’ HOT. Son Axel would’ve been right at home at a NSDAP meeting. They hated the Jews.
Concur. The Argies supplied the Nazis with a lot or beef.
Exactly. The Argentinians themselves later acknowledged that the sinking was a legitimate act of war and that being outside of the proclaimed Exclusion Zone did not mean their forces were not subject to attack. The "controversy" about the sinking was mostly a fabrication of anti-Thatcher forces in the UK.
Thanks for the correction, I'll have to pass it on to my British friends.
Yes, a couple of years before Argentina eliminated England on their way to a second World Cup.
: )
To borrow from W.T. Sherman “War is Hell” and knows no bounds. Those who think that they can civilize war are fools because the winners call the shots afterwards and write the history too.
True. She was in Honolulu Harbor at the time, wasn’t she?
As a matter of international law, Britain was at war with Argentina as a result of Argentina’s act of war in invading British territory. As a result of this, Britain was fully at liberty to sink an Argentinian warship anywhere in the world.
The total exclusion zone declared by Britain on 30th April 1982 was only of relevance to neutral vessels (ie, anyone except Britain and Argentina). It was a declaration that the Royal Navy might sink any vessel or aircraft in that zone, regardless of nationality.
Belgrano was a legitimate target wherever she was, or whatever direction she was sailing in. Britain was at war with Argentina and Belgrano was a warship. The sinking of Belgrano was no crime - it was an legitimate act undertaken in war time.
As a Sailor, I think that it was a fitting end for an old warhorse. I served aboard two ships. After decommissioning one was sunk in a Sinkex and the other was broken for scrap on a beach in Texas. Neither a particularly fitting end.
Then it's been a long time since I remember that contemporaneous TIME magazine. The cover showed a modern British warship steaming south, and the title:
"The Empire Strikes Back".
(After a Star Wars movie).
Not that modern. HMS Hermes, 23 years in commission at that stage. originally ordered in 1943.
HMS Invincible was the brand new ship.
Where are they now?
HMS Hermes (sold to India, now INS Viraat.) 
HMS Invincible (sold to Turkey, now scrap.) 
At least she's still serving a free nation, with a representative government.
HMS Invincible (sold to Turkey, now scrap.)
Now that is a sad end indeed for a proud ship.
Still, not too bad a memory for this old timer!
;-)
After Maradona cheated by using his hand to score the winning goal, something he was lucky the referee did not spot.
Not at all. I just thought you might like to see the cover again. It’s one that has stuck with me as well - I thought it very clever.
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.