Talk:ARA General Belgrano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ARA General Belgrano article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


An event in this article is a May 2 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Having read the section in Middlebrook's book this morning, I'm slightly concerned that this article appears to be in places a almost word-for-word copy of his book. - Richard Johnston - 11 September 2006

It quotes a number of interviews that were printed from the book, at least one of the quotes could be better attributed. I will ammend that. Megapixie 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


I was only a kid when this happened but to this day, I don't understand why anyone would call the sinking of the Belgrano a "controversy". It was war time and any nation at war could sink their opponent's warships any where they want. As for the "peace efforts", I believe the British would settle for nothing less than a full return of the islands, so I could see no compromise there. However, hindsight is always 20/20.

Agreed. I think there should be something in this article pointing out that Great Britain and Argentina were in a de facto state of war at the time, and that in warfare, combat ships of the enemy side are legitimate targets no matter where they are found. user:Jsc1973

Um, this is Wikipedia. It's supposed to present facts in a NPOV manner. The fact of this matter is, that there was a controversy over the sinking at the time. You guys aren't disputing that there was one, are you? You're disputing whether the controversy was justified or not. Which is something completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] New version of controversy section

who write's UMMM??? fag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.65.7.20 (talk • contribs).


I'm working on a new version of the section which I've put in ARA General Belgrano/controversy. Putting my cards on the table, I think the existing section plays up the controversy without actually addressing it. Also it did not appear to accurately describe the linked interview (I have ammended it). Please take a look before I merge it into the main article. I will probably make edits to tidy it up over the next week or so. Megapixie 13:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have merged in the new version of the section. It's a little rough - so feel free to make changes. But I think it makes the clear point that both sides considered the Belgrano a valid target. And to quote Martin Middlebrook - In my first book about the Falklands War, I described critism of the attack on the Belgrano as "humbug"; I have not changed that opinion. Megapixie 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gotcha

There's a scan of the Sun's front-page article here. [1] It's probably more read about than read. It explicitly states that the Belgrano was not sunk. I am dubious about the claim in the picture caption that later editions were toned down. As far as I know The Sun and other national British newspapers do not have editions; they are distributed all over the country and abroad, it would not be practical. Gotcha is a cricketing term. Airport 1975 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No I agree, this was covered in my *cough* Media Studies A-level, all the sources I read came up with the same Anecdote. That the first edition was printed ‘Gotcha’ which was then withdrawn from later editions by the Editor, right up until The Sun’s owner Rupert Murdoch reversed the editors decision. The ‘final’ edition carried the ‘Gotcha’ headline. I've edited the caption Red7

I disagree. I distinctly remember the front page was changed in later editions to read "Did 1200 Argies Drown?" DWManley

[edit] Number of Dead

This article from the bbc states 368 dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480241.stm

--Mewaqua 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Fight For The Malvinas" states 323 (321 Navy Personnel and 2 Civilians) - In fact it also states that 368 was an early inaccurate figure. I would generally trust it as being the most accurate source, since the author actually interviewed the captain of the Belgrano. Megapixie 12:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Official Argentine Navy site:

“ El disparo de los torpedos del Submarino inglés “Conqueror” provocó el hundimiento del “Belgrano” en el que perecieron 323 argentinos, casi la mitad de la totalidad de las bajas argentinas en todo el conflicto (649). [2] ”

--Jor70 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At What Depth

Maybe it would be interesting to add ARA Belgrano's depth of sinking or other information that relates to it - expeditions to recover parts of the ship or other related information. --213.42.2.28 11:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty deep - 4200 meters of water [3] - The Titanic is at 3800 meters by comparison. Looks like there is a documentary on the "National Geographic Channel" about it. Megapixie 11:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argentinian Viewpoint for the Controversy section?

I'd be interested to see/hear the Argentinian point of view on this. The article, as it is, seems very much from the British point of view.

I agree. The article is hardly NPOV, by the way. --200.199.195.129 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They view it as a tragedy, Not surprisingly. From what I've heard it was a training ship at the time, the crew were "young men and boys", that made the pain a bit keener.OzoneO 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A training ship sailing towards an enemy fleet in the middle of a shooting war? What does that say about the Junta? 217.7.209.108 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Belgrano was sailing away when stuck, but I do agree that a training ship should be nowhere near the theatre of war.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.211.244.99 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 April 2007.

The statement "As far as both sides were concerned the shooting war had already begun and there were no chances of a peaceful settlement: the British were not likely to accept anything less than the complete withdrawal of Argentine forces, and Argentina could not withdraw without effectively conceding defeat" is unsourced. It should be either appropriately sourced or removed. Beside this, all Argentine statements are mediated by British authors. There are no Argentine references. Bah. Stammer 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, according argentine sources, it is false, due there was hope about the Peru president Peace plan --Jor70 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better now. Stammer 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Frankly the whole „controversy“ is bullshit! It was an Argentinean warship; Argentina was at war with GB. That means any damned Trans Trio 13 warship is fair game no matter where it happens to be. This should be removed or at least described as an example of media hysteria.

The more interesting thing is the total exclusion zone. Sounds like a no-go area for all sorts of ships of all nations, like even neutral merchant ships, doesn´t it. That does not mean some enemy warship can expect to safely sail just outside this zone.Markus Becker02 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your bullshit thoughts are because you do not cleary understand the argentine view. The controversial (at least from the Argentine side) is not mainly due the exclusion zone but about the moment and reasons that decided the sinking: Avoid a peaceful solution at all costs. --Jor70 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, the Argentineans who started an unprovoked war wanted a peaceful solution? Like one that allowed to them to keep the Islands or did the evil Brits sink this warship just at the moment the Argentineans wanted to announce their withdrawal? Now it really sounds like media hysteria!Markus Becker02 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the controversy, you see it normal, Argentine view is contrary. Jor70 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just copied some sentences about the so-called controversy from the article about the Falklands War that give the readers some information about the political instrumentalisation of the sinking and much needed legal information. Markus Becker02 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but we are showing the 2 views of the controversy in the article, pls respect the Argentine view and re write your lines under British View thks and sorry for any incovenience Jor70 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That was the view of the Belgrano´s Captain and an explanation of the legal situation. Both of it is very important to put the Argentine view -which is no loger upheld by the Argentine government- into perspective and neither is British View.Markus Becker02 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jor70, please stop removing information about the Argentinian position. Especially if it is coming from argentinian scources itself.Markus Becker02 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you dont understand the point here, the heading and the position are simply facts and are not the main cause of the controversy as I already said, although I still not found any OFFICIAL ARGENTINE SOURCE saying that the heading wasnt important under international law. About the government dropped the claim, in fact was not the government but a private case, was a politcal decission.

This paragraph (the argentine position) is intended to show just that, you cannot cut the sentence writing between BUT THIS is .... because you are adding an external view. Please write what you want under the British View. Jor70 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In order to make an informed judgement about the Argentinian position the reader needs to know what the rules of war have to say about it.Markus Becker02 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My english it not very good, but did you understand me ? One side position of the controversy cannot be filled with views of the other part, being wrong or not. You need to respect the other side. PLease, for n times, post your thought under the BRitish view. The ocassional reader would read that too.Jor70 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have created a new section called legal situation and to satisfy you I have put the current position of your government under Later political controversy. I hope that is acceptable to you.Markus Becker02 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok with the section, although we need a reference about that of the heading. Also, the thought of Captain Bonzo I dont think qualify as a Legal View and you already have it duplicate under the British View section . And I realize now, that if we had a Legal section we should add the case of private argentines in La Haye later turn down by the gov . Jor70 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The part about "heading" simply means if two nations are at war the other side´s warships can be attacked no matter where they are. Furthermore the captain of a warship should know the rules of warfare. After all, that is part of his job. If it´s anready under british view, it should be removed, the guy is no Brit.Markus Becker02 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
At the time, as a neutral party, the US press expressed the opinion that it was a foul, or a cheap shot, for a British nuclear submarine to sink a 1938 cruiser which was outside the declared exclusion zone and headed away from it, and which had not even the sonar to detect a submarine. Edison 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean it was a disproportionate use of superior technology against a "fleeing" enemy? Nick Cooper 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but the worst things are: the Belgrano, at the time of the sinking, wasnt in a position to affect anyway the task force, and 2nd: the Argentine Junta was seriously considering accepting the Peru peace negotiation. Jor70 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Except that 1) it appeared to be part of a developing pincer movement, and 2) the British didn't know that. Not being confrontational, but the British weren't exactly in the mood to being giving the Junta the benefit of the doubt at the time. Nick Cooper
And THAT Boys and girls is why you should read your oponent's argument before replying... but then it was unsporting to use a superior web-browser (or some such). So the Americans, characterised by sending in hundreds of thousands of troops, lazer guided bombs from UAVs, and cruise missiles, against targets that have mere rifles, think that was unfair... Strewth we must have been naughty!
Arguably it would have been fairer if HMS Belfast had been requisitioned and pushed back into service, I mean that's what they did with Hermes, or if the subs had periodically resurfaced for air. Fair play goes out of the window when an invading force turns up on your doorstep.194.129.249.111 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
1) The British were aware of the withdrawl orders of the Argentine Fleet (Chileans recognized given ARA radio codes to them) 2) Peru President was in an open negotiation with both Uk and Arg. Jor70 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
2) There is a difference between negotiations and actual truce. 1) The attack on Belgrano was planned over the course of hours, had it genuinely been withdrawing it would have been a long way from the exclusion zone by then! The argentines had already invaded, and had shown remarkable contempt for the Haig series of negotiations. (Crying "Peace" is just as dangerous as Crying "Wolf") 194.129.249.111 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it that the statements by Hector Bonzo and the Argentine government that the attack was legal and that the British were acting within their rights is listed as part of the 'British' point of view? What is this 'Reconquista' website? Sure, it has a .gov.ar address, but it does not appear to be a central government website - these things need explaining. Also, didn't Hector Bonzo also say that if he had sighted HMS Trafalgar he would have attacked it? Seem to remember that being in the book "Battle For The Malvinas". 138.37.250.195 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact the website quoted seems to be simply the website of the municipal government of the city of Reconquista, I am going to delete the quote until someone can find an actual central government website that gives these opinions 138.37.250.195 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion regarding "exclusion zone" and I think is causing the problems. It would appear the UK government meant the exlusion zone to mean any ship entering was liable to be destroyed, whereas some of the editors here have taken it to mean anything outside is safe. Anyone have a good source for a legal basing of the exclusion zone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the exclusion zone was largely to warn general shipping (Argentine ships in particular) and Argentine warships attempting to resupply Argentine forces would be liable to attack. The position of Argentine warships was clarified on April 23 when the UK Government warned Argentina that any warship threatening the task force would be liable to attack without warning. This clarified that even outside of the exclusion zone, warships were liable to be attacked; Argentine officers have admitted that they understood this all too well.
There is also a great deal of confusion over the difference between Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict. The LOAC is a set of conventions, treaties and precedent that governs the behaviour of combatants in a conflict - the LOAC are a set of rules of conduct that cannot be changed. Rules of Engagement set out how the LOAC is to be applied and any constraints on the freedom of action within the LOAC. The difference between the two is that political constraints on RoE limit the action of a commander but if circumstances change RoE can be changed to meet immediate needs. The latter case happened in the case of the Belgrano, the Argentine aircraft carrier had earlier been extremely lucky to avoid being torpedoed as RoE at the time did not permit her to be attacked.
Whilst there are conspiracy theories in Argentina and the UK that the attack on Belgrano was designed to derail the peace process, the attack was legitimate within the LOAC, the exclusion zone is largely an irrelevance. Even the captain of the ship admits the action was legitimate. Personally I would suggest that the requirements of WP:NPOV does not require us to report these conspiracy theories. Justin talk 17:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And as a footnote, I think you'll find that the British Government accepted the Peruvian peace plan and continued to offer peace terms for some time after the sinking of the Belgrano. Justin talk 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


This is ridiculous! What the point to have an Argentine View section if can only have thoughts that are compatible with the british ones ? --Jor70 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its that Wikipedia is not a conduit for Argentine conspiracy theories. Nor is it a conduit for excusing the Argentine Junta for their actions. As noted above Britain was still prepared to pull back from open conflict even after grievous losses, the Argentina junta was not. Justin talk 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should have an Argentine View section, or a British View section. Given the controversy of the topic it just seems like they'd be used for both sides to argue with each other. There's also not enough difference in the "views" to warrant a section for each side. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I interpret 'Argentine view' to mean the view of the Argentine government, both the Argentine government and the British government agree as to what actually happened and there is therefore no purpose in having two sections and unless someone can come up with a reason why not, I propose mergin the facts contained in each section into one section - I will be back in a week to do this. Random conspiracy theories supported only by spanish language pages of no authority have no place on this page - set up a separate conspiracy theory page like the one for 9/11 if you like. I mean, if what was said on the Reconquista municipal site was true was does the Argetine navy not agree with it? On what authority does it ground its assertions? Someone has challenged the reason for insisting on central government sources - this is simply because only the central government can speak on what its view is, Reconquista's site represents only the city of Reconquista - not the Argentine navy. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map link

I'm not sure it's accurate as it stands. "The Fight For the Malvinas" lists the Torpedo'd position as 55.18S, 61.47W - with the most westward position of Gp. 79.3 as 55.15S, 57.50W. I'd rather we have a "free" map showing the position and courses of the British Task force, Gp 79.1 and Gp 79.4 with there relative positions and courses. I'm going to remove the link for now since it doesn't cite any source for the position and it disagrees with my source. Megapixie 01:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

55 grados 24 minutos de Latitud Sur y 61 grados 32 minutos de Longitud Oeste , Argentine Congress [4] --Jor70 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I wonder why there is a discrepancy ? I will investigate and discuss here before reverting. Megapixie 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A publication from the Argentine Congress can hardly be considered NPOV or authoritative - just look at what's currently happening with the Iranians. For true NPOV we need co-ordinates that are cited by a source affiliated with neither side in the conflict. AulaTPN 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That why we clarify that IS an argentine publication, feel free to look for another source to ADD. Anyway, there is not doubt that Belgrano was at least 30 milles of the exclusion zone. Jor70 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh of course, I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise merely to shed light on Megapixie's quandary as to why there was a discrepancy.AulaTPN 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sun Article

Right - some people are editing the text under the image from the Sun and it seems to be because they are not understanding the title. "Sink Gunboat Hole Cruiser" means that they sank the gunboat but just put a hole in the side of the Belgrano. It does not mean they thought they sank the Belgrano - "hole" versus "whole". Please do not make this edit again or I will refer the matter to an admin. AulaTPN 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read now on the little the ship was not sunk and it is not clear how many casualties there were. You could also clarify that the gunboat was not sunk.--Jor70 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that some of the British Sailors were so incensed by the Sun's tone, that they requested copies of that edition for (ahem) bathroom stationary. ISTR that there was a reference on here once, can't find it now though! 194.129.249.111 17:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Torpedo

What is the source of the statemtn that Mark 8 torpedoes were used instead of Tigerfish was because of reliablity concerns. I was given to believe (and I think it was in Sandy Woodward's book) that it was because the mk 8 had a larger explosive load, having been designed to sink armoured ships, whereas the tigerfish, being designed to sink thinner skinned modern ships may not have had the clout to sink the WW2 cruiser. Epeeist smudge 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I (still) need to unpack my books related to the Falklands War, but in the meantime I've found the same quotation in the WikiArticle about the Mark 24 Tigerfish torpedo. I know that personal experience it's not valid as evidence in an encyclpedia, but I recall having heard/read that statement before (now I need to find the sources where I've read that!). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did so many die?

Why did so many die compared to other ships sunk? Is it because the torpedo hit where the majority of the crew were? Ryan4314 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Belgrano was a 1930s cruiser (albeit refitted to carry the latest Exocet missiles, and helicopters I believe) so she was very man-intensive, as opposed to technology-intensive, due to her age. According to the article, the second torpedo (which exploded in the middle of the ship, tearing through mess-decks) killed about 275 people of the 323 who died i.e. only 48 men died as a result of first or third torpedoes, drowning, exposure, etc. So the torpedo and blast caused most of the casualties.

Complement was 1,138. As a comparison, Britain had no cruisers, but HMS Sheffield (first British destroyers sunk) carried 287.

From a tactical point of view, you have to ask what use the Belgrano was. As an offensive weapon, she was vulnerable to air and sub-sea attack - but she could have defended other Argentine ships, or been used to defend Stanley with gunfire and AA.

To add my tuppence worth - she was a belligerent warship, involved in active and co-ordinated tactical operations against the Falkland Islands. She was carrying guns, missiles and helicopters. The Argentines had invaded the Falklands without warning, in breach of international law. I see no argument against sinking her. It was war - aim is to kill or unull the enemy threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.252.21 (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)