Falklands War | Studio Debate | 1982

Thames Televisions Llew Gardner and Denis Tuohy host a 'TV Eye' special about the escalating Falklands Crisis.
First shown in 06/05/1982
Presenters:
Denis Tuohy
Lew Gardner
Panel:
Dr. David Owen
Sir. Anthony Kewshaw
Denis Healey
If you would like to license a clip from this debate, please e mail:
archive@fremantlemedia,com
Quote: VT26843

[@Werrf1]

It's very easy for me to say this, as a Briton looking back on these events forty years later, but frankly this is all ridiculous. There were 1,820 people who had the right to decide the future of the islands, and they were the people who bloody lived there! It doesn't matter what Argentina wants, it doesn't matter what Britain wants, it matters what the Falkland Islanders want. Britain had accepted responsibility for their defence, we had - and have - a moral duty to defend them.

[@pedrinho7]

That's not what the debate is about - nobody challenges that central fact is this discourse. The question is whether the force used was proportionate. It's a bit like if the police arrest someone for shoplifting and then proceed to kick the lad in the head having wrestled him to the ground. The debate wouldn't be about arresting him or not, it would be about whether they should have beat him up in the process, i.e., the level of force used and whether or not that was justifiable, sensible, proportionate.

[@arthurchinaski3736]

They were put there by Britain of course so.. .

[@Werrf1]

@@arthurchinaski3736 As opposed to...? The islands had no native population. They were first settled by the British and French.

[@arthurchinaski3736]

@@Werrf1 Would you allow the Chinese to claim sovereignty of Mullion Island off Cornwall(unpopulated), fill it with Chinese citizens then claim it was part of China?

[@Werrf1]

@@arthurchinaski3736 Answer the question.

[@fasthracing]

The Falkland Isles were British before Argentina even existed as a country!

[@stevieh9860]

“I’m not quite sure sir, that you addressed yourself entirely to my question “ They don’t make em like that anymore.

[@andy99ish]

"Was it worth losing lives to maintain the principle that armed aggression should not pay ?" is a manipulative question, as it leaves out the fact, that Falkland islanders are actually people and not some abstract principles.

[@fasthracing]

Thank god we had Mrs T as prime minister at the time.

[@MrYooloo]

We’re it not for her defence cuts and withdrawal of vessels from the area, they would never have been invaded in the first place and hundreds of lives would have been saved.

[@harmlessdrudge]

The responsibility for the war lies with the aggressor, Argentina. But British leftists have a tendency to side with the enemy.

[@fasthracing]

@@harmlessdrudge true

[@arthurchinaski3736]

Doubt if God had much say in it.

[@xjack2312]

You mean thank God we had Sir Terrence Lewin, the WW2 veteran, admiral who gave her some backbone when she was falling apart at the seams. The Boudicca stuff was a PR piece that came with the traditional historical re-write...

[@AJKPenguin]

Thank you for uploading this.

[@mxxx0404]

Gentlemen all of them. No interruptions, just courtesy and mutual respect. Our modern politicians could learn a great deal from these men.

[@MagicNash89]

Then the people must demands this kind of style and stop tolerating the current one. But this is just not the case. Buffoons like Johnson get massive amount of support.

[@5implesimon]

Thankyou for this piece of history

[@sheeplebarn333]

Once Argentina invaded the islands they made the decision the matter would be settled by war. They lost so there is and was nothing left to discuss period. The Falklands are British.

[@kavorkaa]

And shall remain

[@AndreiTupolev]

"Impossible to exercise continuous political control", says Denis Healey pompously. I bet the commanders on the ground were extremely grateful for that.

[@monizdm]

You ought to listen again. The context matters. Remember, be used to be defense minister and understands the limitations of tactics.

[@mkrmkr3805]

It would depend on how tight that political control of the military in field might be and how parallel the military and political path too a successful outcome are. It was the military leadership that set this thing in motion once Thatcher was encouraged to support a military victory, so at least the path and outcome was agreed early on. Ergo, the military would have a bigger say than expected in the political process.

[@ronniemacdonald2768]

He's talking about comms with the subs, not control of the islands.

[@jaredt113]

I’m quite a lefty, but I’ll admit that had Foot and Healey been in power they would’ve bungled this entire situation.

[@seanolaocha940]

Ironically though, if Thatcher's government had acted swiftly as the Labour government did in 1977, the Argentine invasion would probably never have happened in the first place.

[@th8257]

Really? Healey, who was a beach commander at Anzio and is widely regarded as the best defence secretary this country ever had? Let's not forget that this while situation arose because of Thatcher's incompetence in weakening the defences of the Falklands. You may or may not be a lefty. But you clearly know nothing about the Falklands war.

[@TheEulerID]

Michael Foot gave a very strong speech in the House of Commons over supporting the Falkland Islanders and their right of self determination. Also, Michael Foot was not Jeremy Corbyn in that he recognised the dangers of the military dictators and showing weakness. He was, after all, one of the (secret at the time) co-authors of a short book called "The Guilty Men", published in the July 1940 naming 15 public figures who for failed policies to stand up to the Nazis, including failing to re-arm the British military forces in the lead up to WW II. In the case of Healey, he was a veteran of WW II taking part in the North Africa campaign, the allied invasion of Sicily and the Italian campaign reaching the rank of Major. He was also a strong supporter of NATO and had been involved in anti-communist propaganda. Healey was, of course, on the right wing of the Labour Party and Michael Foot on the left, but neither were pacifists or likely to wilt in the face of militant dictatorships. Michael Foot, especially, despised he Argentinian Junta.

[@CharlieVane21]

That phone was state of the art in 1982. lol Amazing the difference in feel with modern media. What will it be like 40 years from now?

[@somethingelse516]

Seems quaintly amateurish

[@ajb229]

I thought it was going to be a double glazing salesman.

[@HuplesCat]

When the task force sailed it was 70% in favour. When they sunk the first ship about 99%

[@robdewey317]

And history is on the UK's side

[@tonycoxall7370]

Yes, that's the way I remember it..

[@JesterEric]

I remember in Primary school we were drawing pictures in class of Argentinian jets being shot down. These were the days before the National Curriculum

[@BillViets]

Haig as is US Secretary of State Al Haig, not Hague as in some vague international agency.

[@brandonnow4188]

The Peruvian peace deal ! Remember that !

[@pmays4]

If I call him, will he pick up and have a chat with me live on air?

[@douglastaggart9360]

Imagine Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister then but I remember this as if it was yesterday I was 16 at the time and as soon as I was 18 joined the British army and here we are 38 years later and Falklands are still British

[@benwilson6145]

Image Boris being Prime Minister !!!!!

[@muttley8818]

@@benwilson6145 Boris wouldn't hesitate to defend the Falklands. Corbyn would love to give them to Argentina. Abbott would spend the rest of the conflict trying to find the Falklands on a map, and Thornberry would be too busy shouting at white van drivers.

[@benwilson6145]

@@muttley8818 Boris would do as Putin tells him.

[@benwilson6145]

@@Denis.Collins Everyone forgets that James Callaghan's Labour government ordered Operation Journeyman in 1977 sending a message and a force including a nuclear submarine to support the Falkland islands, that stopped the Argentinians,if dear Maggie had done the same chances are that no war would have happened.

[@muttley8818]

@@Denis.Collins The British Task Force took 3 weeks to sail from the UK to the South Atlantic. 3 weeks. That was more than enough time for Argentina to realise Britain would defend them. And Haig stressed to the Argies in his shuttle diplomacy that war was inevitable if diplomacy failed. The 3 weeks it took the Task Force was Argentina's chance to pull out and stop a war. Galtieri repeatedly misread the situation and he knew he would be finished domestically if Argentina pulled out without a fight. From the moment Argentine forces set foot on the islands, there was no hope of a peaceful solution.

[@alexm7743]

Please, can anyone tell what happened the first day of the conflict (1st of may) with three Royal Navy ships attacked by argentine aircrafts?... Historians claim that this stil remain an unclassified military secret.

[@aananhenderson2689]

why did he have the phone on set in the first place

[@StuMas]

In case he had spinach in his teeth

[@yorkshire_tea6875]

Back when news was professional

[@doctorsocrates4413]

Why a debate?...clear cut situation and Mrs Thatcher sorted it.

[@jamessayers1428]

It would have been irresponsible to use force without attempting to resolve the conflict satisfactorily by diplomatic means. It was necessary to do so to maintain domestic and international support for the action.

[@jambon6451]

Disagree. Mrs. T was all too kind to try and resolve the conflict first through diplomatic means. Had they taken back the islands by force with no negotiations, I wouldn't have faulted the British government one bit.

[@chrissheppard5068]

As soon as you put this so called sacrifice limit in place you might as well get the white flag out...Tossers. It was great patrolling into Stanley watching the Argentine troops retreat to the airport. Job done no compromise but a sound thrashing and surrender.

[@sheeplebarn333]

I would not call it a retreat, I prefer to call it a panic. Retreat kind of implies some sort of discipline or competence.

[@zacpearce315]

Wow man??, never had it with a Falcland

[@zacpearce315]

Hero????

[@zacpearce315]

Thatcher hero's 👺💂💂💂💂💂 firmness of power??? What happened to life, p.s. do you still hate Argeninians????

[@starguy321]

All these people criticising Healey and Owen when both of them were part of the Labour government that actually stopped a war in 1977, when Argentina tried an invasion. The Conservatives withdrew forces from the south Atlantic while Argentina was making threats to invade at the UN and in the media. Thatcher though is seen as a hero because she let a war happen and won it, but Healey and Owen aren’t because they only stopped a war and maintained the status of the islanders diplomatically and without casualties

[@peter_oso]

Very interesting - seeing it now. Before military victory by UK, they contemplated ceasefire and feared that temporary situation becomes permanent, like other managed by UN. Same dilemmas are in Ukraine but the scale and casualties are higher...

[@Ingens_Scherz]

Pretty extraordinary how utterly, utterly out of touch these talking heads were (Kershaw less so, perhaps). I was too young to follow the political class and lapdog commentariat at this time (they haven't changed, have they?). All I remember is that everyone - everyone - young and old - were totally outraged by the Argentinian criminals and absolutely overjoyed when our troops quite rightly kicked their arses all the way back to Buenos Aires.

[@paulburgess22]

Healey was the very opposite of a "talking head". He was a beachmaster at Anzio and knew from personal experience the nauseating reality of conflict.

[@uioplkhj]

The Falklands were nearly abandoned by the islanders themselves due to lack of work and lack of aid from the UK before the war. The falklanders had no British citizenship and couldn't even fish in their own waters. One of their first requests after the war, was for a swimming pool, because the waters were too cold to teach swimming lessons and often when fishing boats capsized, the crew would drown. You see how little Britain cared? Hindsight is all well and good, nearly 40 years after the fact.

[@Ingens_Scherz]

@@paulburgess22 He certainly became a leftist talking head, just after his pathetic political career had come to an ignominious end. This conflict was anything but "nauseating". It was a great victory for the concept of an international rule of law.

[@Ingens_Scherz]

@@uioplkhj Nonsense.

[@uioplkhj]

@@Ingens_Scherz Google it.

[@YARROWS9]

We went down there with no early warning aircraft and shit counter measures for dealing with fast attack aircraft that the Argies had. Plus we scrapped our big carriers, capable of sending out long range fighter patrols and bombers.

[@sputnik1315]

I can't help noticing the style of those politicians and the way they spoke and comparing it to the shouting we hear today on TV. I arrived to this country about the time of that crisis and remember some of those debates. Sorry Britain, you have declined quite a bit in such a short time

[@markmeade2937]

So has the rest of the world, the idea of sitting down and having a debate without shouting at each other has long gone, we may not agree but we have manners and act as mature adults…….

[@CharlieVane21]

On an attack on the mainland. UK didn't have the wherewithal to attack the mainland in 1982, it had no real (conventional)deep strike capability. The bombers couldn't even shut down the airfield on the islands, so no point going after their bases in Argentina. Would have ended in disaster. Totally different now, though, as the RN has a real deep strike capability - Tomahawk, Storm Shadow, soon the F35, drones even. Could end a war even before its really got started. Not that the Argentinians would ever go there again. Though, would the UK launch such an attack unilaterally? That would be interesting. Brings in the debate on GPS and Galileo, would the US or the EU let the UK launch such an attack? Therefore should the UK have its own satellite system?

[@jimjam5239]

Against a democratic, Western-orientated Argentina, no. Against an Argentina in the grip of a fascist dictatorship, yes.

[@mkrmkr3805]

It's a yes from me. Look at how Musk is helping Ukraine with their satcom. Humans and tribalism are so unpredictable, we need our own comms.

[@alexm7743]

El ataque del 1 de mayo a tres buques ingleses por parte de aviones de la FAA sigue siendo un secreto militar bien guardado por los ingleses. Este ataque es el que hay que investigar... porque numerosos testigos en tierra vieron como el buque de más porte se retiraba del lugar humeando luego de este ataque, y explotando esa misma noche. Qué barco era?

[@lestermay5878]

It was not either of our two aircraft carriers - both suffered no enemy damage.

[@jameseadie7145]

Ah the Peruvian peace deal, what a load of bollocks.

[@Teasehirt]

Check the phone out !

[@therealbettyswollocks]

Two of the three are typical of British leaders in the 60s and 70s, - weak, post-imperial and compliant... thankfully we had a female leader with some backbone. 3 old men: “We should negotiate with the Argies” Thatcher: “Hold my tea”

[@sheeplebarn333]

Thank God for Admiral Leach.

[@JWD1012]

Yes, she showed such backbone in ignoring the Argentinean's repeated threats of invasion at the UN, planning to remove the British Naval presence, including HMS Endurance, from the Falklands and downgrading the citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.

[@channelfogg6629]

'... thankfully we had a female leader with some backbone.' So you covdered your ears at the point when it was agreed the government had been discussing sovereignty with Argentina for some time?

[@incredibleXMan]

Betty Swollocks maybe they were trying to save lives.

[@billybeck]

Total bollocks

[@markmeade2937]

Our government had a moral obligation to protect the Falkland Islanders , they did and it’s done ……. These politicians are in a parallel universe, so out of touch

[@daveed467]

Arriba Peru

[@juanjoseguaresti3035]

juanjoseguaresti

[@erniemccracken2429]

Thatcher had more balls than any bloke in the House of Commons - especially those on the Opposition benches. Had there been a Labour government in the 80s then the Falklands would belong to Argentina right now. I'm convinced of that.

[@th8257]

You for real? Did you actually hear any of Michael Foot's speeches in parliament demanding that Thatcher take the Falklands back? It's one of the main reasons why we Thatcher did send the task force - because Foot had politically outflanked her. You clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the situation. I suggest you go and educate yourself and look up some of Foot's parliamentary speeches from the time.

[@dan___bristoliannn6591]

If Labour was in government, the Argies wouldn't have invaded, as Labour - with a former Royal Navy man as PM - wouldn't have axed defences in the region. It's also the same Labour Party that sent a taskforce to prevent the Argies invaded in the late 70s.

[@ronniemacdonald2768]

Labour were led by a man who had wanted Britain to rearm in the 30s against the Nazis while the Tory party were going around with their thumbs up their arse. Get your facts right.

[@JamesRichards-mj9kw]

So glad Israel supported Argentina throughout the conflict.

[@stephenpotts1158]

Peron created the Malvinas myth and by '82 Argentina was ready for war.. Falklands - Argentina's Imaginary Territory (1 pg):- www.academia.edu/35715281/Falklands_Argentinas_Imaginary_Territory

[@andrewhay2241]

God that David Owen's a slimeball isn't he?

[@Patrick.Edgar.Regini]

LIARS

[@anothersucker-Youcantfixstupid]

No Surender..

[@starchild8036]

When you take a look to the map it is pretty easy to know that they are argentinians,if they were not an strategic place,full of oil and the proyection on antartida ,uk would be not giving a sh*t about the kelpers

[@starchild8036]

Yes after a war ship of the American navy destroy the place where were the argentinian governor,England took the island and bring they own people, (so they weren't local population)before the war of 82 ,the kelpers cannot even vote for UK government, actually UN said that is a colonial territory. I think a good solution is to keep the British nationality of the kelpers and the possession of the island to the true owner that is argentina

[@Werrf1]

@@starchild8036 Argentina has never owned the Falklands. The Falklands have been British since before there _was_ an Argentina; Argentina claims that they 'inherited' Spain's claim to the islands. The problem is that Spain's claim to the islands is based purely on right of conquest. See, the first settlements on the islands were by the French and the British. France handed their claim to Spain, and Spain attacked the British settlement. The British later took the islands back. If Argentina recognises the Spanish claim then they recognise right of conquest; that means the islands are British, since the British conquered them and has defended them. If Argentina does not recognise the right of conquest, that means they have no claim on the islands at all. In fact, the only right anyone has at this point is the right of self-determination. The people who lived on the islands choose to be British; that's pretty much the end of the story.

[@Jakob_DK]

@@Werrf1 The landing site was “san carlos waters” a very english name :-)

[@Werrf1]

@@Jakob_DK The biggest settlement on the islands is Port Stanley, a very Spanish name. What's your point?

[@scotthooton7478]

@@Jakob_DK there are, of course, many many English towns with a name of Nordic origin - more than happy to host you should you want them back.

[@polkban]

Do you know why Argentina had a military goberment? ... While you british were playing games with USSR , in Argentina the USSR en Cuba where supporting a comunist guerrilla warfare. The military Junta were fighting them for years!! And the 30.000 are not the right number but 8.500. Most of them had been killed on a batterfield or while they attemp to take a military base 1974/1977. Was a mistake too invade the Islands? Of course it was!!! But in Argentina there was not a Dictatorship as Nazi germany or Uganda or N Korea. saludos from Buenos Aires

[@markbailey1970]

We provoked the war - appalling really.

[@WTFiamabanana]

Why are they all ignoring the will of the Falkand Islanders themselves, arguably the most important element of all this? They did not want to be ruled by the Argentinian military regime, period. They were all British citizens, many of whose families had emigrated from Britain only 2-3 generations ago. A foreign and hostile military dictatorship invades a democratic state, and that state is chastised for defending itself? For defending their own citizens? Nah b these mans are stupid

[@MagicNash89]

Because they hold the opinion - that is implied by their words - that they are all colonizers and descendants of colonizers, which is Argentina's view as well. To oversimplify it. Also this is 1982, right after a massive decolonization wave everywhere. Falklands is seen as a colony.

[@WTFiamabanana]

@@MagicNash89 Every single Falkland Islander is a descendant of colonizers. There are no native falkanders, and there never have been.

[@lukemcgahern2357]

@@WTFiamabananaso there are no Argentines?