Were there seriously some Brits who were upset about the General Belgrano being sunk?
Like, seriously...........how cucked of a country to do you have to be to get upset over an enemy ship being sank?
>>29758942
Sherman was upset that he had to fuck the south in the ass.
He still did it tho. It's not cucked to be sad over the death of humans, it's cucked to start a hippie movement over it.
Oh boy, a thread where the first sentence creates a strawman and the second sentence attacks that strawman
What a fresh and interesting concept
Some people think the same about the two bombs dropped on Japan, but jeejejjeejjeje
Some people were upset we were killing people over some shitty island with terrible weather that no one cares about.
How shocking is this?
>>29758942
Very few people were upset the Belgrano was sunk in itself.
Many people were upset at laughably jingoistic coverage of the sinking in light of the fact there were quite a number of fatalities. (GOTCHA! epitomizes it, though later editions didn't run with it when it turned out it was sunk instead of merely hit.)
>>29758942
Daily reminder: America has literally never fought a conventional war and won let alone suck a ship in a modern naval engagement.
>>29759236
>a modern naval engagement
Define "modern" here. Historically speaking, the early modern period began in the 16th century and both World Wars are classified as being part of the late modern period.
>>29759236
wasn't the gulf war a fucking blow out and the invasion of iraq as well
>>29759236
>Britard thinks sinking a WW2 era ship (which had active sonar turned off at the time and traveled in a straight line for days at cruise speed btw) with a late-60s submarine makes his nation a military superpower
>>29759097
>that model
lel'd
>>29759236
>I know this is bait I know this is bait I know this is bait I know this is bait I know this is bait I know this is bait
>but I must reply
define "conventional war"
there's always going to be faggot hippies that weep over the death of enemy combatants
>>29759236
>nearly every war since Vietnam has been "unconventional"
>still falling for the "conventional warfare" meme
>>29759258
It was such a blow out that TV coverage at the time treated it like a football game. We were half a step above "this offensive brought to you by Nike: JUST DO IT" levels of memery.
>>29759440
The term "conventional warfare" is a legit one and is certainly not a meme.
>>29758942
It wasn't in the exclusion zone at the time, that's the only reason anyone got mardy about it.
As it turns out, intercepted comms (IIRC) indicated that the Argentinians were planning an all out naval attack, so it made sense.
However I'm not sure if this was made known at the time.
No one really goes on about or cares about it anymore, really don't know why you'd bring this up now.
Nor do I see how a few dissenting voices are representative of an entire country; or is America 'cucked' because people spoke out against Vietnam?
>>29758942
The US was so cucked that even after several of its own ships were sunk by u-boats in 1940-41 they did not want to enter the war.
>>29759236
Shut your cunting mouth, you're making us look bad.
>>29759458
Nukes have made it such that "conventional wars" between major states are costly and impractical, meaning that wars are now fought via proxy conflicts and state sponsored terrorism. Sure, we COULD have a conventional war the same way we could go to Mars, but we haven't and probably aren't going to. Basically, it exists in theory but not in practice.
>>29758942
Some bad timing for a Sun headline made it look crass.
>>29759236
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
>>29759096
>some shitty island with terrible weather that no one cares about.
you mean Britain?
>>29759253
You talk like a fag.
Modern = oth missiles
>>29759507
>Nukes have made it such that "conventional wars" between major states are costly and impractical, meaning that wars are now fought via proxy conflicts and state sponsored terrorism. Sure, we COULD have a conventional war the same way we could go to Mars, but we haven't and probably aren't going to. Basically, it exists in theory but not in practice.
Oh for god sake, I recognize you. I've argued with your shitty line of thinking before.
Do you have a single piece of academic work to back this? Or is this just supposition?
Any *STATE* vs *STATE* conflict is a "conventional war", so long as states exist "conventional war" will exist.
>it exists in theory but not in practice.
It certainly does exist in practice, otherwise no nations would maintain conventional capabilities SUCH as nuclear arsenals.
>>29759589
Not him, but then that defines it as DURING WW2.
>>29758942
I'm more upset that what could have been a very nice USN museum ship got sold off to the Argies.
Barely related Falklands point: Was the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo within range of the Falklands during the conflict?
I've been playing with the Falklands Scenario in a game and it starts Argentina with Etendardes at Stanley plus the carrier nearby. I'm quite interested in working it down to "Realistic, but with more Exocets [game engine limitation] and maybe more aircraft from the mainland"
I don't remember from skim-reading that the carrier was in the area and it bolsters Argentine forces quite a bit [it's basically just off the coast of Stanley, which is almost certainly not realistic.]
>>29758942
>Were there seriously some Brits who were upset about the General Belgrano being sunk?
Probably, but that certainly wasn't the general concencus or popular opinion.
Also, that should be "getting sunk", not "being".
>Like, seriously...........how cucked of a country to do you have to be to get upset over an enemy ship being sank?
Just like the way you're getting all worked up about the reaction of a small minority of people over an event that happened thirty five years ago, there will always be someone who's upset about something. Why don't you give us a list of the ships that your country's navy has sunk since WWII and then we'll investigate how the public reacted.
Also, "enemy ship getting sunk", not "being sank".
>>29759661
Only for a short time was she engaged against the task force, after the ARA General Belgrano sank, the whole fleet remained in port.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)#Falklands_War
>>29759589
>You talk like a fag.
Strictly, speaking, he's writing not "talking"
Just sayin'
>>29758942
Roger Waters is the only one I can think of.
>>29759661
There were 4 nuclear subs and a diesel patrolling around the islands, if it was inside the exclusion zone it wouldnt be afloat for long.
>>29758957
>It's not cucked to be sad over the deaths of humans, it's cucked to start a hippie movement over it
This. Humans are naturally conditioned to feel bad when their own kind die. War is a horrible necessity. However valid the reason, it is institutionalized cruelty and you cannot refine it...much.
>>29759745
What're the odds, assuming they somehow knew the general area they were in, they could sink/damage them with their maritime patrol aircraft?
>>29758961
>creates a strawman
OP didn't create them, they created themselves. And it's not a strawman if it's real. The trade unions literally supported Argentina in the conflict and tried to shut down British shipping.
>>29760623
With three pre-Vietnam era MPA's for the whole South Atlantic against Sea Darts and Harriers? Not great odds.
>>29760658
Boy that's some great evidence you've posted to support your claim there
Oh wait
>>29760676
One reference has already been posted ITT. It's on the bottom of the "Gotcha" cover.
Perhaps try doing your homework before you open your mouth and "remove all doubt", as the saying goes. I don't know why every slob like you thinks they know better about things without even doing the most basic research on the subject.
>>29759421
>there's always going to be faggot hippies that weep over the death of enemy combatants
This, there were those in the USA today crying over the deaths of child rapists in Afghanistan.
>>29760727
So you still have nothing and you move straight onto the ranting
Please tell me more how a subheadline on an old newspaper known for outright lying for its agenda is your infallible evidence
>>29760727
>Trade unions tried to shut down British shipping!
>But oh shit I can't back myself, so I'll say how ignorant everyone else is so if they question me I can claim how "obvious" it is!
>>29760727
It says literally in the article that the communist leader of Felixstowe seamen union, says: "p-please d-d-don't go, we can't p-protect you".
Hardly a boycott, but EH, this is democracy and your somewhat free to have a different opinion on things.
>>29760824
>>29760858
So you have no evidence, and you jump right into another strawman. Have fun with that.
Secondary source is the cover posted ITT. Follow that to the primary sources or stfu.
>>29760895
*you are
>>29758961
>creating your own strawman by wrongly accusing someone of strawmanning
Dole-swilling Northerner detected
>>29760858
>ns
singular. singular union.
also, it wasn't as a result of the sinking, the timing was coincidental (at the time the headline was published it wasn't even apparent the belgrano was sunk, note that it contrasts 'sink gunboat' with 'hole cruiser')
>>29760623
If they were flying at anything above 100ft they were fucked, the Nimrods were at least armed with sidewinders should they encounter a mirage.
>>29758957
But it was a civil war. Even if they're fucking rebels they are still Americans so it would make sense to feel remorse.
The British on the other hand were fighting a foreign Nation who were the aggressors in the conflict
>>29762743
There has been a serious Eurocuck strain of British culture, ever since the Normans started interbreeding with the Anglo-Saxons.
>>29758942
I'm sad because before she was General Belgrano, she was USS Phoenix.
She was a ship that survived Pearl Harbor and went on to fight 11 battles in the Pacific.
She deserved better than being handed over to Argentinians then bushwacked by a submarine 40 years her junior.
>>29762743
>The British on the other hand were fighting a foreign Nation who were the aggressors in the conflict
And who were overestimating their own capabilities quite horribly
>>29760896
>I'm right, find your own sources
Jesus Wept no wonder this place is so shit
>>29760727
>>29760896
>Three letters on a tiny image of a Sun front page from the 80's where you can't even read the article is my infallible source
>If you question how ridiculous this is you're trying to strawman me!
>>29759236
There's barely been major naval combat since WW2. The Indian Navy probably has more modern ship BTFOing experience than anyone. We wouldn't have much trouble sinking 50 year old shitty beaner ships either.
>>29758942
Never underestimate the spite or the inconsistency of British socialists. Multiple left-wing groups praised Argentina - supporting an act of territorial aggression from a US-backed military dictatorship that had killed thousands of left-wing activists - because they just couldn't bear to let Thatcher have that round.
>>29759097
>.jpg
I swear to god those waves are moving...
Maybe i have had too much coffee today.
>>29766677
>Thatcher
For the most part it was probably from an anti-imperial bent, not an anti-thatcher one.
Fucking Michael Foot of all people was rabidly pro war.
>>29766677
>tfw when the US was 'neutral' during the conflict
>USN transfers one of it's orders of AIM-9Ls, missiles that were not for export at the time straight to the RN
>NRO gives recon data to UK
>Reagan asks Secretary of Navy to draw up plans to 'loan' either Kitty Hawk or even Enterprise if Invincible is sunk.
>Even goes so far as to ask the legality of having 'volunteers' crew a CV and transferring custody of the vessel to the RN so that a RN captain is officially in command
>Run SIGINT operations and give all data to RN
Is there a bigger bromance in the entirety of military history than the USN and RN post WWII?
>>29767211
Almost makes up for all the 'muh herituj' retards in Boston and NYC who topped off the IRA's coffers during the Troubles.
>>29767211
Makes you wish we'd just invade and take over already so we can stop hiding our true feelings.
>>29767246
DON'T TREAD ON IRELAND
>>29759527
>bad timing
It wasn't an accident of timing, retard. They thought they had just damaged the cruiser, not sunk it.
It was still crass, but so what? The argies were, and are, retarded.
>>29767211
Depends. US played fast and loose.
>In December 2012 documents released under the UK "30 Year Rule" disclosed that Haig planned to reveal British classified military information to Argentina in advance of the recapture of South Georgia
IIRC, the only real reason why an order of AIM-9s and the other items of support were provided to the UK, was because of Caspar Weinberger being a massive Anglophile.
It's pretty well documented. Hell, he was given a knighthood for it.
>>29767361
>It wasn't an accident of timing, retard.
Yes it was, it was bad timing because of an ongoing labour dispute: in normal circumstances hardly any 'GOTCHA' papers would've been sent out because they could quickly move to printing the later edition (after they knew it was sunk) but the turnaround time on doing that was far higher at the time so significantly more copies of "GOTCHA" got out.
>but so what?
It made us look as stupid as the Argentinians.
KILL AN ARGIE AND WIN A METRO
>>29758942
Argie here
What rage me more is Rhodesia and how the "iron maiden" abandoned her
>>29767418
60 or so million were happy bunnies.
These chaps too.
>>29767506
He very nearly scored some squaddies.
Still any landing that you can walk away from...
>>29759096
This guy got it right in very few words
>>29767418
Rhodesia is one of those lose lose African places.
Until it gets too fucked up to survive there then it will all be in the hands of one black man or another.
When you give things back to the locals sometimes SHTF.
>>29758942
Belgrano and Black Buck puckered up so many sphincters you wouldn't believe.
The first got the navy out of the way and the second most of the air force.
The rest was down to the pongos gawd love em..
>>29759718
He is a fucking tool. He formed his opinions by being on the other side just so he could say he is counter culture.
>>29759542
rekt
