The Lady was not for turning…thank God!

DOCUMENTS RELEASED under the 30 year rule gives further meat to the belief that, along with Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Churchill were the greatest British prime ministers of the 20^th century.

            The documents cover the period of the Falklands war and show Thatcher’s strength and indomitable determination against all the critics from within her own party, our American allies and the French. No other politician then or now would have shown her strength of mind to retake the Falklands, and in so doing would refuse any toleration of  backsliders.

            I can think of no other leader since who would not have baulked at some stage or other, if they were faced with a similar challenge. She was under constant pressure to compromise from America who, understandably for geopolitical reasons, wanted a swift end brought to the crises.

            As we were preparing to retake South Georgia the American secretary of state Alexander Haig called on the British ambassador to Washington, Nicholas Henderson, and told him that the Americans were preparing to warn Argentina of the impending operation in order to persuade them of America’s impartiality. Henderson fumed, and argued our corner.

At the time neither we or our American allies knew of the presence of the Argentinean submarine Santa Fe in the waters around South Georgia.

            If, even for all of the right motives, America had indeed forewarned Argentina, then the Santa Fe could have run amok; and the 140 Argentinean troops in occupation of South Georgia would have had time to arrange a formidable defence, and perhaps cause a far more costly attrition rate among the liberating British troops.

            We then come to the sinking of HMS Antelope, HMS Sheffield, and perhaps the greatest loss in material terms, Atlantic Conveyor, which carried much needed Schanook  helicopters vital in transporting troops; all destroyed by French made Exocet missiles, five of which had already been delivered to Argentina before the conflict began.

            To make sure the French never completed the order she had with Argentina, Margaret Thatcher communicated with Mitterrand: "If it became known, as it certainly would, that France was now releasing weapons to Peru that would certainly be passed on to Argentina for use against us, France's ally, this would have a devastating effect on the relationship between our two countries," she wrote in a telegram to Mr Mitterrand.

"Indeed, it would have a disastrous effect on the alliance (Nato) as a whole. This is the last thing that either of us would wish. I greatly hope therefore that for the time being you will be able to find some way of keeping these missiles in France."

            I doubt whether any modern Europhile sitting in Downing Street would have used such language, or even dared upset a fellow member of what is now the EU. If Thatcher had not pressured the French, they would have felt themselves under no obligation and the Argentineans would have received the rest of their order at great cost to the British Task Force.

            But even this did not stop the French from training pilots into the use of the French super Etendards to deliver the Exocet; three Etendards were spotted at the Dassult factory near Bordeaux carrying Peruvian air force markings – yet it was known that Peru had not ordered this type.

THEN WHEN THE END came and the British were advancing on Port Stanley, President Reagan delivered his plea for Thatcher to show magnanimity in victory by not humiliating the Argentineans and allowing a military force from Brazil and the USA to occupy the Falklands until a negotiated settlement could be arrived at. He called the PM according to the document at 11:30 pm London time on May 31^st, 1982.

            Her response was free of the diplomatic rhetoric a modern politician would have used (if that is, he had not already sold his nation short). Having sent the Task Force comprising in total almost the whole of the British navy at cost to the lives of British servicemen; she was not for turning. According to the official No10 note, she told the American president: "Britain had not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group.

"As Britain had had to go into the islands alone, with no outside help[1], she could not now let the invader gain from his aggression. The Prime Minister asked the president to put himself in her position.

"She had lost valuable British ships and invaluable British lives. She was sure that the president would act in the same way if Alaska had been similarly threatened."

            Taking the episode of the Falklands as a whole, I ask this question. What British prime minister since and before (here I exclude Churchill) would have shown such resilience as she did? Our modern political class, well tuned to the ballot box and there place in history, would have sacrificed any proud character they may have once thought themselves in occupancy of before they entered politics. Compromise has been their white flag; they have, under the false idol of globalisation sought to paste this nation onto a politically sculptured map of a United States of Europe.

MARGARET THATCHER has many enemies on the left. They, like children, have been led to believe in bogeymen: and Margaret Thatcher typifies such a childhood fear. The Left hates (yes, literally, hates this women); they cannot wait for her to pass away, so they can have yet another reason to get pissed, this time in celebration of her passing.

            To the Left  in this country Mrs Thatcher brought only abhorrence, odium, and detestation. She was their childhood monster. To them she blocked the only hope for Britain; a socialist, communist, pro European, or anarchist illusion, that her deniers believed in. She is as much despised today by the Labour backbenches (with the one exemption of  the MP for Birkenhead, Frank Field)     as she was when she served her country a prime minister.

            Yet this women served her country well; she was Britain’s first woman prime minister and served as a perfect template for any other. We as a nation have been well served by our female monarchs from Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II. So why should not the same pattern of evolution flow through our political classes?

Well fortunately the hereditary principle has no relevance when it comes to prime ministers (although when it comes to safe seats for the sons and daughters of  past serving prime ministers, it is another matter). The democratic system is like a casino and it is as undependable. We in this country have been fortunate in times when our country or its interests have been threatened, to have produced a remarkable  individual who saves our nation and its historical reputation; and Margaret Hilda Thatcher was such a leader of her nation.

           

           

---

[1] This was not quite true because Casper Weinberger gave orders for the British to receive whatever weaponry they needed. He was later to be given a honorary knighthood.