Basic) December 2010 Start Here Key Updates: New Operating System Updates Document: Fill & Download for Free

1971The Creeper system, an experimental self-replicating program, is written by Bob Thomas at BBN Technologies to test John von Neumann's theory. Creeper infected DEC PDP-10 computers running the TENEX operating system. Creeper gained access via the ARPANET and copied itself to the remote system where the message "I'm the creeper, catch me if you can!" was displayed. The Reaper program was later created to delete Creeper.1973In fiction, the 1973 Michael Crichton movie Westworld made an early mention of the concept of a computer virus, being a central plot theme that causes androids to run amok. Alan Oppenheimer's character summarizes the problem by stating that "...there's a clear pattern here which suggests an analogy to an infectious disease process, spreading from one...area to the next." To which the replies are stated: "Perhaps there are superficial similarities to disease" and, "I must confess I find it difficult to believe in a disease of machinery." (Crichton's earlier work, the 1969 novel The Andromeda Strain and 1971 film were about an extraterrestrial biological virus-like disease that threatened the human race.)1974The Rabbit (or Wabbit) virus, more a fork bomb than a virus, is written. The Rabbit virus makes multiple copies of itself on a single computer (and was named "Rabbit" for the speed at which it did so) until it clogs the system, reducing system performance, before finally reaching a threshold and crashing the computer.1975April: ANIMAL is written by John Walker for the UNIVAC 1108. ANIMAL asked a number of questions of the user in an attempt to guess the type of animal that the user was thinking of, while the related program PERVADE would create a copy of itself and ANIMAL in every directory to which the current user had access. It spread across the multi-user UNIVACs when users with overlapping permissions discovered the game, and to other computers when tapes were shared. The program was carefully written to avoid damage to existing file or directory structures, and not to copy itself if permissions did not exist or if damage could result. Its spread was therefore halted by an OS upgrade which changed the format of the file status tables that PERVADE used for safe copying. Though non-malicious, "Pervading Animal" represents the first Trojan "in the wild".The novel The Shockwave Rider by John Brunner is published, coining the word "worm" to describe a program that propagates itself through a computer network.1981–19891981A program called Elk Cloner, written for Apple II systems, was created by Richard Skrenta. The Apple II was seen[by whom?] as particularly vulnerable due to the storage of its operating system[clarification needed] on floppy disk. Elk Cloner's design combined with public ignorance[not in citation given] about what malware was and how to protect against it led to Elk Cloner being responsible for the first large-scale[not in citation given] computer virus outbreak in history.1983November: The term 'virus' is coined by Frederick Cohen in describing self-replicating computer programs. In 1984 Cohen uses the phrase "computer virus" – as suggested by his teacher Leonard Adleman – to describe the operation of such programs in terms of "infection". He defines a 'virus' as "a program that can 'infect' other programs by modifying them to include a possibly evolved copy of itself." Cohen demonstrates a virus-like program on a VAX11/750 system at Lehigh University. The program could install itself in, or infect, other system objects.1984August: Ken Thompson publishes his seminal paper, Reflections on Trusting Trust, in which he describes how he modified a C compiler so that when used to compile a specific version of the Unix operating system, it inserted a backdoor into the login command, and when used to compile itself, it inserted the backdoor insertion code, even if neither the backdoor nor the backdoor insertion code were present in the source code.1986January: The Brain boot sector virus is released. Brain is considered the first IBM PC compatible virus, and the program responsible for the first IBM PC compatible virus epidemic. The virus is also known as Lahore, Pakistani, Pakistani Brain, and Pakistani flu as it was created in Lahore, Pakistan by 19-year-old Pakistani programmer, Basit Farooq Alvi, and his brother, Amjad Farooq Alvi.December: Ralf Burger presented the Virdem model of programs at a meeting of the underground Chaos Computer Club in Germany. The Virdem model represented the first programs that could replicate themselves via addition of their code to executable DOS files in COM format.1987Appearance of the Vienna virus, which was subsequently neutralized—the first time this had happened on the IBM platform.Appearance of Lehigh virus (discovered at its namesake university), boot sector viruses such as Yale from USA, Stoned from New Zealand, Ping Pong from Italy, and appearance of first self-encrypting file virus, Cascade. Lehigh was stopped on campus before it spread to the wild, and has never been found elsewhere as a result. A subsequent infection of Cascade in the offices of IBM Belgium led to IBM responding with its own antivirus product development. Prior to this, antivirus solutions developed at IBM were intended for staff use only.October: The Jerusalem virus, part of the (at that time unknown) Suriv family, is detected in the city of Jerusalem. The virus destroys all executable files on infected machines upon every occurrence of Friday the 13th (except Friday 13 November 1987 making its first trigger date May 13, 1988). Jerusalem caused a worldwide epidemic in 1988.November: The SCA virus, a boot sector virus for Amiga computers appear, immediately creating a pandemic virus-writer storm. A short time later, SCA releases another, considerably more destructive virus, the Byte Bandit.December: Christmas Tree EXEC was the first widely disruptive replicating network program, which paralyzed several international computer networks in December 1987. It was written in Rexx on the VM/CMS operating system and originated in what was then West Germany. It re-emerged in 1990.1988March 1: The Ping-Pong virus (also called Boot, Bouncing Ball, Bouncing Dot, Italian, Italian-A or VeraCruz), an MS-DOS boot sector virus, is discovered at the University of Turin in Italy.June: The CyberAIDS and Festering Hate Apple ProDOS viruses spreads from underground pirate BBS systems and starts infecting mainstream networks. Festering Hate was the last iteration of the CyberAIDS series extending back to 1985 and 1986. Unlike the few Apple viruses that had come before which were essentially annoying, but did no damage, the Festering Hate series of viruses was extremely destructive, spreading to all system files it could find on the host computer (hard drive, floppy, and system memory) and then destroying everything when it could no longer find any uninfected files.November 2: The Morris worm, created by Robert Tappan Morris, infects DEC VAX and Sun machines running BSD UNIX that are connected to the Internet, and becomes the first worm to spread extensively "in the wild", and one of the first well-known programs exploiting buffer overrun vulnerabilities.1989October: Ghostball, the first multipartite virus, is discovered by Friðrik Skúlason. It infects both executable .COM-files and boot sectors on MS-DOS systems.December: Several thousand floppy disks containing the AIDS Trojan, the first known ransomware, are mailed to subscribers of PC Business World magazine and a WHO AIDS conference mailing list. This DOS Trojan lies dormant for 90 boot cycles, then encrypts all filenames on the system, displaying a notice asking for $189 to be sent to a post office box in Panama in order to receive a decryption program.1990–19991990Mark Washburn, working on an analysis of the Vienna and Cascade viruses with Ralf Burger, develops the first family of polymorphic viruses, the Chameleon family. Chameleon series debuted with the release of 1260.June: The Form computer virus is isolated in Switzerland. It would remain in the wild for almost 20 years and reappear afterwards; during the 1990s it tended to be the most common virus in the wild with 20 to more than 50 per cent of reported infections.1992March: The Michelangelo virus was expected to create a digital apocalypse on March 6, with millions of computers having their information wiped, according to mass media hysteria surrounding the virus. Later assessments of the damage showed the aftermath to be minimal. John McAfee had been quoted by the media as saying that 5 million computers would be affected. He later said that, pressed by the interviewer to come up with a number, he had estimated a range from 5 thousand to 5 million, but the media naturally went with just the higher number.1993"Leandro" or "Leandro & Kelly" and "Freddy Krueger" spread quickly due to popularity of BBS and shareware distribution.1994April: OneHalf is a DOS-based polymorphic computer virus.1995The first Macro virus, called "Concept", is created. It attacked Microsoft Word documents.1996"Ply" — DOS 16-bit based complicated polymorphic virus appeared with built-in permutation engine.Boza, the first virus designed specifically for Windows 95 files arrives.Laroux, the first Excel macro virus appears.Staog, the first Linux virus attacks Linux machines1998June 2: The first version of the CIH virus appears. It is the first known virus able to erase flash ROM BIOS content.1999January 20: The Happy99 worm first appeared. It invisibly attaches itself to emails, displays fireworks to hide the changes being made, and wishes the user a happy New Year. It modifies system files related to Outlook Express and Internet Explorer (IE) on Windows 95 and Windows 98.March 26: The Melissa worm was released, targeting Microsoft Word and Outlook-based systems, and creating considerable network traffic.June 6: The ExploreZip worm, which destroys Microsoft Office documents, was first detected.December 30: The Kak worm is a JavaScript computer worm that spread itself by exploiting a bug in Outlook Express.2000–20092000May 5: The ILOVEYOU worm, also known as Love Letter, or VBS, or Love Bug worm, is a computer worm purportedly created by a Filipino computer science student. Written in VBScript, it infected millions of Windows computers worldwide within a few hours of its release. Using social engineering techniques, it is considered to be one of the most damaging worms ever.June 28: The Pikachu virus is believed to be the first computer virus geared at children. It contains the character "Pikachu" from the Pokémon series, and is in the form of an e-mail titled "Pikachu Pokemon" with the message: "Pikachu is your friend." The attachment to the email has "an image of a pensive Pikachu", along with a message stating, "Between millions of people around the world I found you. Don’t forget to remember this day every time MY FRIEND." Along with the image, there is a program, written in Visual Basic 6, called "pikachupokemon.exe" that modifies the AUTOEXEC.BAT file and adds a command for removing the contents of directories C:\Windows and C:\Windows\System at computer's restart. However, a message would appear during startup, asking the user if they would like to delete the contents of those folders. This is because the author, instead of writing the lines “del C:\WINDOWS\*.* /y” and “del C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\*.* /y” to AUTOEXEC.BAT, the author did not include the /y switches, which would have automatically chosen the yes option. The operating systems affected by this worm are Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME.2001February 11: The Anna Kournikova virus hits e-mail servers hard by sending e-mail to contacts in the Microsoft Outlook addressbook. Its creator, Jan de Wit, was sentenced to 150 hours of community service.May 8: The Sadmind worm spreads by exploiting holes in both Sun Solaris and Microsoft IIS.July: The Sircam worm is released, spreading through Microsoft systems via e-mail and unprotected network shares.July 13: The Code Red worm attacking the Index Server ISAPI Extension in Microsoft Internet Information Services is released.August 4: A complete re-write of the Code Red worm, Code Red II begins aggressively spreading onto Microsoft systems, primarily in China.September 18: The Nimda worm is discovered and spreads through a variety of means including vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows and backdoors left by Code Red II and Sadmind worm.October 26: The Klez worm is first identified. It exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express.2002February 11: The Simile virus is a metamorphic computer virus written in assembly.Beast is a Windows-based backdoor Trojan horse, more commonly known as a RAT (Remote Administration Tool). It is capable of infecting almost all versions of Windows. Written in Delphi and released first by its author Tataye in 2002, its most current version was released October 3, 2004March 7: Mylife is a computer worm that spread itself by sending malicious emails to all the contacts in Microsoft Outlook.2003January 24: The SQL Slammer worm, aka Sapphire worm, Helkern and other names, attacks vulnerabilities in Microsoft SQL Server and MSDE becomes the fastest spreading worm of all time (measured by doubling time at the peak rate of growth), causing massive Internet access disruptions worldwide just fifteen minutes after infecting its first victim.April 2: Graybird is a trojan horse also known as Backdoor.Graybird.[28]June 13: ProRat is a Turkish-made Microsoft Windows based backdoor trojan horse, more commonly known as a RAT (Remote Administration Tool).August 12: The Blaster worm, aka the Lovesan worm, rapidly spreads by exploiting a vulnerability in system services present on Windows computers.August 18: The Welchia (Nachi) worm is discovered. The worm tries to remove the blaster worm and patch Windows.August 19: The Sobig worm (technically the Sobig.F worm) spreads rapidly through Microsoft systems via mail and network shares.September 18: Swen is a computer worm written in C++.October 24: The Sober worm is first seen on Microsoft systems and maintains its presence until 2005 with many new variants. The simultaneous attacks on network weakpoints by the Blaster and Sobig worms cause massive damage.November 10: Agobot is a computer worm that can spread itself by exploiting vulnerabilities on Microsoft Windows. Some of the vulnerabilities are MS03-026 and MS05-039.November 20: Bolgimo is a computer worm that spread itself by exploiting a buffer overflow vulnerability at Microsoft Windows DCOM RPC Interface.2004January 18: Bagle is a mass-mailing worm affecting all versions of Microsoft Windows. There were 2 variants of Bagle worm, Bagle.A and Bagle.B. Bagle.B was discovered on February 17, 2004.Late January: The MyDoom worm emerges, and currently holds the record for the fastest-spreading mass mailer worm. The worm was most notable for performing a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on Xinuos | Home, which belonged to The SCO Group.February 16: The Netsky worm is discovered. The worm spreads by email and by copying itself to folders on the local hard drive as well as on mapped network drives if available. Many variants of the Netsky worm appeared.March 19: The Witty worm is a record-breaking worm in many regards. It exploited holes in several Internet Security Systems (ISS) products. It was the fastest disclosure to worm, it was the first internet worm to carry a destructive payload and it spread rapidly using a pre-populated list of ground-zero hosts.May 1: The Sasser worm emerges by exploiting a vulnerability in the Microsoft Windows LSASS service and causes problems in networks, while removing MyDoom and Bagle variants, even interrupting business.June 15: Caribe or Cabir is a computer worm that is designed to infect mobile phones that run Symbian OS. It is the first computer worm that can infect mobile phones. It spread itself through Bluetooth. More information can be found on F-Secure[33] and Symantec.August 16: Nuclear RAT (short for Nuclear Remote Administration Tool) is a backdoor trojan that infects Windows NT family systems (Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003).August 20: Vundo, or the Vundo Trojan (also known as Virtumonde or Virtumondo and sometimes referred to as MS Juan) is a trojan known to cause popups and advertising for rogue antispyware programs, and sporadically other misbehaviour including performance degradation and denial of service with some websites including Google and Facebook.October 12: Bifrost, also known as Bifrose, is a backdoor trojan which can infect Windows 95 through Vista. Bifrost uses the typical server, server builder, and client backdoor program configuration to allow a remote attack.December: Santy, the first known "webworm" is launched. It exploited a vulnerability in phpBB and used Google in order to find new targets. It infected around 40000 sites before Google filtered the search query used by the worm, preventing it from spreading.2005August 2005: ZotobOctober 2005: The copy protection rootkit deliberately and surreptitiously included on music CDs sold by Sony BMG is exposed. The rootkit creates vulnerabilities on affected computers, making them susceptible to infection by worms and viruses.Late 2005: The Zlob Trojan, is a Trojan horse program that masquerades as a required video codec in the form of the Microsoft Windows ActiveX component. It was first detected in late 2005.2006January 20: The Nyxem worm was discovered. It spread by mass-mailing. Its payload, which activates on the third of every month, starting on February 3, attempts to disable security-related and file sharing software, and destroy files of certain types, such as Microsoft Office files.February 16: discovery of the first-ever malware for Mac OS X, a low-threat trojan-horse known as OSX/Leap-A or OSX/Oompa-A, is announced.Late March: Brontok variant N was found in late March. Brontok was a mass-email worm and the origin for the worm was from Indonesia.June: Starbucks is a virus that infects StarOffice and OpenOffice.Late September: Stration or Warezov worm first discovered.2007January 17: Storm Worm identified as a fast spreading email spamming threat to Microsoft systems. It begins gathering infected computers into the Storm botnet. By around June 30 it had infected 1.7 million computers, and it had compromised between 1 and 10 million computers by September.[40] Thought to have originated from Russia, it disguises itself as a news email containing a film about bogus news stories asking you to download the attachment which it claims is a film.July: Zeus is a trojan that targets Microsoft Windows to steal banking information by keystroke logging.2008February 17: Mocmex is a trojan, which was found in a digital photo frame in February 2008. It was the first serious computer virus on a digital photo frame. The virus was traced back to a group in China.March 3: Torpig, also known as Sinowal and Mebroot, is a Trojan horse that affects Windows, turning off anti-virus applications. It allows others to access the computer, modifies data, steals confidential information (such as user passwords and other sensitive data) and installs more malware on the victim's computer.May 6: Rustock.C, a hitherto-rumoured spambot-type malware with advanced rootkit capabilities, was announced to have been detected on Microsoft systems and analyzed, having been in the wild and undetected since October 2007 at the very least.July 6: Bohmini.A is a configurable remote access tool or trojan that exploits security flaws in Adobe Flash 9.0.115 with Internet Explorer 7.0 and Firefox 2.0 under Windows XP SP2.July 31: The Koobface computer worm targets users of Facebook and Myspace. New variants constantly appear.November 21: Computer worm Conficker infects anywhere from 9 to 15 million Microsoft server systems running everything from Windows 2000 to the Windows 7 Beta. The French Navy, UK Ministry of Defence (including Royal Navy warships and submarines), Sheffield Hospital network,[48] German Bundeswehr, and Norwegian Police were all affected. Microsoft sets a bounty of US$250,000 for information leading to the capture of the worm's author(s). Five main variants of the Conficker worm are known and have been dubbed Conficker A, B, C, D and E. They were discovered 21 November 2008, 29 December 2008, 20 February 2009, 4 March 2009 and 7 April 2009, respectively. On December 16, 2008, Microsoft releases KB958644 patching the server service vulnerability responsible for the spread of Conficker.2009July 4: The July 2009 cyber attacks occur and the emergence of the W32.Dozer attack the United States and South Korea.July 15: Symantec discovered Daprosy Worm. Said trojan worm is intended to steal online-game passwords in internet cafes. It could, in fact, intercept all keystrokes and send them to its author which makes it potentially a very dangerous worm to infect B2B (business-to-business) systems.August 24: Source code for MegaPanzer is released by its author under GPLv3. and appears to have been apparently detected in the wild.2010–present2010January: The Waledac botnet sent spam emails. In February 2010, an international group of security researchers and Microsoft took Waledac down.January: The Psyb0t worm is discovered. It is thought to be unique in that it can infect routers and high-speed modems.February 18: Microsoft announced that a BSoD problem on some Windows machines which was triggered by a batch of Patch Tuesday updates was caused by the Alureon Trojan.June 17: Stuxnet, a Windows Trojan, was detected. It is the first worm to attack SCADA systems. There are suggestions that it was designed to target Iranian nuclear facilities. It uses a valid certificate from Realtek.September 9: The virus, called "here you have" or "VBMania", is a simple Trojan horse that arrives in the inbox with the odd-but-suggestive subject line "here you have". The body reads "This is The Document I told you about, you can find it Here" or "This is The Free Download Sex Movies, you can find it Here".September 15: The virus called Kenzero is a virus that spreads online from Peer to peer (P2P) sites taking browsing history.2011SpyEye and Zeus merged code is seen. New variants attack mobile phone banking information.Anti-Spyware 2011, a Trojan horse that attacks Windows 9x, 2000, XP, Vista, and Windows 7, posing as an anti-spyware program. It actually disables security-related process of anti-virus programs, while also blocking access to the Internet, which prevents updates.Summer 2011: The Morto worm attempts to propagate itself to additional computers via the Microsoft Windows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). Morto spreads by forcing infected systems to scan for Windows servers allowing RDP login. Once Morto finds an RDP-accessible system, it attempts to log into a domain or local system account named 'Administrator' using a number of common passwords.[65] A detailed overview of how the worm works—along with the password dictionary Morto uses—was done by Imperva.July 13: the ZeroAccess rootkit (also known as Sirefef or max++) was discovered.September 1: Duqu is a worm thought to be related to the Stuxnet worm. The Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security (CrySyS Lab)[67] of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics in Hungary discovered the threat, analysed the malware, and wrote a 60-page report naming the threat Duqu. Duqu gets its name from the prefix "~DQ" it gives to the names of files it creates.2012May: Flame – also known as Flamer, sKyWIper, and Skywiper – a modular computer malware that attacks computers running Microsoft Windows. Used for targeted cyber espionage in Middle Eastern countries. Its discovery was announced on 28 May 2012 by MAHER Center of Iranian National Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), Kaspersky Lab and CrySyS Lab of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. CrySyS stated in their report that "sKyWIper is certainly the most sophisticated malware we encountered during our practice; arguably, it is the most complex malware ever found".August 16: Shamoon is a computer virus designed to target computers running Microsoft Windows in the energy sector. Symantec, Kaspersky Lab, and Seculert announced its discovery on August 16, 2012.September 20: NGRBot is a worm that uses the IRC network for file transfer, sending and receiving commands between zombie network machines and the attacker's IRC server, and monitoring and controlling network connectivity and intercept. It employs a user-mode rootkit technique to hide and steal its victim's information. This family of bot is also designed to infect HTML pages with inline frames (iframes), causing redirections, blocking victims from getting updates from security/antimalware products, and killing those services. The bot is designed to connect via a predefined IRC channel and communicate with a remote botnet.2013September: The CryptoLocker Trojan horse is discovered. Cryptolocker encrypts the files on a user's hard drive, then prompts them to pay a ransom to the developer in order to receive the decryption key. In the following months, a number of copycat ransomware Trojans are also discovered.December: The Gameover ZeuS Trojan is discovered. This type of virus steals one's login details on popular Web sites that involve monetary transactions. It works by detecting a login page, then proceeds to inject a malicious code into the page, keystroke logging the computer user's details.December: Linux.Darlloz targets the Internet of things and infects routers, security cameras, set-top boxes by exploiting a PHP vulnerability.2014November: The Regin Trojan horse is discovered. Regin is a dropper that is primarily spread via spoofed Web pages. Once downloaded, Regin quietly downloads extensions of itself, making it difficult to be detected via anti-virus signatures. It is suspected to have been created by the United States and United Kingdom over a period of months or years, as a tool for espionage and mass surveillance.2015The BASHLITE malware is leaked leading to a massive spike in DDoS attacks.Linux.Wifatch is revealed to the general public. It is found to attempt to secure devices from other more malicious malware.2016February: Ransomware Locky with its over 60 derivatives spread throughout Europe and infected several million computers. At the height of the spread over five thousand computers per hour were infected in Germany alone. Although ransomware was not a new thing at the time, insufficient cyber security as well as a lack of standards in IT was responsible for the high number of infections. Unfortunately even up to date antivirus and internet security software was unable to protect systems from early versions of Locky.February: Tiny Banker Trojan (Tinba) makes headlines. Since its discovery, it has been found to have infected more than two dozen major banking institutions in the United States, including TD Bank, Chase, HSBC, Wells Fargo, PNC and Bank of America. Tiny Banker Trojan uses HTTP injection to force the user's computer to believe that it is on the bank's website. This spoof page will look and function just as the real one. The user then enters their information to log on, at which point Tinba can launch the bank webpage's "incorrect login information" re [1] turn, and redirect the user to the real website. This is to trick the user into thinking they had entered the wrong information and proceed as normal, although now Tinba has captured the credentials and sent them to its host.September: Mirai creates headlines by launching some of the most powerful and disruptive DDoS attacks seen to date by infecting the Internet of Things. Mirai ends up being used in the DDoS attack on 20 September 2016 on the Krebs on Security site which reached 620 Gbit/s. Ars Technica also reported a 1 Tbit/s attack on French web host OVH. On 21 October 2016 multiple major DDoS attacks in DNS services of DNS service provider Dyn occurred using Mirai malware installed on a large number of IoT devices, resulting in the inaccessibility of several high-profile websites such as GitHub, Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, Airbnb and many others. The attribution of the attack to the Mirai botnet was originally reported by BackConnect Inc., a security firm.2017May: The WannaCry ransomware attack spreads globally. Exploits revealed in the NSA hacking toolkit leak of late 2016 were used to enable the propagation of the malware. Shortly after the news of the infections broke online, a UK cybersecurity researcher in collaboration with others found and activated a "kill switch" hidden within the ransomware, effectively halting the initial wave of its global propagation. The next day, researchers announced that they had found new variants of the malware without the kill switch.June: The Petya (malware) attack spreads globally affecting Windows systems. Researchers at Symantec reveal that this ransomware uses the EternalBlue exploit, similar to the one used in the WannaCry ransomware attack.September: The Xafecopy Trojan attack 47 countries affecting only Android operating systems. Kaspersky Lab identified it as a malware from the Ubsod family, stealing money through click based WAP billing systems.September: A new variety of RAT Trojan, Kedi RAT (Remote Access Trojan) distributed in a Spear Phishing Campaign. The attack targeted Citrix users. The Trojan was able to evade usual system scanners. Kedi Trojan has all characteristics of a common Remote Access Trojan and it could communicate to its Command and Control center via gmail using common HTML, HTTP protocols.2018??????????

Surface fleets and capital ships are vulnerable to air attack and have been so since the debacle of Peral Harbour in the last world war. Therefore, to send a large surface fleet to within operational range of modern fighter aircraft, armed with sophisticated modern missile anti-shipping systems, and someway “not to expect” losses of those ships, is a contradiction in terms.Warfare has changed since the far off times now, of large heavily armed big gunned “sloops” or cruisers or destroyers or escorts. Defence first strike duty is now from Nuclear powered submarines armed with ICBM systems, not large task forces.The case of the Falkland Islands task force was obliged to mix the old and the new warfare together in a dangerous way. In fairness it is not often an army must recapture several islands. It is very hard to see how “else” it could be done.Navy ship construction had seriously changed during the latter part of the last century, and especially since the finish of the second world war, and the cost-cutting spending exercises of consecutive Tory Governments. Some ships are now constructed out of "modern" more lightweight materials and anti-magnetic hulls, and lightweight Aluminium.....The problem, and it is a very big problem, is this. These modern vessels are not as strong or fire resistant as their older navy predecessors, and will not stand up very well to a direct hit, such as, for one example of modern conflict, the attack on the Royal navy Taskforce by Exocet Missiles was. Countermeasures are NOT a guarantee to escape a direct hit, especially for a large item such as a surface naval vessel.Other navies were still using solid constructed metal ships, which though still large and vulnerable to air attack, at least do not "melt" when they are hit....The Taskforce had anti-air attack weapons sure enough, but the whole area of the landing on the Falklands was by geography and terrain, highly exposed, and visible enough from the skies to any attacking hostile aircraft.There was a lot of piss taking out of Argentina before the actual fighting began, and the success of the small British forces group on the island when it had been invaded in hitting a destroyer (codenamed Orange) with a rocket from an infantry projector type weapon had been greatly inflated by the English Media as some sort of proof Argentina was a "paper tiger" or a "tinpot" dictatorship....People did not realize that sending a surface fleet would involve casualties....There is nothing quite as dangerous as complacency.....There was a prevailing public mood that “Argentina will surrender when they know we are coming” and “this is going to be an easy victory” It was publicized that the Argentinian Aircraft carrier 25th may be staying in Port, and that there was little risk…..Argentine Pilots were in fact highly effective and highly Professional and engaged with the British forces using French-built Mirage and American Skyhawk jet fighter bombers against the highly exposed British landing ships, resulting in the loss of the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram and the Atlantic Conveyor. The Mirage used the highly "formidable French built "Exocet" Missile which destroyed HMS Sheffield.Mirage, Etendard and Helicopter Launched VersionsThe Exocet has been manufactured in versions including:MM38 (surface-launched) – deployed on warships. Range: 42 km. No longer produced (1970). A coast defence version is known as "Excalibur" was developed in the United Kingdom and deployed in Gibraltar from 1985–1997.[5]AM38 (helicopter-launched – tested only*AM39 (air-launched) – B2 Mod 2: deployed on 14 types of aircraft (combat jets, maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters). A range between 50 and 70 km, depending on the altitude and the speed of the launch aircraft.SM39 (submarine-launched) – B2 Mod 2: deployed on submarines. The missile is housed inside a watertight launched capsule (VSM or véhicule Sous marin), which is fired by the submarine's torpedo-launch tubes. On leaving the water, the capsule is ejected and the missile's motor is ignited. It then behaves like an MM40. The missile will be fired at depth, which makes it particularly suitable for discreet submarine operations.MM40 (surface-launched) – Block 1, Block 2 and Block 3: deployed on warships and in coastal batteries. Range: 72 km for the Block 2, in excess of 180 km for the Block3.The navy Etendard did not need to fly nearly so high as the Mirage firing platform, to launch the Exocet. It was clearly stated in a British tv programme, that the Royal Navy was AWARE that there could be a brief “give away” moment where any aircraft about to fire an Exocet, could momentarily rise back above the radar and be briefly detected as it launched its missiles. This is precisely, exactly, what then occurred, happened, as a navy sailor radar operator briefly reported spotting an object on their radar, just moments before the missile slammed right into the SHEFFIELD. Precious time was therefore lost to fire countermeasures until other systems detected the obviously homing missiles, but it was already far too late…..The Mirage attack was briefly spotted on radar before the missiles were released, because the Mirage must slightly increase its altitude before releasing the Exocet system to target, and a naval rating, a radar screen operator DID report briefly seeing a "speck" on the radar, which did not get "picked up" for what it meant in time. It was the Mirage.....Mirage F1Finaly retired from French service in 2014, the design was replaced with Mirage 200 series.A Spanish Air Force Mirage F1MRoleFighter aircraftNational originFranceManufacturerDassault AviationFirst flight23 December 1966; 52 years agoIntroduction1973; 46 years agoStatusRetired from the French Air Force operational service in June 2014. In limited service.Primary usersFrench Air Force(historical)Iraqi Air Force(historical)Hellenic Air Force(historical)Spanish Air Force(historical)Produced1966–1992Number built720Developed fromDassault Mirage IIIArgentinian French built “Dassault” AMD Mirage 3.There are many variants and versions of different “Mirage” aircraft.VariantsMirage F1AMirage F1BMirage F1CMirage F1DMirage F1EMirage F1CG.8Mirage F1CTMirage F1AZ and F1CZMirage F1 M-53Mirage F1MMirage aircraft are also capable of carrying and launching the “Excoet” Missile system, as happened in Syria when Syrian Mirage aircraft attacked the U.S.S. Claryss.Exocet Antiship Missile: The Flying Fish That Flummoxes RadarThe Exocet (French for "flying fish") wreaked havoc on British ships during the 1982 Falklands War. (Illustration by Gregory Proch)In 1967 Nord Aviation, a French precursor of the European missile manufacturer MBDA began development of a ship-launched guided missile. Perfected in 1974, the missile entered French naval service in 1979 as the Exocet (French for “flying fish”). Using a solid-propellant rocket with a range of 38 nautical miles, the weapon saw deployment as the surface-launched MM38, the air-launched AM38 and AM39, and the submarine-launched SM39. The newer surface-launched MM40 version has a turbojet engine that extends its range to 97 nautical miles. Fitted with inertial and active radar, the Exocet skims just a few yards above the ocean’s surface, making it difficult to detect on radar.On May 4, 1982, during the Falklands War, an Exocet launched from an Argentine navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard fighter struck the British destroyer, HMS Sheffield, failing to explode but causing massive fires that ultimately sank the warship. Three weeks later two Super Étendard–launched Exocets hit the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor, which also sank. The Argentines missed the light aircraft carrier HMS Invincible on May 30, but a land-launched Exocet damaged the destroyer HMS Glamorgan on June 12, shortly before the British retook the Falkland Islands.During its eight-year (1980–88) clash with Iran, Iraq launched 200 Exocets at enemy-flagged tankers and other vessels, with varying success. But in the Persian Gulf on May 17, 1987, an Iraqi Dassault Mirage F1, for reasons unexplained—Iraq was not at war with the United States—launched two Exocets that hit the frigate USS Stark, whose surviving crew managed to save the badly damaged warship.Below. Greek version ExocetAM 39 Block 2 Aircraft for Greece.Specifications (Mirage F1)Thomson CSF Cyrano IV radar unitAssorted 125kg, 250kg, 500kg, and 1000kg bombs besides a Mirage F1Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89,Jet Fighters: Inside & Out]General characteristicsCrew: 1Payload: 6,300 kg[114] (13,890 lb)Length: 15.30 m (50 ft 2½ in)Wingspan: 8.40 m (27 ft 6¾ in)Height: 4.50 m (14 ft 9 in)Wing area: 25.00 m² (269.1 ft²)Empty weight: 7,400 kg (16,314 lb)Loaded weight: 10,900 kg (24,030 lb) (clean take-off weight)Max. takeoff weight: 16,200 kg (35,715 lb)Powerplant: 1 × SNECMA Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojetDry thrust: 49.03 kN[115] (11,023 lbf)Thrust with afterburner: 70.6 kN (15,873 lbf)PerformanceMaximum speed: Mach 2.2 (2,338 km/h,[115] 1,262 knots, 1,453 mph) at 11,000 m (36,090 ft)Combat radius: 425 km (230 nm, 265 mi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg bombsFerry range: 3,300 km[116] (1,780 nmi, 2,050 mi)Endurance: 2 hr 15 min (combat air patrol, with 2 × Super 530 missiles and centreline drop tank)Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,600 ft)Rate of climb: 243 m/s (47,835 ft/min) at high altitudeThrust/weight: 0.66[117]ArmamentGuns: 2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 553 cannons with 150 rounds per gunHardpoints: 1 centreline pylon, four underwing and two wingtip pylons with a capacity of 6,300 kg (13,900 lb) (practical maximum load 4,000 kg (8,800 lb)) and provisions to carry combinations of:Rockets: 8× Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets eachBombs: variousOther: reconnaissance pods or Drop tanksMissiles: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinders OR Matra R550 Magics on wingtip pylons, 2× Super 530Fs underwing, 1× AM-39 Exocets anti-ship missile, 2× AS-30L laser-guided missilesClaims made by critics of this article that the Mirage never carried “Exocet” Missile are wrong.Below. French built and supplied Argentinian Super Etendard.Argentinian Bell Augusta Military Helicopter. The helicopter shown was actually in the Falkland war and was captured intact and is preserved today.British use of Aluminium escape ladders and lightweight aluminium ship "below waterline" construction received great criticism in the UK Press afterwards, because the terrible fire caused Inside the "SHEFFIELD" by the Exocet Missile MELTED, the escape ladders which led to a horrible tragedy of men unable to get out of the burning ship because the ladders were...well...(there were pictures at the time I will spare you here) enough said really....America recommissioned the USS MISSOURI because, as the Soviet ships of the era, the old Missouri was "iron" Under the water, not lightweight aluminum....or plastic type non-magnetic materials. Modern ship design MAY have certain advantages, but some things are best left unchanged !!!I fear Political "cheapness" to be the real force (farce) behind such horrors.....The air shield and "total exclusion zone" was kept up over the British invasion task force, even in terrible weather, two Sea Harriers actually crashed into each other in bad weather because of this.Hawker Harrier VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) and Sea Harrier attack fighters.Some Model kits and figurines were also made from the conflict.There was also a rather tense moment when a submarine was detected operating nearby to the Task Force. British Harriers were sent out to "intercept" but.....OUCH §§§§§ the submarine, turned out to be a "Russian" vessel in the area at the time....PhewwwwIt apparently was discovered just in time and the air attack hastily called off.In addition to the Mirage or Skyhawk, , the Argentine forces used the Anti Incursion or Counter Insurgency Anti Guerilla Aircraft, the "Pucara" (successfully later attacked and destroyed on the ground at "Pebble Island" by S.A.S soldiers), and the Argentines also used the license-built version of the Italian built Bell - Augusta Helicopter.The seaborne approaching British forces were inevitably going to be "standing into danger" during this time, and the losses should be comprehended Under this military background.below. HMS Plymouth. Despite sustaining serious battle damage this ship survived the war and was later repaired.The British troops landed from LCI type vessels, not unlike those used in the second world war in Normandie many years before.Below. Argentinian soldiers Class of Sixty two.There was far, really far, too much complacency in Britain under the THATCHER TORY administration, and there were far too many defence and public spending “cuts” which encouraged the South American Dictators, and Generalissimo GALTIERI to invade the Falkland Islands.Left of Photograph. Buzos Tacticos, Argentinian Special Forces Commando ’s, captured the British Royal marine contingent who were the only English soldiers left to hold the entire Islands, forcing an absolute humiliation and defeat upon the British Government. They had lost control of the entire Islands. It was a significant Propaganda coup for the Dictators, and for Antisemitic Nazi sympathizers.54 MM Figures from the author's figurine series to be again produced in France.Above a Harrier and jaguar Pilot figurine in 54 mm (1/32 scale).British soldier Falklands conflict in 54 mm scale.Argentina did lose a large ship during the conflict, called the “General Belgrano”.Orange life saver rafts leaving the sinking Argentinian battleship the “General Belgrano”.There remains great controversy over the sinking of the General Belgrano.Controversy over the sinking[The legality of the sinking of General Belgrano has been disputed due to disagreement on the exact nature of the Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) and whether General Belgrano had been returning to port at the time of the sinking. Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government nine days before the sinking, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200 miles (320 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. On 1 May 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a "massive attack" the following day. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Early reports suggested that more than 1,000 Argentine sailors may have been killed in the sinking; it was in fact around a third of that total.The sinking occurred 14 hours after President of Peru Fernando Belaúnde proposed a comprehensive peace plan and called for regional unity, although Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and diplomats in London did not see this document until after the sinking of General Belgrano.Diplomatic efforts to that point had failed completely. After the sinking, Argentina rejected the plan but the UK indicated its acceptance on 5 May. The news was subsequently dominated by military action and it is not well known that the British continued to offer ceasefire terms until 1 June that were rejected by the Junta.Argentine response[On 3 May 1982, Argentina's Chancellery released a statement in the name of the Argentinian government that read:The Government of Argentina, broadening what was reported by the Joint Staff in its statement No. 15, states:That at 17 hours on 2 May, the cruiser ARA General Belgrano was attacked and sunk by a British submarine in a point at 55° 24′ south latitude and 61° 32′ west longitude. There are 1,042 men aboard the ship. Rescue operations for survivors are being carried out.That this point is located 36 miles outside the maritime exclusion zone set by the UK government in the statement by its Ministry of Defence on 28 April 1982, confirming the provisions on 12 April 1982. That area is marked by a "circle with a radius of 200 nautical miles from the 51° 40′ South latitude and 59° 30′ west longitude", as stated in the declaration.That such an attack is a treacherous act of armed aggression perpetrated by the British government in violation of the UN Charter and the ceasefire ordered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 502.That, in the face of this new attack, Argentina reiterates to the national and global public its adherence to the ceasefire mandated by the Security Council on the mentioned resolution. It has only limited to respond to Britain's attacks, without using force beyond what is necessary to ensure the defence of their territories.Legal situationNeither the United Kingdom or Argentina declared war during the conflict. Combat was confined to the area around and on the Falkland islands and South Georgia. General Belgranowas sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands, delimited by the UK. Through a message passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government on 23 April, the UK made clear that it no longer considered the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone as the limit of its military action. The message read:In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection, Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, Argentine Fight For The Falklands, indicated that Argentine naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked.Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force of which General Belgrano was part, said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".Captain Bonzo also told Middlebrook that he was not angry about the attack on his ship and "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May".Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded the British task force during the war, wrote in his 1997 book One Hundred Days that HMS Conqueror received a signal changing the rules of engagement and that "The change said quite clearly he may now attack the Belgrano, outside the TEZ".But there were “other rumours and unsubstantiated storeys that in fact, something “other” than what had happened. There was a rumour going round in England, some people said it was also in a newspaper or a magazine or something, that a mother and her son, who had been a sailor during the Falklands war, had in their possession proof that the Belgrano, in fact, was sunk deliberately as it was sailing AWAY, and NOT towards, the Britsh task Force.They were both supposedly also found dead under rather suspicious and unlikely circumstances, and some have linked their killings if that is what indeed they ever prove to be, to the Secret British Military Intelligence service, who was “cleaning up” the Political “mess” for the Thatcher Government. No one knows.Diana Gould – Margaret Thatcher exchangeDiana Gould speaking to Margaret Thatcher (right) and Sue Lawley, in the BBC's Lime Grove Studios, 24 May 1983An exchange on 24 May 1983 between Diana Gould, an English schoolteacher and former Women's Royal Naval Service meteorological officer, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was voted in 1999 as one of Britain's most memorable television spots.Gould confronted Thatcher on the BBC current-affairs programme Nationwide over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Gould was appearing as a member of the public on Nationwide's On the Spot live election special.The ARA General Belgrano, an Argentine war ship, sank with the loss of 323 lives on 2 May 1982, after Thatcher gave the order to attack it when it sailed near a 200-mile exclusion zone the British had declared around the Falkland Islands. It was hit by two Mark 8 torpedoes launched by HMS Conqueror, a nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine. The sinking was controversial, in part because of a dispute as to whether the ship had been heading toward or away from the exclusion zone when it was hit. Gould believed it had been sailing away from the exclusion zone. It was made public in 2011 that the Belgrano had in fact been sailing toward it.The exchange between Thatcher and Gould became iconic, remembered because of Gould's persistence in asking why Thatcher had given the order, which seemed to rattle the prime minister.It was described as "the day Margaret Thatcher met her match".Thatcher was reportedly angry that the BBC had allowed the question to be asked.Her husband, Denis Thatcher, told the producer that the BBC was run by "a nest of long-haired Trots and wooftahs".Gould wrote a book about her experience, On the Spot: The Sinking of the Belgrano (1984).Significantly, school teacher Diana Gould DIED very shortly just BEFORE the Government Report on the incident as published. Readers draw your own conclusions from that.But there seems to have been a big bloody row about it high up in Society and Politics in England at the time. Why did Diana Goulds direct unavoidable question, “rattle” or worry the “iron lady” Mrs. Thatcher so much?Documents reveal US fears over Falklands warEmily PayneApril 1 2012, 5:45pm,The Sunday TimesA picture file of captured Argentinians in the Falkland Islands (Robin Mayes)RONALD REAGAN’s outward neutrality over the Falklands war sheltered previously hidden fears that the British government "had not thought much about diplomatic possibilities" for resolving the crisis, according to newly declassified American diplomatic cables.In England, during the attack on the Sheffield, a tv report by HTV West claimed that in fact, “one or more Exocet missiles” had in fact been defeated, stopped, by the Sheffield firing Anti Missile Countermeasures. Therefore, if the “sums” are right, then, by the time operation Mikado was planned, to blow up the stocks of Exocet anti-shipping Missiles, (whose given Argentinian stockpile was said only to be of Five of these types of Exocet Missiles) , then, why go ahead with such a risky or dangerous operation? Alas, but then, not all reports, either from both sides, or the tv or radio always tell the truth.Certainly, to launch an operation from a supposedly neutral country Chile could risk starting a major war between Argentina and Chile if it got discovered.However, behind the scenes the C.I.A had been busy helping to prop up Mrs. Thatcher's relationship with another South American Military Dictator, generalissimo Augusta Pinochet of CHILE.The next part of this answer focuses upon CHILE as an ally to Mrs. Thatcher during the Falklands war and in general with Britains arms supplies to Chile, despite its appalling violations of basic human rights.The ‘other special relationship’: Britain and Chile 40 years after Pinochet’s coupFrom Patrick TimmonsAugust 30, 2013COLCHESTER, England – Ask anybody from Santiago about the noise heard in the Chilean capital’s skies on the morning of Sept. 11, 1973, and they will probably tell you about the screeching roar of the British Hawker Hunter jets as they bombed La Moneda. Within minutes the planes had set fire to the presidential palace. After the air attack on the president’s offices, Chile’s army, directed by Augusto Pinochet and a group of generals, stormed the building. President Salvador Allende died in the attack.Britain had been supplying all branches of the Chilean military with arms even under Allende, the democratically elected president ousted by Pinochet, who was his defence minister. In 1973, with British matériel and more than a nod and a wink from the CIA, a more than century-old Latin American democracy fell to authoritarianism. Pinochet stayed in power from 1973 to 1990 and sustained friendly, special relations with London and Washington, D.C., even as concerns about human rights abuses mounted.General Augusta Pinochet was a Military aid to Britain during the Falklands war.When Mrs. Thatcher wanted to retake the Falkland Islands she sent a top spy to Chile to report to her personally intelligence information against the regime in neighbouring Argentina. She also authorized a top-secret SAS Mission by helicopter, but the mission went wrong when the helicopter embarrassingly crashed in “inconvenient political territory” that was supposed to be neutral.A News reporter who tried to expose the truth was very badly beaten up to shut him up from uncovering the British direct Military cooperation and collusion between Chile and Britan against its own neighbouring South American county Argentina, with who Chile had an ongoing dispute over a water channel.The English Daily Telegraph Newspaper.By Harriet Alexander7:00AM BST 07 Jul 2014Chile's support for Britain during the Falklands War has been revealed for the first time by the man who was dispatched, with an only hours notice, to secure a South American ally.Sidney Edwards, now aged 80, was then a 47-year-old official in the RAF. In conditions of utmost secrecy, he was to play a key role in the conflict, awarded an OBE for his efforts – and believes that Chile's support was vital to the British victory.Margaret Thatcher, the then-prime minister, was reportedly so reliant on his intelligence updates she nicknamed them "Sidgrams"."My personal opinion – and I think one which was shared by my bosses at the Ministry of Defence and by Margaret Thatcher – is that the help we received from Chile was absolutely crucial," he said."Without it, we would have lost the war."Related ArticlesChildhood friends turned bitter rivals for Chile’s presidency 04 Aug 2013The secret Falklands 'suicide mission' 22 Mar 2012SAS planned 'suicide mission' 08 Mar 2002Rattling sabres and teacups in the Falklands 24 Feb 2010Publicly, Chile adopted a position of "strict neutrality" – a policy dictated by its need to defer to Latin American solidarity with Argentina and its own dispute with Argentina over the Beagle Channel.Chile's support for the British campaign had been rumoured for many years and was confirmed by the 2012 release of government documents under the 30-year rule.But it is the first time that someone so intimately involved in the negotiations has told the full story.Mr. Edwards was chosen for the highly-sensitive mission because of his fluent Spanish – he had been seconded to Madrid with the RAF – and his experience of coordinating intelligence-sharing with other countries.Arriving in Santiago, the Chilean capital, in the morning, he was meeting with Fernando Matthei – head of the Chilean air force – by the afternoon."General Matthei warmly shook my hand," said Mr. Edwards. "He offered me his total cooperation, within the limits of practicality and what was diplomatically possible."He emphasized that it was essential to keep it a secret."For reasons of security Mr. Edwards was told to destroy all notes, he told Juan Pablo Garnham, a reporter for Chilean news magazine Que Pasa. But he insisted his memory was clear and has written a book about the period, My Secret Falklands War, which is due to be published shortly.One of his tasks was to coordinate the long-range radar, which was able to observe movements of Argentine forces in Ushuaia, Rio Gallegos, Rio Grande and Comodoro Rivadavia.He also coordinated the arrival in Santiago of SAS troops, and the use of a Chilean airport on the island of San Felix – where several British planes were stationed, disguised in Chilean colours."The most important result was the early warnings of aerial attacks," he said. "Without these – when you have a naval force with only a small air defence, as we had – we would have had to maintain extremely expensive fighter patrols all the time, ready to intercept any intrusions."Mr. Edwards never met General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, who ruled the country at the time."That was a deliberate decision," he said, adding that they crossed paths in corridors frequently. "He wanted to have a sort of escape clause so that he could deny knowledge of my involvement."It seemed to me that if anything went wrong, he could say 'It was Matthei's fault, I didn't know what he was doing.'"When a SAS mission involving a British Sea King helicopter went wrong, Mr. Edwards was forced to hurriedly organize a press conference with a cover story that the helicopter had crashed on a routine journey.When a Chilean reporter continued doggedly to pursue the story, Pinochet's officials dealt with him. He was badly beaten up."When I asked Patricio Perez (an air force official) about the journalist, he smiled and said 'Don't worry – he is alive, but very shaken up,'" Mr. Edwards said."I felt really bad for that reporter."When the war was over, on June 14, Mr. Edwards went to celebrate at a famous Chilean nightclub, Las Brujas – Chile's 1980s answer to Studio 54."Lots of our Chilean colleagues were there," he recalled. "And they seemed as happy about the victory as we were."But his regime overthrew a Democracy and installed a dictatorship that abused human rights and had a terrible reputation. But eyes were closed to all of that, and a reporter violently was beaten up to cover up what the British Government and the C.I.A was getting up to.Generalissimo Augusta Pinochet inherited a regime that had bought arms and training and equipment from Nazi Germany during the Third Reich years. Chilean soldiers still march using the Nazi “Goos” stepping today wearing Nazi helmets.Shades and echoes from a dark past…..C.I.A Covert Action and Interference in Chile led to a Dictatorship and the Fall and Death of an Elected Democratic President.“The Chinese have a saying Cookie, beware what you wish for”. Quote from the actor Robert De Niro in Film of “Navy Diver”.By Jack Devine.On September 9, 1973, I was eating lunch at Da Carla, an Italian restaurant in Santiago, Chile, when a colleague joined my table and whispered in my ear: “Call home immediately; it’s urgent.” At the time, I was serving as a clandestine CIA officer. Chile was my first overseas assignment, and for an eager young spymaster, it was a plum job. Rumours of a military coup against the socialist Chilean president, Salvador Allende, had been swirling for months. There had already been one attempt. Allende’s opponents were taking to the streets. Labour strikes and economic disarray made basic necessities difficult to find. Occasionally, bombs rocked the capital. The whole country seemed exhausted and tense. In other words, it was exactly the kind of place that every newly minted CIA operative wants to be.I ducked out of the restaurant as discreetly as I could and headed to the CIA station to place a secure call to my wife. She was caring for our five young children, and it was our first time living abroad as a family, so she could have been calling about any number of things. But I had a hunch that her call was very important and related to my work, and it was.“Your friend called from the airport,” my wife said. “He’s leaving the country. He told me to tell you, ‘The military has decided to move. It’s going to happen on September 11. The navy will lead it off.’”This call from my “friend”—a businessman and former officer in the Chilean navy who was also a source for the CIA—was the first indication the agency’s station in Santiago had received that the Chilean military had set a coup in motion. Not long after, a second source of mine, another prominent businessman connected to the Chilean military, called for an emergency meeting; he and I agreed to meet at his house just after dark. He confirmed the earlier report and added one key detail: the coup would begin at 7 AM. Citing my two sources, I sent CIA headquarters in Langley a special type of top-secret cable known as a CRITIC, which takes priority over all other cables and goes directly to the highest levels of government. President Richard Nixon and other top U.S. policymakers received it immediately. “A coup attempt will be initiated on 11 September,” the cable read. “All three branches of the armed forces and the carabineros [Chile’s national police] are involved in this action. A declaration will be read on Radio Agricultura at 7 a.m. on 11 September. . . . The carabineros have the responsibility for seizing President Salvador Allende.”That is how the U.S. government learned of the coup in Chile. This might be hard for many Americans, Chileans, and people elsewhere to believe, since it has become conventional wisdom, especially on the left, that Washington played a crucial role in the military-led overthrow of the democratically elected Allende, which resulted in the nearly 17-year authoritarian rule of General Augusto Pinochet. The coup in Chile is often included in indictments of U.S. covert action during the Cold War, during which the United States, at the direction of a number of presidents, sometimes took actions of questionable wisdom to prevent or reverse the rise of leftists who Washington feared might lead their countries into the Soviet orbit. But I can say with conviction that the CIA did not plot with the Chilean military to overthrow Allende in 1973.It is important to set this straight for the sake of history: the CIA should not be blamed for bad outcomes it did not produce. In general, U.S. covert operations have worked far more often than anyone not involved in intelligence work would guess. But some misguided covert operations have hurt the United States more than they helped it, including the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the coupling of covert missile sales to Iran with illegal support provided to Nicaraguan insurgents during the 1980s, which came to be known as the Iran-contra affair. To avoid such missteps, policymakers and the public need to understand what makes a covert operation wise or unwise. That distinction is often hard to see even when everyone agrees on the basic facts. The persistent mischaracterizations of Washington’s role in the 1973 coup in Chile have muddied the waters, making it harder to have a productive debate about covert action.TWO-TRACK MINDSAdmittedly, one primary cause of the confusion about the 1973 coup is the unquestionable fact that the United States helped launch an earlier coup attempt against Allende. In September 1970, after Allende finished first in a three-way presidential election, Nixon summoned CIA Director Richard Helms to the White House and told him in no uncertain terms to foment a preventive coup—one that would keep Allende from taking office despite his victory. The leadership of the agency believed that any attempt to keep Allende from taking office would fail and also lead to bloodshed, especially in the short time frame Nixon demanded. But Nixon believed that it was essential to U.S. interests to try it and ordered the CIA to conceal the plans from the U.S. ambassador to Chile and other U.S. officials in the country. The plot came to be known as Track II—a secret complement to Track I, the political and propaganda effort that Washington had mounted earlier to keep Allende from being elected in the first place.Track II was clearly a major mistake. The Chilean military wanted no part of a coup after the election, and the Chilean people were not supportive of blocking Allende. Even though his margin of victory was very small, Allende had been elected through a democratic system that the Chilean military had supported for more than a century. Later, his government’s mishandling of the economy would galvanize opposition in both quarters. But in the early fall of 1970, Allende had not yet taken office, so there was not even a justifiable pretext for action.The officers in the CIA station in Santiago felt little enthusiasm for a coup, and the station chief did not hide his doubts. “Parameter of action is exceedingly narrow and available options are quite limited,” he cabled Washington immediately after Allende’s election victory. “Urge you do not convey the impression that station has a sure-fire method for halting, let alone triggering coup attempts,” read another message, sent around the same time. But the White House and Langley ignored these warnings and pressed for action. In September 1970, Helms even sent the agency’s head of covert operations to Santiago to tell the station chief that if he wasn’t prepared to press for a coup, he could return to the United States that day. The station chief agreed to do the best he could, but he remained pessimistic.On October 22, 1970, a group of retired military officers tried to initiate a coup by kidnapping General René Schneider, the commander in chief of the Chilean army, who staunchly opposed military intervention in Chilean politics. The CIA was aware of the plan. But the kidnapping went awry: instead of abducting Schneider, the plotters wound up killing him. The country immediately rallied around Allende, who was inaugurated 12 days later. At that point, all coup plotting ended and Nixon drastically altered his policy. The new goal was to support the political opposition and avoid giving Allende an excuse to exploit anti-American sentiment to increase his domestic popularity and international support.THE MEDIA ACCOUNTIn response to the new policy, the CIA resumed its strategy of supporting Allende’s domestic political opponents and making sure Allende did not dismantle the institutions of democracy: the media outlets, political parties, and labour organizations that formed the Chilean opposition. CIA officers were under strict orders to make contact with the military only for the purpose of gathering intelligence, not fomenting coups.But Washington was still determined to support Allende’s foes, and that meant the CIA’s job was to recruit people who could supply the U.S. government with secrets and act at its behest. My first recruit was a senior Communist Party official with whom the station had maintained periodic contact for a number of years but who had not been put on the payroll. Our go-between with this official was a local businessman, who agreed to set up a lunch at his home for me and the office so that I could make the pitch. I was apprehensive, but our host tried to put me at ease. He graciously served us a local delicacy, a deep dish of erizos: raw sea urchins. Fortunately, he accompanied the erizos with an excellent bottle of Santa Rita 120 white wine. After every spoonful of erizos, I took a big sip. Before long, the erizos started to taste better, and the target seemed more amenable to cooperation. But I took too long to get to the point for our host, who finally blurted out, in so many words, “How much money are you going to give this Communist for his cooperation?” I immediately suggested $1,000 per month, and the official accepted.My most important responsibility at the time was handling the “media account,” especially the CIA’s relationship with El Mercurio, the oldest and most influential newspaper in Chile. The newspaper’s owner feared that Allende’s government might expropriate his businesses and put the media under government control; that made him a natural ally for the agency. The paper never used propaganda to deliberately mislead readers about the Allende government’s economic policies, but between the lines, it did emphasize stories about the government’s seizures of private property, the illegal and violent actions of certain segments of the ruling coalition, and the spectre of economic disaster.Although a notion persists that El Mercurio was an organ of the CIA, the agency had no role in what was printed in the paper. In fact, the editor did not take kindly to outside influence on editorial operations, and the CIA met only with the business side of the paper. The agency did not want to co-opt El Mercurio; rather, it wanted to ensure continued press freedom. The Allende government did not officially censor the media, and half a dozen independent daily newspapers in Santiago represented the full spectrum of political opinion. Shortly after my arrival in Chile in 1971, however, the government blocked El Mercurio’s access to newsprint. This, along with cutbacks in advertising and labour unrest, threatened to shut the paper down, and that would have been a tremendous loss. So the agency gave the paper roughly $2 million over the course of two years, which allowed it to continue publishing.After the failed coup in 1970, the CIA also maintained sources inside the Chilean military, but they were not nearly as numerous or important as the agency’s assets in the media and political parties. The agency wasn’t getting regular information from high-ranking Chilean military personnel and had no meaningful relationship with Pinochet before he took power. In fact, the deputy station chief in Santiago had made contact with Pinochet but was unimpressed by him, considering him too weak to lead a coup.EMPTY POTS AND PANSThe CIA’s covert efforts to reduce support for Allende played an important role in the political turmoil that characterized his time in power. But the fierce opposition Allende faced was primarily a response to his own flawed economic policies, which hurt not only the wealthy but the middle and working classes as well. Perhaps fearing that his narrow margin of victory gave him little time to pursue his vision of a socialist Chile, Allende rushed into a program of land reform, nationalization of industry, and government spending to stimulate the economy. Initially, it seemed to work. In the government’s first year, real gdp grew by nearly eight percent, production increased by more than 12 percent, and consumption levels grew at a rate of 13 percent. But by early 1971, Allende’s economic populism began to backfire. Landlords became reluctant to maintain properties that might be seized at any moment. Business owners began leaving the country, taking their capital and entrepreneurial know-how with them. And the public at large suffered shortages of basic goods.Allende faced political problems, too. The moderate Christian Democrats were alarmed by his nationalization of industry and opposed his agenda in parliament. Meanwhile, leftists in Allende’s ruling coalition thought he should move even faster. Their impatience bolstered the Revolutionary Left Movement, which sponsored seizures of privately held land in the countryside, often by violent means, creating a climate of fear and worsening food shortages.Among my pool of covert assets at the time was an elderly middle-class woman, a grandmotherly type. She suggested putting together a demonstration in which women would carry pots and pans along with banners protesting the scarcity of food and basic household items. It sounded like a good idea, at least worth a small investment. I gave her several hundred dollars but had low expectations. So I was stunned a few weeks later when I was walking near a park not far from the U.S. embassy and heard the thunder of thousands of women parading down the street, pounding on pots and pans. There, among those directing the marchers toward the presidential palace, was my asset. Later that night, as the demonstrators gathered outside the palace, leftist students arrived on the scene and physically attacked the women. Images of Chilean housewives getting harassed by leftist youths flashed around the world, creating a publicity nightmare for the Allende government and a rallying point for the opposition.The demonstration came to be known as “the March of the Empty Pots and Pans,” and soon, similar protests were organized by other women’s groups, sometimes aimed at the military, which the women challenged to act against Allende. In one particularly memorable protest, women threw chicken feed at soldiers, suggesting that they were too timid to oppose the president. Allende tried to mitigate the damage by suggesting that the United States was behind the marches. Of course, to some degree, he was right. But blaming the United States—a tactic that had worked after the failed coup attempt in 1970—brought him limited success this time: his claims of American meddling had begun to sound like an excuse.In October 1972, the main Chilean truckers’ union went on strike. The country had limited railroads and little air transport, and most goods were carried by trucks owned by small, barely profitable firms. The truckers felt squeezed and worried that Allende was planning to nationalize their industry. When the president announced plans for a mixed public-private transport operation in the Aisén region, the truckers walked off the job. Shop owners closed their doors, partly in sympathy and partly because there would be no goods to buy or sell if the truckers weren’t working. Within two weeks, bus and taxi drivers had joined in; soon after, professionals such as engineers, health-care workers, and pilots went on strike as well.Some have alleged that the United States paid the truckers to go on strike. That is not true. The truckers asked the CIA for support, and the station chief thought it was a good idea. But the U.S. ambassador to Chile, Nathaniel Davis, opposed it. Davis did not dismiss the idea out of hand, however. He tried to maintain a good relationship with the CIA because he always feared the agency might take drastic action behind his back, as it had done to his predecessor in launching Track II. So he sent the truckers’ request to Washington, where the White House officially rejected it.THE TANK PUTSCHBy the spring of 1973, as the economy spiralled downward and street demonstrations became routine, rumours began to spread of an imminent coup. The station dutifully reported to Langley the chatter its officers were hearing, but the CIA’s analysts were skeptical. They did not believe the military would subvert the constitution, and there had been false alarms before. Earlier that year, a covert Chilean asset had called his CIA case officer and said, “My aunt is sick and may not live to recover.” The agreed-on phrase to indicate that a coup was underway was somewhat different: “My aunt has died.” The ambiguous call, coupled with other indications that plotting was under way, led the CIA station to believe that a coup was about to take place. The station sent a CRITIC cable warning Washington to be prepared. The next morning, when nothing happened, the station ended up with egg on its face.Yet in June 1973, an actual coup attempt did take place. A group of about 80 soldiers from an army tank unit who had been drinking heavily decided to free an officer who had been arrested earlier for calling for a coup. They obtained the officer’s release from the Ministry of National Defense and drove a column of 16 armoured vehicles to the presidential palace and the ministry headquarters, convinced that they could light a spark that would ignite the entire armed forces.But the army’s commander in chief, General Carlos Prats, was determined to secure the military’s tradition of nonintervention, and he went in person to the presidential palace to confront the soldiers, who backed down and returned to their base with little resistance. After the failure of this so-called tank putsch, the CIA concluded that there would never be a military coup. What the agency didn’t realize was that senior officers in the military had been rattled by the challenge to their authority and feared that a breakdown in discipline would spread. They believed that the younger officers would press for a coup, and senior officers such as Pinochet worried that if they didn’t join forces with the upstarts, they would be swept away by them. Far from marking the end of coup plotting, the tank putsch was when it began in earnest.In the street, strikes and protests continued apace. In August, after an anti-Allende protest organized and attended by military wives, Prats resigned and Pinochet became commander in chief. By then, the mood in the entire country had darkened, and the CIA began to reconsider the prospect that a coup might take place. Less than three weeks after Pinochet’s promotion, my friend called from the airport.“THE BABY WILL BE DELIVERED TOMORROW”In the days leading up to the coup, some State Department officials in the U.S. embassy in Santiago did not trust the information the CIA had received. “You issue a memo like that every Friday,” scoffed a friend of mine who worked there. It’s true that the station had been hearing and reporting coup rumors for weeks, but we had never had the kind of solid information we did now, which we had confirmed with three separate high-quality sources, each of whom provided more details.On the night of September 10, a skeleton crew, including the station chief and me, stayed in the CIA station so that we would be ready to take reports from the field when the coup began. The phone rang. “The baby will be delivered tomorrow,” a voice said, then hung up. I had no idea who was calling, and the message didn’t match any of the agreed-on codes. But I sensed someone was trying to tell us what we already knew: a coup was about to start. The phone rang again. “Uncle Jonas will be in town tomorrow” was the message this time. We received similar calls throughout the night, and by 7 AM the next day, we were on tenterhooks, waiting to see if our sources were correct. Time passed with no word. We feared we had another false alarm on our hands and that our credibility might be permanently compromised. Then, at 8 AM, we got the report: the navy had started the coup with an uprising in the city of Valparaíso. Our source had been off by an hour.By 9 AM, the armed forces were in control of all of Chile except for the center of Santiago. When informed of the coup, Allende had refused to resign and gone directly to the presidential palace. Troops filled the streets downtown. Skirmishes and sporadic firefights erupted. Barricades went up around the U.S. embassy, and traffic ground to a halt. Shortly before noon, Chilean air force jets screamed across the skies over downtown Santiago and began firing rockets into the presidential palace. The whole city erupted in gunfire. At around 2 PM, Chilean troops stormed the presidential palace. The CIA learned from sources who were present at the assault that the military planned only to capture Allende, not to execute him. But he took his own life rather than become a prisoner of the military. By 2:30 PM, Pinochet’s reign had begun.Washington hailed Allende’s demise as a major victory. Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kis-singer, were pleased. So was the CIA: against all odds, the Santiago station had helped create a climate for the coup without tainting the effort by becoming directly involved. In the heady days immediately following, we took pride in having helped thwart the development of Cuban-style socialism in Chile and having prevented the country’s drift into the Soviet orbit. We expected that Pinochet’s junta would hold on to power only long enough to stabilize the economy and would soon thereafter call for elections and step aside.Caesar Augusto: Pinochet reviews troops inside the presidential palace in Santiago. (Martin Thomas / Courtesy Reuters)BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOREvents quickly dampened the sense of triumph. Soon after the coup, I met with a high-value asset who had infiltrated an extremist wing of the Chilean Socialist Party. After the coup, he had been arrested in a military roundup and then interrogated and tortured. He was a tough guy, but we were concerned that he might have divulged his ties to the CIA under pressure, so we approached the meeting with caution and placed the meeting site under heavy surveillance. If he had been compromised, he could have been turned against us and instructed to feed us false information. Fortunately, the Chilean military interrogators who had questioned him had no inkling of his affiliation with the CIA and never asked him about any ties to the agency.At our meeting, he described his torture in graphic detail. Despite the beatings, he had stuck to his story and eventually convinced his interrogators that he was not affiliated with the extremist element of the Socialist Party. But he must have detected a bit of suspicion on my part: Was his story incomplete? Was he exaggerating his abuse? In order to prove his point, he rolled up his pants to reveal ugly scars and black-and-blue marks on his legs, left by the abuse he had suffered after being shackled and yanked around by his captors. Whatever reservations I had about his trustworthiness disappeared.The worst was yet to come. In a secret memo dated September 24, 1973, less than two weeks after the coup, the CIA station in Santiago reported that “the deaths of the great majority of persons killed in cleanup operations against extremists . . . are not recorded. Only the Junta members will have a really clear idea of the correct death figures, which they will probably keep secret.” On October 12, another memo quoted a source saying that the Pinochet regime had killed 1,600 Chilean civilians between September 11 and October 10.It also quickly became clear that Pinochet had no intention of relinquishing power. And over the course of the next year, the Pinochet regime’s human rights violations and its imposition of martial law cast doubt on the wisdom of U.S. policy in Chile. At the CIA station, we continued to hear disturbing reports of mass arrests, torture, and the “forced disappearance” and killing of people regarded as subversives. Many Chileans were not troubled by these actions. They deeply feared the extreme leftists and didn’t believe that the military would harm innocent civilians. They were wrong. Years later, official Chilean investigations revealed that the Pinochet regime had murdered more than 2,200 people for political reasons and had imprisoned more than 38,000, many of whom were tortured.My fellow CIA officers and I were seriously disillusioned by the brutality and repression of the Pinochet regime. None of us ever imagined that Pinochet’s dictatorship would last until 1990. That outcome has troubled me over the years, but it has not shaken my faith in the positive potential of covert action. When I arrived in Santiago, every indication was that the Allende government was intent on undermining the political opposition, threatening Chile’s independent media, and moving Chile into the Soviet sphere of influence. In that environment, it was fair game to support the opposition parties and help the media resist such antidemocratic actions. I’m convinced that if the Chilean military had not intervened in September 1973, our covert-action programs would have sustained the opposition until the next election and the Allende government would have been defeated at the ballot box—a far more preferable outcome than the Pinochet regime.When a new station chief arrived shortly before my departure from Chile, in 1974, he asked me to write a memo about the situation in the country. I produced a rather blunt document suggesting that the United States should start using the same covert tactics against the Pinochet regime that it had used against Allende, in order to bring about a return to democratic governance. I doubt the station chief agreed at the time, and he probably never sent my memo to Washington, if for no other reason than to protect my career.KNOW YOUR LIMITSThe U.S. experience in Chile in the early 1970s offered a number of lessons about how to carry out good covert actions and how to avoid bad ones. Some of those lessons have been learned, but too many have not. This poses a problem for the United States as it leaves behind an era defined by major military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and enters a new period, in which covert operations will become more crucial in places such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Ukraine.To most clearly grasp the lessons of Chile, consider the differences between the Track I and the Track II covert actions. The planners of Track I took into account the political environment in Chile and concluded that it would be difficult and probably unwise to attempt to overthrow a democratically elected leader who enjoyed genuine public support; better, they surmised, to limit themselves to restraining any antidemocratic impulses Allende expressed once in office. Track I’s planners also recognized that even that more modest goal would require a well-coordinated plan that drew on the support and expertise of different parts of the U.S. national security system.By contrast, when Track II was launched, the conditions on the ground in Chile did not favour the kind of military coup the plan envisioned, and the Chilean coup plotters with whom the CIA aligned itself lacked adequate resources and popular support. Yet the Nixon White House subscribed to the idea that all it would take was a spark, a belief that officials sometimes latch on to when considering whether to undertake covert actions—and which usually proves to be wrong. Track II also failed to coordinate the activities of different arms of the U.S. government. The plan was hatched and handled by a very small group of White House staffers and CIA officials, and they kept the State Department largely in the dark—including even the U.S. ambassador to Chile.Washington needs to avoid such missteps in the coming years, which are certain to witness the increased covert competition between the United States and its adversaries. U.S. officials will need to become more adroit practitioners of the covert arts. As they hone their craft, they should never lose sight of how political realities in other countries can constrain U.S. intelligence activities, and they should remember that excessive secrecy and bureaucratic turf battles can compromise even the best-designed, most justified covert actions.This article appears in “What Really Happened: Solving the Cold War’s Cold Cases,” a special package in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, available online June 18.Publicado30th May 2014por MillaloncoIn 2013, the anniversary year of Pinochet’s coup, Britain is aggressively refreshing its ties to Chile’s military establishment. From May 28-30, Chile’s defence minister visited London for annual bilateral defence discussions. Earlier in May, a 15-member delegation of military and civilian security and defence officials from 11 countries came to Chile on a “study tour” organized by Britain’s Royal College of Defense Studies with the support of the UK Embassy in Santiago. Chile’s defence minister welcomed the group. In late July and early August, “academics” from the British Army’s college at Sandhurst travelled to Santiago to train students from Chile’s defence institutions in counterinsurgency techniques.There’s no secret to Britain’s current ties to Chile’s military: the British government has advertised these visits on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, stating that counterinsurgency training “was organized as part of the ongoing efforts to reinforce and strengthen the close ties between the British and Chilean Ministries of Defence.Chilean Army troops positioned on a rooftop fire on the La Moneda Palace on Sept. 11, 1973, in Santiago, during the military coup led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet that overthrew Chilean constitutional President Salvador Allende, who died in the attack on the palace.AFPChile is an ever-present reminder to the West of the excesses of Cold War anti-communism. Pinochet seized power for the country’s capitalist establishment and labelled his leftist antagonist's violent extremists. Pinochet did not shirk from calling his opponents terrorists and subversives. The dictator governed Chile through terrifying presidential rule from 1973 until 1990. A million people went into exile, tens of thousands were tortured, and thousands died or disappeared without a trace, often in the allied causes of counterinsurgency, counterterrorism or anti-communism.In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher and Pinochet strengthened their special relationship. Thatcher offered staunch support, staving off criticism of the general’s human rights abuses since he shared information to help defeat the Argentine generals who in 1982 attacked Las Malvinas/Falkland Islands. Thatcher had supported Pinochet when she came into office after her landslide victory against the Labour Government in 1979. Thatcher dropped the de facto arms embargo imposed by British parliamentary leftists in reaction to the human rights abuses after the 1973 coup.British support for Pinochet never waned, even with Thatcher out of office and New Labour elected to government in 1997. A year after Tony Blair’s victory, London police arrested Pinochet to face extradition to Spain. While under house arrest, the ex-prime minister, since elevated to Lady Thatcher, visited him at a rented mansion house in Surrey, a leafy west London suburb. The BBC reported that Thatcher thanked Pinochet on behalf of the British people, saying “I know how much we owed to you for your help.” Thatcher extolled the former dictator for “bringing” democracy to Chile.Lady Margaret Thatcher, right, visits Augusto Pinochet and his wife at their temporary residence, where the former dictator was under house arrest at Wentworth in Surrey, UK, on March 26, 1999. Daily Telegraph/AFPBritain’s current support for Chile’s military attracts attention because Santiago’s law-and-order establishment have been criticized for heavy-handed repression against student protesters, and for using anti-terror legislation to permit violence against the indigenous community of Mapuches. In Santiago on July 30, British academics from the UK’s Army Officer School presented a counterinsurgency course to participants drawn from Chile’s military. By coincidence, also on July 30 in the capital, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism expressed concern over the “confused and arbitrary … misuse” of Chile’s counter-terrorism legislation that had “resulted in real injustice” against the country’s Mapuche indigenous people. The state had met Mapuche land protesters with violent repression, some of them detained and imprisoned as terrorists.U.N. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, a British human rights barrister, concluded his two-week country visit to Chile in July with the statement that the Carabineros (its gendarmerie, a type of police belonging to Chile’s army) and investigative police had violently abused the Mapuche using Chile’s anti-terror legislation. The Special Rapporteur confirmed that these crimes by state agents remained unpunished. The U.N.’s counter-terrorism and human rights expert recommended a “new independent investigation body” regarding the “excessive violence” by the state under the anti-terror legislation against the Mapuche land protesters.The British counter-insurgency courses included 20 students from Chile’s military establishment. According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s press release, these students came from the Chilean Ministry of Defense, the National Intelligence Agency, the Carabineros and all three branches of Chile’s military. Chile is, as one British Foreign Office minister said in March 2012, “a long-standing friend of the UK.”Mapuches, Chile’s largest indigenous group, participate in a protest rally in Santiago on Oct. 15, 2012. Hundreds of indigenous Chileans and members of social organizations marched to demand the restitution of their ancestral lands – just days after the 520th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ arrival in America. Martin Bernetti/AFPIt’s 40 years since the piercing screech of the British Hunters’ devastating attack on Santiago’s presidential palace. Britain’s support for Chile’s military rides an all-time high. Since May 2010 Britain’s Conservatives have had the upper hand in a coalition government with the Liberals. Prime Minister David Cameron has been determined to keep the special relationship with Chile alive, perhaps to defend London’s claim in the ever-simmering dispute with Argentina over Las Malvinas/Falkland Islands. Britain has entered into high-level talks with Chile, either in Santiago or London, every year since 2010. In 2013, London has doggedly pursued ties with Chile’s military establishment.The democratic transition has not calmed Chile’s politics or restored complete faith in state institutions. Films, literature, music, scholarly studies and Chile’s left-wing student protest movement all demonstrate that the country has never reconciled itself to the coup and the subsequent 17 years of authoritarianism. The country remains divided between the Right and the Left, in spite of official truth commissions that account for past excesses of torture, political imprisonment and disappearances at the hands of Pinochet’s military government. Human rights activists and observers have long criticized Chile’s judiciary for its ongoing sympathy to Pinochet-era human rights abusers.The UK Coalition Government’s present support for Chile’s military seems willfully ignorant of the history of the effects of a special relationship forged 40 years ago in the crucible of the anti-communist coup. Pinochet left office in 1990 but the wounds inflicted on Chilean society have never healed. Over the past two decades, Chile has attempted to transition from dictatorship to democracy. Chile’s democratic governments have signed up to human rights treaties, but the legacy of abuses and impunity persist, creating deep divisions within Chile. The Chilean state continues to abuse human rights, as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Counter-terrorism and Human Rights has observed – he will present a full report on Chile in 2014. Britain has ignored the consequences of its role: the United Kingdom government has never been forced to reflect on its support for Pinochet, all the while cozying up to Chile’s defence establishment.Patrick Timmons is a writer, journalist, human rights lawyer and historian of modern Latin America. He has published in CounterPunch, the Texas Observer and the Latin American Research Review. He can be contacted at: http://www.facebook.com/patricktimmonsauthor.….The documents from the Ronal Reagan Administration in America also predicted that the conflict which began after Britain dispatched a military taskforce 30 years ago would be a "close-run thing" that could bring about Margaret Thatcher's downfall.President Reagan was right to be worried. Mrs. Thatcher was planning a daring, audacious “Coup De Maine” SAS commando operation, which had all the possibilities of turning into a Suicide Mission.Code named “MIKADO”The secret Falklands 'suicide mission'Would Operation Mikado have been a brave assault in the finest traditions of the SAS or a hubristic suicide mission?'The SAS were bloody good. They would have destroyed everything in sight.’ Above: a Hercules transporter Photo: AlamyBy Neil Tweedie and Thomas Harding7:30AM GMT 22 Mar 2012Five in the morning, May 21 1982, seven weeks into the Falklands conflict. The Argentine radar operator at Rio Grande airbase, on the island of Tierra del Fuego, is looking forward to his bed. Outside, rain is blowing across the deserted airfield.The blip appears out of nowhere, 25 miles out to sea, coming in fast and low. Suddenly alert, the operator calls over his duty officer, but the blip has already faded.Out over the South Atlantic, two C130 Hercules transports of 47 Squadron Royal Air Force battle through the night. Buffeted by strong headwinds, they skim the waves at 50 feet to evade detection. The co-pilots peer through night‑vision goggles, guiding the pilots towards the coast, one lapse enough to cause disaster. Night vision is in its infancy, the devices a secret gift from the Americans. Tension mounts as landfall over Argentina approaches, the conclusion of a 13‑hour flight from Ascension Island involving two mid-air rendezvous with Victor tankers.Behind the crews, in the cavernous holds of the Hercules, some 60 men of B Squadron, 22nd SAS Regiment, ready their weapons and vehicles, Land Rovers bristling with machine guns. This is a one‑way mission, the best outcomes being escape to neutral Chile, or capture. The worst outcome is all too obvious.Minutes later, the C130s slam down on the runway at Rio Grande. The rear doors are already open, the lowered ramps scraping the ground. In an instant, the Land Rovers are charging straight for the apron where four French-built Super Etendard fighters of the Argentine navy stand. Some of the SAS fling charges into the engine intakes while others search for the Etendard pilots, who are to be shot on sight. Another group search for the weapon that above all others threatens Britain with defeat in the South Atlantic: the Exocet. Moments later, the first charges explode. Gunfire erupts. The world dissolves into chaos.Related ArticlesParachute Regiment to return to Falklands for first time in 30 years 02 Apr 2012Tutu calls for talks over the Falklands 27 Mar 2012Argentina accuses Britain of 'militarising' South Atlantic 27 Mar 2012'Paras killed with bayonet as well as bullet' 20 Mar 2012Peru cancels visit by British frigate over Falkland Islands 20 Mar 2012Court ruling risks new row with Argentina 20 Mar 2012Had it happened, Operation Mikado would have been the most dramatic raid staged by Britain since the Second World War, a desperate coup de main intended to remove the Exocet threat to the Royal Navy task force seeking to retake the Falklands. With the approach of the 30th anniversary of the war, some of those involved have cast fresh light on an operation that can be seen either as an audacious assault in the finest traditions of the SAS, or a hubristic suicide mission.“In my own mind I saw it as a one-way ticket,” says Tom Rounds, navigator in one of two Hercules crews trained for Mikado. “In my final letter to my wife I said as much. We all had our bags packed. If we didn’t come back, they just had to put them on the next plane back to the UK and hand my stuff to the missus.”The SAS, known as “hooligans” to the RAF crews, began planning assaults on Argentine airfields within days of the invasion of the Falklands on April 2, and a month before Exocet, a French-built sea‑skimming anti-ship missile, burst on to the world stage.“The planners had decided that fighter bases were acceptable targets,” says Rounds. “We reckoned it would take 20 to 30 minutes. The vehicles would rush out full of hooligans to reap mayhem. We would seal the aircraft up and take off in a minute – real Second World War stuff.”Training was intense, involving simulated nocturnal attacks on RAF airfields from Kinloss in Scotland to Binbrook in Lincolnshire. The rule book was torn up as the Hercules roared low over Britain, trying to get into airfields without being spotted by ground radar. “The station commanders were told that we might arrive at any time and would not call the control tower,” says Rounds. “We came in as low as 50 to 100 feet.”Rounds’ pilot was Jim Norfolk. “It was huge fun,” he says. “So exciting, so bloody dangerous as well. There was no night vision, there were no runway lights. One time, the rear aeroplane ended up in front. We passed each other in the descent and never knew a thing about it.”On April 19, Argentina deployed four of its five Super Etendards to Rio Grande. Only five air-launched Exocets were available. On May 4, two of the fighters, each carrying one Exocet, went in search of prey. They found it in the shape of HMS Sheffield, alone on radar picket duty. She had three minutes to react before one missile scythed through her hull, killing 20 men. Shock at the loss of a modern destroyer to a single guided weapon was profound, but solutions to the threat posed by the remaining missiles were few. Argentina’s Patagonian airfields were 4,000 miles from Ascension, Britain’s nearest airfield, making a sustained RAF bombing campaign impossible. A Sea Harrier strike would involve exposing the task force’s two irreplaceable aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible, to attack.Enter Brigadier Peter de la Billière, director of the SAS and a favourite of Margaret Thatcher since the Iranian embassy siege in London in 1980. He now championed the Mikado assault to the War Cabinet. There was a problem, however. Some RAF ground controllers claimed to have spotted the Hercules approaching their airfields. Surprise was the essence of Mikado, and early detection would be fatal.“There was a degree of professional pride,” says Rounds. “Air traffic control was saying, 'We spotted you way out.’ I thought, 'No, you didn’t.’ Also, they were forewarned about our coming – the Argentines wouldn’t be. Nevertheless, it created negativity that was picked up by some of the SAS.”Major John Moss, commander of the SAS’s B Squadron, became steadily less convinced about the operation’s viability, matters coming to a head as his unit prepared to leave Hereford for Ascension. The Argentines were believed to be taking steps to thwart such an attack, garrisoning airbases and dispersing aircraft.A major setback occurred on May 17, when a covert mission to insert an SAS team to observe Rio Grande was aborted. The helicopter involved flew on to Chile, where the crew and SAS team gave themselves up. Chile was a secret ally of Britain throughout the war, allowing an RAF Hercules to be based first on Easter Island in the Pacific and later on the mainland. The aircraft markings were painted out and the crew disguised with American-style flying suits.Moss’s objections earned him summary dismissal. In his autobiography, de la Billière states: “I was dismayed to find that the attitude of this unit [B Squadron] remained lukewarm. The trouble, I found, lay in the squadron commander, who himself did not believe in the proposed operation.”A more gung-ho CO was appointed and B Squadron shipped out for Ascension. Despite the failure of the covert reconnaissance mission, Mikado proceeded. It came nearest to taking place between May 19 and 23 when one, not two, Hercules was prepared for the attack.“I had a hearty all-day breakfast,” says Rounds. “Jim [Norfolk] was pacing around smoking, going, 'Rounds, how can you eat at a time like this?’“It’s not bravery, it’s just backing yourself. If you’re worried about death, you’re in the wrong business. Get out and become a bloody accountant. It’s war. You are trained to fight and die, if need be. It didn’t matter if we couldn’t get out, but we had to get in. There was always a good chance of that. If the aircraft got shot up on the runway it didn’t matter, as long as the hooligans destroyed the fighters. Coming home was a bonus.”“You knew you weren’t coming back because there was no tanker plan for the return leg,” says Norfolk. “The plan was for us to sit on the runway waiting for the hooligans to do their stuff and come back, but they had no intention of doing that. They were going to bog off on foot to Chile, and I was going to take the aircraft and do the same.”Would it have worked? “The SAS were bloody good. If they could get off the aircraft they would have destroyed everything in sight. There would have been a lot of revenge, though, which probably would have been directed at the Hercules.“The Mikado raid? I thought it was bloody stupid, actually. Too bloody far. We didn’t go because it wasn’t authorised. Hereford had run wild with this idea. Luckily, our flight commander was down on Ascension, keeping us on the sensible side of hooliganism. With half an hour to go, he told us no order had been received. It came down to Margaret Thatcher, I suppose. It would have been too much of an escalation.”“We were geared up to go,” says Rounds, “a hair’s breadth away from the trigger being pulled. It was a huge anticlimax. The intensity of the training was immense.”John Moss has remained silent on Mikado for 30 years, but now allows himself a modicum of self-defence. In a pointed reference to de la Billière, he says: “Only four people knew what was happening, I was one of them. One person, who has written a book, didn’t actually know everything as he wasn’t at the training. Afterwards we all shook hands and decided we would never say anything about it, but one person decided to do otherwise.“I put my point of view across at the time, which I felt was the right one. After leaving the Army I went down to Argentina to look at things in a bit more detail. I’m happy with the decision I made. It was the correct one and I couldn’t care less what other people have done.”Argentina’s remaining air-launched Exocets were to claim one more victim, the container ship Atlantic Conveyor, sunk by a single hit on May 25, Argentina’s national day. With her went Chinook and Wessex helicopters intended for the British assault on Port Stanley.“Moss articulated what a lot of his men felt, and took the flak,” says Rounds. “Personally, I regret we didn’t do it. I really wanted to be tested. But we would have been lucky to get out.”Well, there is a spectacular piece of British Military understatement………“Much must be risked in war” From Roald Tolkien LOTR... Denethor to his son Faramir.Below shows an Argentine marine figurine Model a modeller has converted from a plastic figurine.Below. Argentinian soldiers with their Panhard armoured car in the Malvinas islands (the Falkland Islands)Special Feature. The Argentinian French built PANHARD Armoured car.Panhard AMLSeries vehicles.Panhard AML-245Panhard AML at the Musée des Blindés, Saumur.TypeArmoured Scout CarPlace of originFranceService historyUsed bySee OperatorsWarsList of Conflicts[show]Production historyDesigned1959ManufacturerPanhardProduced1961–1987No.built4,812VariantsSee VariantsSpecificationsMass5.5 tonnes (6.1 short tons; 5.4 long tons)Length5.11 m (16 ft 9 in)length3.79 m (12 ft 5 in)(hull)Width1.97 m (6 ft 6 in)Height2.07 m (6 ft 9 in)Crew3 (commander, driver, gunner)Mainarmament90 mm D921/GIAT F1 (20 rounds)60mm Brandt mortar (53 rounds)Secondaryarmament7.62 mm MAS coaxial machine gun (2,400–3,800 rounds)EnginePanhard 1.99 l (121 in 3) Model 4 HD flat 4-cylinder air-cooled petrol90 hp (67 kW) at 4,700 rpmPower/weight16.36 hp/tonne (11.9 kW/tonne)SuspensionWheeled 4x4Ground clearance0.33 m (1 ft 1 in)Fuel capacity156 L (41 US gal)Operationalrange600 km (370 mi)Speed60 km/h (37 mph)The Panhard AML (Auto Mitrailleuse Légère, or "Light Armoured Car") is a fast, long-ranged, and relatively cheap first-generation armoured car with excellent reconnaissance capability.Designed on a small, lightly armoured 4×4 chassis, it weighs an estimated 5.5 tonnes—much lighter than a tank—and is, therefore, more suited to rapid airborne deployments.Since 1959 AMLs have been marketed on up to five continents; several variants remained in continuous production for half a century.These have been operated by fifty-four national governments and other entities worldwide, seeing regular combat.The AML-245 was once regarded as one of the most heavily armed scout vehicles in service, fitted with a low velocity DEFAD921 90 mm (3.54 in) rifled cannon firing conventional high explosive and high explosive anti-tank shells, or a 60 mm (2.36 in) breech-loading mortar with 53 rounds and dual 7.5mm MAS AA-52 NF-1 machine guns with 3,800 rounds, all mounted coaxially in the turret.An AML is capable of destroying targets at 1,500 meters with its D921 main gun. In this configuration, it is considered a match for second-line and older main battle tanks.AMLs have appeared most prominently in Angola, Iraq, and Chad, as well as in the Lebanese Civil War between 1975 and 1990It is interesting to note that the Panhard armoured cars carried a bigger velocity gun that which had been fitted into the German Tiger 1 Panzer 6 in the second world war, on a much more mobile chassis.The original armoured car Panhard design dates from France during the 1950s.During World War II, the French Army and their Free French successors used a wide variety of vehicles for reconnaissance duties, ranging from the compact Laffly S15 to the Panhard 178, which could mount the same 75 mm armament as contemporary heavy tanks, and multi-wheeled designs such as the Type 201.After the war, it became less desirable to maintain this plethora of armoured cars. In July 1945 Paris issued a requirement for a postwar design combining those features of previous assets – especially the Type 201 – that had shown potential both during and prior to the Battle of France. This led to the 8x8 Panhard EBR (Type 212) which entered service in 1950.Similarly, in 1956 the French Ministry of Defense has persuaded to commission a replacement for the Daimler Ferret scout car.Also manufactured by Panhard, the successor was the AML (Type 245) which entered service in 1961.As with much postwar hardware based on the experience of subsequent colonial theatres, the AML was recognized for its outstanding ruggedness, dependability, firepower-to-weight ratio, and adaptability to the numerous minor conflicts waged since 1945.This reputation has led to export success in over forty countries, Africa is one of its biggest markets.Published by the National Security Archives, an independent research organization in Washington, they also reveal American worries that a drawn-out war could involve the Soviet Union on Argentina's side creating wider-reaching geopolitical repercussions.To prevent this, the Reagan administration provided Thatcher’s government with covert support, most notably in the form of satellite intelligence on ……Get the picture?It is significant that after all, from reading the above Newspaper release from 2012, that a Russian submarine was supposedly reported near the task force? that those two Sea Harrier fighters almost attacked a Russian submarine “by mistake” operating in the area?America under Ronald Reagan had in fact been supplying the Task Force and the UK Government with secret military information from satellites spying on Argentian, so as to greatly “speed up” Argentinas defeat, to stop the conflict becoming a “long drawn-out affair” and risking long term Russia entering the war in the South Atlantic on the Argentinian side..What might best explain the UK Leaders en rattlemnt, over Diana Goulds questions, was not risking revealing something that might give the spying game away.It may actually be that to make certain information public, could lead to trouble and more dangerous controversy over the precise and exact extent that the UK Government and Military Intelligence were able to successfully employ electronic eavesdropping, (listening posts) into Argentinian navy and Army radio traffic.Aftermath[Belgrano Action GroupAscension IslandAfter the exchange, Gould became involved with the Belgrano Action Group, an activist group set up by Member of Parliament opposition Party Tam Dalyell, Clive Ponting and others. In 1986 she sat on the organizing committee of their informal public inquiry into the sinking, held on 7 and 8 November that year in Hampstead Town Hall.Thorp reportThatcher's statement that the public would know the full facts in 30 years may have been a reference to a report she had requested from Major David Thorp, who was in charge of signals intelligence on the HMS Intrepid during the war, sailing near Ascension Island.Entitled The Sinking of the Belgrano, the report has not been published, but Thorp wrote in his book The Silent Listener (2011) that the General Belgrano had been ordered to sail into the exclusion zone to rendezvous with other ships, possibly for a pincer attack against the British, and not to her home port as the Argentine government claimed at the time.Thatcher had read the report, but she did not make the information public; according to the Daily Telegraph, she may not have wanted to disclose the extent of Britain's eavesdropping.Britain decided to fight and lost 900 military and civilian lives to retake the Islands. However, Argentina has never ever signed any formal document or decree of Surrender Militarily, and it has added ownership of the “Malvinas Islands” to its post-war Political constitutions.But, that having been said, now we come to a second rather dodgy piece of intelligence, this time one definite, proven and leaked out from the American C.I.A. Also published in an English daily Newspaper.The American C.I.A in fact already had a secret plan to make Britain give back to Argentina the entire Falkland Islands, and send the British Civilian islands Residents to resettle in Scotland. The above partial document comes from an English Newspaper which has leaked the story. It contains extracts from the CIA Secret documents exposing the grim Political reality.Beware of the men in Grey suits in the corridors and shadowy backrooms of Power…..Surface fleets ever since Pearl Harbour have been in constant threat from the dangers posed from aerial attacks.Nicknamed as “Bomb Alley” by the British soldiers, San Carlos Water. The Falkland Islands. (Las Malvinas).The question speaks of "substantial losses". Any "loss" is substantial if you are in it or a part of it.I could mention a certain group, the sergeant and officer of which I personally and unexpectedly "met" in Bath some years ago, in the "Parrot"..then a .pub there.....Parachuted into Bosnia and then "burned" by Westminster and "Green Slime" (their nickname name for a certain organization) and left to get killed, cleaned away out of embarrassment, to have to fight their own way home, but that is another "story".....Everybody has a "job" to do, whatever side you were "on" or not on, at the time. That is after all what Professional soldiers or Pilots do is it not?Except perhaps for the Politicians and liars....real two-faced slippery and bad assed buggers who get everybody killed....and always come out of shit smelling of Roses and with stacks of cash....or a plane out of the country...Perhaps this is why, I rather "enjoy" the end of a certain film, featuring Richard Burton, (Colonel Falkener) where he finally catches up with "Sir (so and so) the Politician who has double-crossed him along with a certain other organization, , empties his safe of all the cash he has kept for himself by betraying Falkener and his men to get killed, and then Falkener neatly spoils that mans suit....."Sean Finn" played by Roger Moore asks Falkener as he gets back Inside their car outside the house "Need I ask how it went?" "No" replies Falkener......"I thought not" replies Finn......Massive Relics from a Bygone Age. Operation “Black Buck” the Aerial bombing campaign from Avro Vulcan Ex Nuclear bombers. Refuelled in mid-flight by Victor Tankers, (another ex British Nuclear “Blue Steel” Bomber converted to aerial tanker role) the Vulcans prepare to begin hostilities over the Falkland Islands below.The last gasp before the attack. Victor tanker refuels Victor tanker in an electrical storm. Vulcan 607, BLACK BUCK One stands off waiting her turn.At 0400 Local on 1st May 1982, the population under a curfew of a now filthy and stinking Port Stanley were roused from their beds by the visceral thumps of just over nine tons of high explosives from the direction of the town’s airport. After the explosions came to the roar of four Olympus turbojet engines, that shook the Capital’s wooden buildings and random gunfire was heard all over the town and surrounding area. To the occupied citizens of Port Stanley, it meant one thing.OneOne Vulcan bomber is actually refuelling the other Vulcan bomber, in a scene from the Falkland Islands war.Both conflicting political powers had modern airforces.BackgroundDespite initiating the war, Argentina had not prepared a plan for the subsequent defence of the islands. The military dictatorship that governed the country at the time regarded the seizure of the Falklands as a political act to obtain a diplomatic bargaining position, and not as an act of war. Consequently, they were taken by surprise when the British responded with a large-scale mobilization, and a task force to retake the islands.IAI Dagger, Argentine Air Force, 1984The Argentine Air Force (Fuerza Aérea Argentina; FAA) had never considered the possibility of waging a long-range naval air campaign against a major NATO power. It was not trained or equipped for such a mission. The FAA had only two tanker aircraft to serve the whole air force and navy, and its fighter-bomber Mirage IIIs and IAI Daggers were not equipped for aerial refuelling. The FAA's training, tactics and equipment were focused on a possible war against Chile, resulting from disputes such as the Beagle conflict.The option to attack Chil was a cause of great concern to the Argentina military during the war. The Chilean armed forces had deployed a significant force to Chile's common border with Argentina, and the FAA was forced to reinstate their retired F-86 Sabres to bolster Argentina's air defences.In Argentina's favour, Peru immediately offered its support to the Argentine cause, with the Peruvian Air Force even offering to fly combat missions. This was politely declined by the Argentine government. As the war progressed, Peru and Venezuela sent critical aircraft spare parts to Argentina, urgently needed by the FAA and the Brazilian Air Force leased two EMB111 Bandeirantes maritime patrol aircraft to the Argentine Navy.Finally, on June 4, ten Peruvian Mirage 5 with AS-30 missiles arrived to Tandil but the war ended before they could be used.Israel Aircraft Industries technicians that were in the country under the 1979 IAI Daggers contract continued their work during the conflict.By the best estimates, Argentina totalled about 240 planes when the war broke out. About half of those were posted in the interior and along the Chilean border.The long distances from their bases prevented them from using their top speed or they risked running out of fuel.Although the Argentines had more aeroplanes than the British Task force, a good number of them were Pucara turboprops.The A-4 Skyhawk force were dependent on the two available KC-130 tankers, limiting the amount of aeroplanes that could attack simultaneously.Argentina's fleet of A-4 Skyhawk attack jets was in very poor condition. The arms embargo placed by the United States in 1976, due to the "Dirty War", had made most airframes unusable. The involvement of Israel in helping to return the A-4 to full operational status has been alleged but has never been confirmed.Another secret of the Falklands war we shall never ever know. And boy, this conflict was full of them.The small air arm of the Argentine Navy (Armada Republica Argentina; ARA) was in the middle of the transition from the A-4Q Skyhawk to the new Super Etendard. Only five of the Etendard's anti-ship Exocet missiles had been delivered at the time of the conflict, at which point an arms embargo prevented the delivery of further shipments. Additionally, the required programming for the missiles to interact with the Etendard's computers had not been completed by French engineers when the conflict broke out. France, being an ally of the United Kingdom, recalled all technicians, which left Argentine scientists and electronic engineers to figure out a way to make the missiles take input from the plane's computers. Navy pilots, particularly those of the 3rd Naval Fighters Squadron flying A-4Qs were the only ones trained in bombing warships. Air Force pilots trained during April against the two Argentine Type 42 destroyers, similar to those of the British Fleet, and according to the Naval officers, all the sorties were shot down, causing great concern to the High Command until the successful May 1 strikes which proved that aircraft could survive.Finally, Argentine military aviation had never been involved in an international conflict, indeed the last time the Argentine military had been involved in an international conflict was the War of the Triple Alliance more than a century before.In spite of these disadvantages, Argentine air units bore the brunt of the battle during the six-week war, and inflicted serious damage and losses to the naval forces of the United Kingdom. Low-flying jets attacking British ships provided some of the most sobering and dramatic images of the war. By the end of the conflict, the British forces had come to admire the FAA's spirited conduct in the face of an effective air defence network.Admiral Sandy Woodward, the British Task Force commander said: "[t]he Argentine Air Force fought extremely well and we felt a great admiration for what they did."The British Operational Research Branch Report declassified and released to the public in February 2013 states:“The Argentine air arms conducted a 10 week campaign during which time they carried out air supply of their forces in the Falkland Islands, reconnaissance of UK forces in the South Atlantic, and engaged units of TF317. Though they sustained considerable damage, it is fair to say that their air forces were not beaten and remained as a viable force at the end of hostilities. The 4 air arms(ndlr: FAA, COAN, CAE, PNA )were, within their own spheres, generally capable and well organised, though limited in AAR and reconnaissance assets. A lack of aircraft spares may also have limited their effectiveness. Of the 3 facets of operations, the Argentine air arms are considered to have been successful in the air supply of their forces, only partially successful in the reconnaissance task, and to have inflicted significant attrition on UK naval forces. No militarily significant success was achieved against UK land forces ashore.”……..The war to free them and oust the Argentine invaders had begun. To the Royal Air Force, it was the culmination of an incredibly complex engineering and logistics plan. Thirteen Victor tanker aircraft had flown south with two Vulcan bombers, to attack the airfield at Port Stanley. To the aeronautical experts, it meant that an aircraft designed in the 1940s, which had first entered service in 1956 and was due to be retired, had just carried out the longest bombing raid in history to that date.Argentinas Navy was equipped also with “Exocet” Missiles supplied by Frances defence industry.The Modern French navy still deploys “Exocet” Missiles. Marine Nationale - Le Rafale M27 équipé du missile air-mer AM39 EXOCET,However, these Missiles can also be fired or launched from adapted helicopters.Other Hercules Military Transport aircraft had to be especially “adapted” to take part in the Falklands (South Atlantic) War and had to be retrofitted with some kind of long-range refuelling apparatus drogues. Sources close by said it was actually literally designed in the air force workshop hangars, on the back of a “fag packet”….(slang in English for a packet of cigarettes).Ascension Island was also used as a landing and refuelling base and was attacked by the Argentinian U boat type submarine commanded by Alfredo ASTIZ. Astiz was a highly controversial Political figure, linked by western journalists to the “TORTUZO” or Argentinian “death squads”. He was implicated in political “disparitions”, suspicious deaths, murders, and was wanted by the Police and Government in Sweden for the murder of Swedish woman “Dagmar Haeglin”.It seems the Argentinian Junta had fallen into the same trap that bedevils failing Governments unpopular at “home”, and had seized upon Britains percieved weakness Politically and militarily, to start a “foreign war” in the (Malvinas) Falkland Islands.It should have been no surprise to anyone about Argentine intentions towards the Falkland Islands. Bilateral talks between Britain and Argentina had been ongoing, although these had been inconclusive and more talks were planned. In was announced that in June 1981 Britain would withdraw HMS Endurance, the Antarctic Survey Ship and the islander’s only real link with the UK. It was Argentine stupidity that concocted the plan to forcibly invade the Falkland Islands by military means. If they had waited a few months they could have strolled in with a band, majorettes and a troop of Boy Scouts. And of course, they picked the wrong British Prime Minister.Vulcan bombers once formed part of Britain's Nuclear Deterrent or V Force, before Nuclear defence priority was switched to the Navy with the development of the POLARIS Missile.The other two of the three V Force aircraft types are shown below.Below. An RAF Handley Page Victor Tanker Aircraft which did take part along with the Vulcans in the Falklands Conflict.Above. A valiant bomber. Though the Valiant never took part in the conflict, I have shown it here for interest.Above. Royal Marines providing defence.Above. The soldiers who landed again later had to defend themselves from Air attacks.Pity the real world cant be so simple when you get screwed by people who don't give a damn, who always enjoy the “best of both worlds” politicians in cozy houses....the ones who tell you lie after lie after lie, get your friends or lovers killed or murdered and then set you up in a far away foreign country to "fail", (another subtle form of elimination)....And if you survive, they bury you Under a mountain of more lies....The leaked American C.I.A Documents clearly prove the secret plan was after all those people got killed retaking the islands, to give it back to Argentina anyway….Films are not reality, war is always unjust, unfair, and uncertain, (they say all is fair in love and war don't they) in reality the beautiful girl heroine was killed and left in a ditch, the system did not do what they said they did another thing, and the hero was driven out the country and labelled as a madman so no one will ever believe him...."we do not have this problem" you understand?Maybe the reality is more like a film after all.....One they dare not make....Talking of "a loss", I am always surprised by the "substantial losses" found amongst some Leaderships and Governments....especially the empty space between both ears.....Hail “Caesar”!!!….Err Which one is telling the truth? ……Politicians lie, soldiers and civilians all Lie,…..what really is “the flag” after all in the end? When asked to recapture the town of Torre Castro in Spain, from French troops, the character of Richard Sharpe said: “Who is going to fight and die for a piece of old rag on a pole!!!!?????” (referring to the holy flag and sacred banner of “Santiago” St James he was ordered to fly from the church tower to incite rebellion against Emperor Napoleon of France). The Major of Army Intelligence, HOGAN, turned to him and said: “You do Sharpe,…YOU Do!”…..Point made?! What's “good for one” can also sometimes be good enough for another.Mrs. Thatcher bitterly criticized general Galtieri and his men, but others also criticized Mrs. Thatcher for “wrapping herself up in Falklands Bunting”. It was, after all, her weakening by defence cuts which set eyes upon the islands in the first place….Generalissimo “Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri” Commander in Chief of the South American Invasion forces against Britain during the Falklands conflict.I suppose that to the "world" back in the 1980s, yes, of course by the loss of those ships and more importantly the lives of the people on them it was surprising, war is rather surprising , and because there had not up until then been a ship borne task force, for many years, to report on, the Conflict in the South Atlantic was surprising.But losses are to be expected in any war, that is the nature of war and has been for thousands of years....As corruption and deceitfulness are the stock in trade of Politicians....British Falklands Islands Hero Simon Weston. His face was horrifyingly injured by fire during the attacks on the British ships, after the war, he wrote an incredibly inspiring book, and he is quoted as saying “It is not what happens to you, it is what you do about what you happen’s to you” or how you react to it. He went on to inspire a great many persons with his courageous example of fortitude, courage and determination. He also wrote a book which the author of this article has read.War is full of surprises. Secret documents, conspiracies, accidents and mistakes get covered up, Politicians and Generals have quarrels, everyone else catches a “cold”…..In the end, both sides were professional soldiers, doing a job, if anyone or anything was at fault, certainly it was the Politicians and leaders, who wanted to “look good at home” at any price…..The price those shining men in grey suits was in fact, to give the Islands back to Argentina anyway after the war.Britain had been on the verge of finishing Mrs. Thatchers “sale of the century” policies by selling off and scrapping just about everything the Task force needed to retake the islands.Threats to “retake the Falklands” if Argentina re-invaded seem now to be “far fetched “ and bullish. The Vulcan bombers are long gone, and England did not even have enough aircraft to fill up the second of the two Aircraft carriers they ordered, one of which they tried to sell later to France. It would have to be done by American aid, militarily, and given what it says in the leaked CIA documents, I doubt very much if England would actually be realistically able to ever mount any such operation again.This Thursday will mark the 30th anniversary of the end of the Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina -- a 10-week affair that could be considered Britain’s last “military victory.”The mini-war killed more than 900 people on both sides and wounded another 1,800.Reportedly, after the surrender of Argentine troops was announced, Londoners appeared outside Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s residence at No. 10 Downing Street and serenaded her with the patriotic song of empire, ''Rule Britannia.''Over the past three decades, the conflict over these remote islands in the South Atlantic Ocean has never really subsided – Argentina, which calls the islands Las Malvinas, still claims the territory as its own, citing sovereignty through inheritance from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.Argentina wants to negotiate a handover of the islands to Buenos Aires, while London adamantly refuses to contemplate any such thing.The British government firmly asserts its right to the Falklands under the strength of its near-continuous administration of the islands since 1833. Westminster also cites the Falkland Islanders' right to self-determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish.British Prime Minister David Cameron complained earlier this year that Argentina has a colonialist attitude towards the Falklands – a statement quickly condemned by the Argentine Senate.Cameron’s remarks also prompted a protest at the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, where Argentine demonstrators demanded that diplomatic ties to London be cut.Argentina frequently refers to the Falklands (a.k.a. Malvinas) as an “illegally occupied territory,” for example when Prince William made a highly publicized visit to the islands in February.The matter has flared recently with salty rhetoric between Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and various senior officials of the British government, including Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne, who claimed that Buenos Aires is attempting to impose an economic blockade on the Falkland Islands by preventing the development of tourism there.Among other measures, Argentine ships have turned back cruise ships featuring the Union Jack, while Argentina has also declared that offshore oil exploration projects by British companies in the region are “illegal.”Not coincidentally, Browne is scheduled to visit the Falklands to celebrate the 30th anniversary of its “liberation.”The British are seemingly eager to hold onto these piles of rocks in the middle of a distant sea.The chairman of Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, James Arbuthnot, recently even threatened: If the Falkland Islands were by any chance to be retaken by Argentina, we would take it back. Argentina should be in no doubt of that at all.Located less than 300 miles from the Argentine coast (and 7,900 miles from London), the Falklands comprise two principal islands with a population of about 3,100. The Islanders are overwhelming of British descent (with a sprinkling of other Northern Europeans) and have UK citizenship.The islands' economy is tied to farming and fishing, although tourism is increasing in importance. Falklanders use a currency called the “Falkland pound” (which is, in fact, freely exchangeable for the better-known pound sterling).English, of course, is the national language, and Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state.The fact that Britain would fight so hard to keep the Falklands under its umbrella may reflect desperation on its part to hold onto the last vestiges of its once-great empire.Indeed, the British Empire was the greatest empire the world has ever known – dwarfing those of the Romans, Mongols and Russians.At its peak in the early 20th century, the British Empire controlled about one-fifth of the planet’s real estate and its population (which, of course, included India). Not even the legendary Roman Empire could compare in size and scope.Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, the “British Empire” (or, more appropriately, what’s left of it) seems to consist primarily of a handful tiny islands scattered across the Atlantic, Caribbean, Pacific and Indian oceans: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena; South Georgia and Turks and Caicos.In the parlance of government, these are classified as “British Overseas Territories,” which basically means that they are self-governing, but remain under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.Combined, they account for a total population of about 260,000 (or less than 3 percent of the population of Greater London). In fact, Pitcairn and South Georgia barely have 200 living souls between them.Britain’s last great colonial holding, Hong Kong, slipped away in July 1997 – taking with it one of the world’s great financial hubs and a population of some 8 million.Now, the Falklands, a windy group islands populated largely by sheep, are the remains of empire.Mrs. Thatcher, like General Galtieri, needed her “foreign war” to hold on to power for the Torys. In certain terms, I no longer consider the “grocers daughter” or the South American General to be “so terribly different” after all.The surprising thing was this for me personally, apparently Mrs Thatcher and the Tory Government were about to scrap the landing ships Sir Galahad and Sir Tristram as part of the "defence cuts".....which would have rendered the entire operation to recover the Falkland Islands and the innocent persons held hostage on the school floor in disgusting conditions, impossible without American or other aid.When hearing of a Victory, Mrs. Thatcher said: “Just rejoice and be joyful in that news”….She carried “on in power” until her own cabinet ousted her in a “grubby little meeting”…..others took power in Argentina.What's changed since the days of Rome and the Caesars? !!!Stay away from Governments.....The Flag you kiss in the morning they will bury you Inside in the afternoon....EPILOGUEAs I was searching for a few more soldier images to enhance this article, I came to this rather “bizarre” and highly controversial article dating from 2015. I do not know about this facet of the Falklands war, and because it comes from the Argentinian “side”, I felt it was worth showing here for information and to add another dimension (please forgive me and excuse the bad joke it's not really funny is it) to the article.Former Argentinian Navy SEALs have recently come out of the shadows to disclose not only the gruesome details of the 1982 Falklands war, but also how extraterrestrial forces and aircraft were actively changing the outcome of the battle.Echos from a dark past. Hans Kammler and the Nazi “bell” project.These strange flying discs, s have a history of visiting conflict zones, but we’ve always suspected they do more than just peacefully observe the battlefield.Gennaro Martino, a former Navy SEAL who was dispatched in the short conflict between Argentina and Great Britain in 1982. He’s 65 now (27 back then) and mysteriously ill with an unknown disease. His relatives believe he’s been somehow poisoned by the secret services because of his knowledge.As he says, at his age he’s not afraid anymore, so when two of his brothers in arms recently died of different unknown flash diseases, he decided to speak about what he witnessed on the largely unpopulated island during the English siege, before his sickness silences him forever.YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX, COMPLICATED SITUATION OF OUR COUNTRY, OUR PEOPLE, EVEN MORE IN THAT TIME. WE ARE A PATRIOTIC PEOPLE, AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE GOVERNMENT USED THAT AGAINST US. WE KNEW WE WERE SLAUGHTER LAMBS, THEY WANTED TO GET BACK PUBLIC SUPPORT BY CONQUERING THE ISLAND THAT HAD NO VALUE WHATSOEVER, BUT THE PATRIOTIC ONE.BUT WE ALSO KNEW IF WE DIDN’T, THE PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER US THE TRAITORS AND THEM THE GOOD GUYS. IT WAS A MORAL HELL.”Next, he tells how they got to the island (which was officially in Great Britain’s possession) and occupied it without any resistance, then waited, he uses the same words, like slaughter lambs, for the British to come and smoke them out. When they did, it was absolute chaos and carnage.There was so much fire from the English that the other Argentinians didn’t notice the ships (UFOs ) or did but thought they were a hallucinating cause of the fear, but we both saw them, me and Pero. There were many models,” he remembers, referring to his mate Pedro “Pero” Escalante who recently perished out of unknown causes. “ We were all firing cannon like crazy, but we almost never hit anything, yet when I got home and heard the English death toll, I knew what we’ve seen was real,” he added.This echoes of a very similar story, one dating from 1948, of a Task Force that got sent to the Antartica to smoke out a Nazi base built by Grand Admiral Donitz’s “disappearing U Boatmen”. The ships and soldiers were also fired upon and attacked, taking severe losses from the German developed circular gun platforms at the base there. It is generally accepted that Werner von Braun designed exactly such “circular discs” for Germany’s Nazi Government, and one is believed even earlier than that, to have been built and flown by Maria Orchik of the pre-nazi occult science VRIL Society.Notice the unusual features on that “non-existent” Nazi U boat submarine, as it is towed away.A team of Russian researchers have rediscovered the site of the secret German World War II base "Schatzgrabber" ("Treasure Hunter") on the Arctic island of Alexandra Land, in the Barents Sea.This confirms the decades of rumours about such a place.The Russians have actually re-discovered some parts of the remains of the Antartica nazi base and in one of the great lakes near Niagara near Canada, one of Hitlers “special” secret submarines has recently been re-discovered. Officially “no battle” took place near there, but wartime reports go strongly contrary and prove the existence of Nazi activity in these other nearby areas.here, below, is a photograph of the Nazi U boat, that was buried under the cover story of a “group hysteria” after the war, and rested undiscovered until recently it was salvaged and re-floated.The Antartica base was buried under thousands of tons of ice and rubble, according to sources, in an Atomic bomb blast in 1948, which may also have finally killed the runaway German leader who escaped from Berlin in 1945. French radio reported a signal and message coming from Adolf Hitler on “Explorers Island” in 1947. These circular discs were no more than newly developed “Repulsin” powered Nazi weapons systems, crewed by soldiers wearing divers type pressure suits.The post-war so-called UFO sightings were merely Herr Hitler's new flying weapons paying visits to various places for Military reasons after 1945. Soviet Russia to the sightings seriously, (they also had plenty of visits after the war) and sightings. I do NOT subscribe to any crackpot or conspiracy theories, I simply “put two and two” together between Hitler's escape from Berlin, French radio in 1947, saying it has intercepted a radio message coming from Adolf Hitler on “Explorers island”, the leaked story about another British Allied task force who got sent to Antartica in 1948 and who also were fired upon, and attacked from both beneath the surface of the water, and from the skies above it, by water and air travelling “disc” type airframes in 1948, A number of ships got hit and melted in a bad way and the task force was forced to”withdraw”. There are a great many reports these days of an Atomic bomb actually being dropped by a long-range American type flying wing craft, a post-war aeroplane, to destroy whatever or whoever was down there. It is no secret in Germany about these designs, many speak and talk of them, they were scientific Nazi experimental aircraft, nothing to do with “little green men” or deluded folk who have taken drugs and had “trips”. They were developed and used there were several scientists and inventors of them, not merely just Von Braun and Maria Orchik, and the sightings in the Falkland Islands by the Argentinian marines during the war there are to be added to countless other ones since the war ended..Junkers 390 six engined giant nazi transport aircraft flew top runaway nazi “officials” and Gestapo to other countries and secret Nazi sympathizers after the defeat of 1945.One Junkers 290 (not a 390 with a shorter range) was found in Spain which landed and the Gestapo men on board took a ship for South America from a Spanish port.It is hardly a great secret that some Nazi officials escaped to Argentina or Brazil after the war ended in 1945. These giant transports were often under control of the SS and the secret German KG 200 or “Moonlight Squadron” and were not listed or accountable in the same manner as more “ordinary” Military hardware. Thee particular airframes were a special design and were used by “special” organizations and persons for secret scientific and military purposes.Argentinas leadership during the Falklands war conflict, had been Antisemitic, and it is more than possible that certain surviving elements of the flying experiments, manned by the artic colonists or their descendants, Arctic colonists forces, circular platforms would be aware of the conflict and decided perhaps to enter it themselves on the South American side, (after all Southern America did give them help and shelter after the war). America cannot logically be the only power out there “eavesdropping”. These flying machines always turn up over a battlefield. One was reported at Kursk in 1943.Jews targeted in Argentina's dirty war FROM THE UK GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER.By Uki Go-i in Buenos AiresWed 24 Mar 1999 14.10 GMTFirst published on Wed 24 Mar 1999 14.10 GMJews were a prime target of Argentina's self-styled "Western and Christian" military dictatorship during the "dirty war" of the late 1970s, accounting for a disproportionate number of the thousands of "disappearances", a report has confirmed.The 196-page report presented to the Spanish judge Baltazar Garzán in Madrid on the sufferings of Argentina's more than 300,000 Jews during the dictatorship that lasted from 1976 to 1983 also reveals that at least two international Jewish organizations requested support from the governments of Brazil and the United States in case an evacuation of Argentine Jews proved necessary."Jews represented more than 12 percent of the victims of the military regime while constituting under 1 percent of Argentina's population," said Juan Pablo Jaroslavsky of the Barcelona-based Commission of Solidarity with Relatives of the Disappeared (Cosofam), which presented the report this month.Mr. Garzán, who in a separate investigation has asked for the extradition of Chile's former dictator General Augusto Pinochet from Britain, has since 1996 been investigating the disappearances in Argentina of more than 400 Spanish and Spanish-Argentine citizens.He has issued international warrants for the arrest of some 120 former Argentine military officers charged with genocide, state terrorism and torture. Among them is the former Argentine dictator General Leopoldo Galtieri, who ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982.Mr. Garzán has only one Argentine under arrest in Spain so far - the former naval captain Adolfo Scilingo, who has admitted throwing around 30 prisoners into the Atlantic. His trial could begin this summer.The Argentine government, which issued a series of amnesty laws and presidential pardons between 1986 and 1990 preventing the prosecution of all but a handful of those accused of human rights violations, is furious at Mr Garzán's investigation."Under no circumstance will the trials in Spain be tolerated," President Carlos Menem has said.Cosofam maintains that the military regime enacted "a specific anti-Semitic genocidal plan" during the dirty war against political opponents.The official figure for disappearances is 10,000, but human rights groups claim the death toll could be as high as 30,000."We have identified 1,296 Jewish victims by name out of the official list of 10,000 victims," Mr. Jaroslavsky said. "But if the unofficial figure of 30,000 total victims is correct then the number of Jewish victims could be over 3,000."Nazi ideology permeated the military and security forces during the country's dictatorship. Recordings of Hitler's speeches were played during torture sessions."I remember when I was arrested in 1977 there was a giant swastika painted on the wall at the federal police central headquarters where I was interrogated," said Robert Cox, the British former editor of the English-language Buenos Aires Herald.The Argentine rabbi Daniel Goldman, who was expected to fly to Madrid this week to testify before Mr. Garzán, hopes the report will help the Jewish community come to terms with the dictatorship. "While it cannot be said there was an open plan for the elimination of Jews, there cannot be any doubt now that captured Jews were singled out for special punishment," he said.Some generals were obsessed with the "Jewish question", including the chief of the Buenos Aires police, General Ramon Camps. He arrested Jacobo Timerman, the editor of the daily newspaper La Opinion. After months of torture Mr. Timerman was stripped of his citizenship and expelled - his life saved only by diplomatic pressure from the US government.Enraged at being forced to surrender Mr. Timerman, Gen Camps called a bizarre press conference at which he played tapes of his interrogation to prove the editor was a Zionist.Such intimidation silenced public protest by Jewish organizations in the country. The son of the president of one group was kidnapped. The local representative of the American Jewish Committee, Jacobo Kovadloff, fled to New York after threats to his life.US Jewish organizations laid contingency plans for a mass evacuation of Jews from Argentina. The report reveals these organizations' rescue efforts, claiming the US Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society secured a promise from Brazil to provide temporary asylum for 350,000 Argentine Jews.It also says that Rabbi Alexander Schindler of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations obtained a promise from US state department officials in 1976 to provide 100,000 visas to Jewish refugees from Argentina if necessary.The report says the Great Rabbi of Argentina, Menahem Fitterman, met Jewish leaders in New York in 1976 to plead for help in getting Jews out of the country.These conversations were in the strictest secrecy, though Mr. Cox is not surprised at the disclosure. He says: "The Jewish community was very divided at the time about whether it should be outspoken, for fear that this might only create an even fiercer anti-Semitic backlash."Long after World War 2, Argentina's secretive Government was compelled at Argentina's own congressional hearings to declassify some of its wartime dealings with Nazi Germany. Out of this tumbled the fact that a large multi-engined German aircraft flew to El Palomar airbase Buenos Aires on 2 May 1945 from Villa Cisneros [now known as Daklha] and unloaded a device simply called the Bell.The so-called Bell itself is another aspect of history shrouded in disinformation.It is however firmly known that it has unsavoury connections to SS general “Hans Kammler” who was in charge of “experimental work” in Nazi Germany, and whose disappearance remains an unsolved wartime mystery down to this day. It is known he had at least two of the giant KG200 transport aircraft or codenamed “lorries” at his disposal and likely took a flight to South America in one of them when the Russians overran his scientific area.How do we know this aircraft which arrived in Argentina on 2 May 1945 was a Ju 390 and not some other type?It is surely no secret that top Nazis fled to Argentina after the defeat of 1945.Argentina is noted for its history of serving as a refuge for Nazis. It is believed by Jewish activists that two organized neo-Nazi groups are currently active in Argentina, however, these groups are relatively uninfluential politically and include less than 300 members between the two groups. On the other hand, it is believed that most antisemitic activity in Argentina stems from anti-Israel movements of militant Islamists and radical leftists, rather than from neo-Nazis.Indicators of antisemitismJournalists observing the number of spray-painted swastikas on the streets of Buenos Aires have voiced concern that antisemitism persists underneath Argentina's political correctness.The FLying discs are simply Germanys Surviving Antartica base Flying machines, developed in 1933 or earlier by VRIL.GERMAN FLYING DISCSHitler's advanced technology included intercontinental ballistic missiles, vertical takeoff aircraft, jet engines, cruise missiles, sound cannons, and many other advanced items. The Allies captured plans for what became the Boeing 747 Jumbo jet. Among the most secret items captured were planning for flying disks, that were at first called "Krautmeteors." Based on the evidence, they were built as early as around 1933 and went into mass production in 1940. Scientists involved in these projects were Bellonzo, Schriever, Miethe and Victor Schauberger.Schauberger developed the "flying hat" type disc that was later seen over the United States. The final version was the Bellonzo-Schriever-Miethe Diskus, as large as 135 feet and some up to 225 feet in diameter. They travelled over 2,000 km/hr and were planned to go over 4,000 km/hr. In 1945 they could reach a speed of 1,300 mph and an altitude of 40,000 feet in less than three minutes. The Germans developed the Delta wing craft and we're working on stealth technology, etc.Many pilots saw the strange craft over Germany. However, as soon as a craft was built, Hitler ordered it disassembled and shipped somewhere -- probably Antarctica. None of the craft was captured by the Allies, although some of the scientists were captured and then mostly disappeared, can somewhat be traced to Bell Textron and to places such as Area 51, which, surprise!, is infamous for its 'UFO' sightings.Here are some examples of news items during WW II concerning Germany's UFOs, from the "New York Times:""NEW YORK TIMES," December 14, 1944: "Floating Mystery Ball Is New German Weapon. SUPREME HEADQUARTERS, Allied Expeditionary Force, Dec. 13 -- A new German weapon has made its appearance on the western air front, it was disclosed today. "Airmen of the American Air Force report that they are encountering silver coloured spheres in the air over German territory. The spheres are encountered either singly or in clusters. Sometimes they are semi-translucent."...and, "SUPREME HEADQUARTERS Dec. 13 [Reuters] -- The Germans have produced a 'secret' weapon in keeping with the Christmas season."The new device, apparently an air defence weapon, resembles the huge glass balls that adorn Christmas trees. There was no information available as to what holds them up like stars in the sky, what is in them or what their purpose is supposed to be."(Note: In regards to the above, Bulgarian Physicist Vladimir Terziski wrote the following about the Nazi mystery 'spheres' and aerial disc projects: "...According to Renato Vesco... Germany was sharing a great deal of the advances in weaponry with their allies the ITALIANS during the war. At the Fiat experimental facility at lake La Garda, a facility that fittingly bore the name of air martial Hermann Goering, the Italians were experimenting with numerous advanced weapons, rockets and airplanes, created in Germany. In a similar fashion, the Germans kept close contact with the Japanese military establishment and were supplying it with many advanced weapons. I have discovered for example a photo of a copy of the manned version of the V-1 -- the Reichenberg -- produced in Japan by Mitsubishi. The best fighter in the world, the push-pull twin propeller Domier-335 was duplicated at the Kawashima works. Or a photo of Japanese high ranking Imperial navy officers inspecting the latest German radar station. A Japanese friend of mine in Los Angeles related to me the story of his friend's father, who worked as a technician in an aircraft research bureau in Japan during the war. In July of 1945, two and a half months after the war ended in Germany, a huge German transport submarine brought to Japan the latest of German inventions -- two spherical wingless flying devices. The Japanese R&D team put the machines together, following the German instructions, and... there was something very bizarre and other-earthy standing in front of them -- a ball shaped flying device without wings or propellers, that nobody knew how it flew. The fuel was added, the start button of this unmanned machine was pressed and it .... disappeared with a roar and flames without [into] the sky. The team never saw it again. The engineers were so frightened by the unexpected might of the machine, that they promptly dynamited the second prototype and choose to forget the whole incident." .It is also firmly known that Axis Japan was about to receive the designs for a giant multi-engined long-range aircraft from Nazi Germany, but the end of the war prevented further developments. japan had expressed Military interest due to the capacity of the six-engined aircraft to be able to attack America.The links between Germany and Japan and the secret experiments in the North Afrikan desert during the second world war have been described in my other articles.

United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland.US-Uk shares a special relationship and we’re one of the closest allies of the United States since the end of WW2. The two nations are bound together by shared history, an overlap in religion and a common language and legal system, and kinship ties that reach back hundreds of years, including kindred, ancestral lines among English Americans, Scottish Americans, Welsh Americans, Cornish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, Irish Americans, and American Britons, respectively. Today, large numbers of expatriates live in both countries. Through times of war and rebellion, peace and estrangement, as well as becoming friends and allies, Britain and the US cemented these deeply rooted links during World War II into what is known as the "Special Relationship". From a long-term perspective, the historian Paul Johnson has called it the "cornerstone of the modern, democratic world order". In the early 21st century, Britain affirmed its relationship with the United States as its "most important bilateral partnership" in the current British foreign policy, and the American foreign policy also affirms its relationship with Britain as its most important relationship, as evidenced in aligned political affairs, mutual cooperation in the areas of trade, commerce, finance, technology, academics, as well as the arts and sciences; the sharing of government and military intelligence, and joint combat operations and peacekeeping missions carried out between the United States Armed Forces and the British Armed Forces. Canada has historically been the largest importer of U.S. goods and the principal exporter of goods to the United States. As of January 2015, the UK was fifth in terms of exports and seventh in terms of import of goods.The two countries also have had a significant impact on the cultures of many other countries. They are the two main nodes of the Anglosphere, with a combined population of just under 400 million in 2019. Together, they have given the English language a dominant role in many sectors of the modern world.Former US President Donald Trump with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.Both nations have been close allies during many conflicts in the 20th and the 21st centuries, including World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Gulf War and the War on Terror.Although both governments also have close relationships with many other nations, the level of cooperation between the UK and the US in trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing has been described as "unparalleled" among major world powersThe close relationships between British and American heads of government such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as well as between Tony Blair and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been noted. At the diplomatic level, characteristics include recurring public representations of the relationship as "special", frequent and high-profile political visits and extensive information exchange at the diplomatic working level.Some critics deny the existence of a "special relationship" and call it a myth. Former US President Barack Obama considered German Chancellor Angela Merkel to be his "closest international partner" and said the UK would be at the "back of the queue" in any trade deal with the US if it left the European Union, and he accused British Prime Minister David Cameron of being "distracted by a range of other things" during the 2011 military intervention in Libya. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, US President Dwight Eisenhower threatened to revoke IMF loans because of Britain's invasion of Egypt to recapture the Suez Canal. In the 1960s, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson rebuffed US President Lyndon Johnson's request to employ British troops in the Vietnam War. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also privately opposed the 1983 US invasion of Grenada, and US President Reagan unsuccessfully pressured against the 1982 Falklands War.Following the election of Donald Trump as US president, the British government under Prime Ministers Theresa May and Boris Johnson[8] sought to establish "a new special relationship" with the Trump administration. Trump claimed that his relationship with Theresa May was "the highest level of special", and Trump praised Johnson as prime minister and celebrated comparisons that had been made between Johnson and himself, even endorsing him during the 2019 election. The Times reported that Johnson was viewed negatively and seen as a British Trump by US President Joe Biden and US Vice President Kamala Harris and that members of the Biden team ruled out the possibility of a special relationship with him.Although the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the US was perhaps most memorably emphasized by Churchill, its existence and even the term itself had been recognized since the 19th century, not least by rival powers.The American and British governments were enemies when foreign relations between them first began after the American colonies declared their independence from British rule, which triggered the American Revolutionary War. Relations often continued to be strained until the mid-19th century, erupting into open conflict during the War of 1812 and again verging on war when Britain almost supported the rebel Confederate States during the beginning of the American Civil War. British leaders were constantly annoyed from the 1830s to the 1860s by what they saw as American pandering to the democratic mob, as in the Aroostook War in 1838–1839 and the Oregon boundary dispute in 1844–1846. However, British middle-class public opinion sensed a common "special relationship" between the two peoples based on their shared language, migrations, evangelical Protestantism, classical liberalism and extensive private trade. That constituency rejected war, which forced Britain to appease America. During the Trent Affair of late 1861, London drew the line, and Washington retreated.Troops from both nations had begun fighting side by side, sometimes spontaneously in skirmishes overseas by 1859 and both liberal democracies shared a common bond of sacrifice during the First World War (though the US was never formally a member of the Allies but entered the war in 1917 as a self-styled "Associated Power"). British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's visit to the US in 1930 confirmed his own belief in the "special relationship" and so he looked to the Washington Naval Treaty, rather than a revival of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, as the guarantee of peace in the Far East.However, as the historian, David Reynolds observed, "For most of the period since 1919, Anglo-American relations had been cool and often suspicious. United States 'betrayal' of the League of Nations was only the first in a series of US actions—over war debts, naval rivalry, the 1931–2 Manchurian crisis and the Depression—that convinced British leaders that the United States could not be relied on". Equally, as US President Harry S. Truman's Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, recalled, "Of course a unique relation existed between Britain and America—our common language and history ensured that. But unique did not mean affectionate. We had fought England as an enemy as often as we had fought by her side as an ally".We’re one of the closest military allies of the USA:The intense level of military co-operation between the UK and the US began with the creation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff in December 1941, a military command with authority over all American and British operations. After the end of the Second World War, the joint command structure was disbanded, but close military cooperation between the nations resumed in the early 1950s with the start of the Cold War.Raising Union Jack and Flag of United States on WW2 memoir.Since the Second World War and the subsequent Berlin Blockade, the US has maintained substantial forces in Britain. In July 1948, the first American deployment began with the stationing of B-29 bombers. Currently, an important base is the radar facility RAF Fylingdales, part of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System although the base is operated under British command and has only one US Air Force representative, largely for administrative reasons. Several bases with a significant US presence include RAF Menwith Hill (only a short distance from RAF Fylingdales), RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall (scheduled to close in 2027), RAF Fairford (the only base for US strategic bombers in Europe), RAF Croughton (not an airbase but a military communications hub) and RAF Welford (an ammunition storage depot).Following the end of the Cold War, which was the main rationale for their presence, the number of US facilities in the UK has been reduced in number in line with the US military worldwide. However, the bases have been used extensively in support of various peacekeeping and offensive operations of the 1990s and the early 21st century.The two nations also jointly operate on the British military facilities of Diego Garcia in British Indian Ocean Territory and on Ascension Island, a dependency of Saint Helena in the Atlantic Ocean. The US Navy also makes occasional use of British naval bases at Gibraltar and Bermuda, and the US Air Force uses RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, mainly for reconnaissance flights.The Quebec Agreement of 1943 paved the way for the two countries to develop atomic weapons side by side, the British handing over vital documents from its own Tube Alloys project and sending a delegation to assist in the work of the Manhattan Project. The Americans later kept the results of the work to themselves under the postwar McMahon Act, but after the UK developed its own thermonuclear weapons, the US agreed to supply delivery systems, designs and nuclear material for British warheads through 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement.The UK purchased first the Polaris system and then the US Trident system, which remains in use. The 1958 agreement gave the UK access to the facilities at the Nevada Test Site, and from 1963, it conducted a total of 21 underground tests there before the cessation of testing in 1991. The agreement under which the partnership operates was updated in 2004; anti-nuclear activists argued that the renewal may breach the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US and the UK jointly conducted subcritical nuclear experiments in 2002 and 2006 to determine the effectiveness of existing stocks, as permitted under the 1998 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.The Reagan administration offered Britain the opportunity to purchase the F-117 Nighthawk stealth aircraft while it was a black program. The UK is the only collaborative, or Level One, international partner in the largest US aircraft procurement project in history, the F-35 Lightning II program. The UK was involved in writing the specification and selection and its largest defence contractor, BAE Systems, is a partner of the American prime contractor Lockheed Martin. BAE Systems is also the largest foreign supplier to the US Defense Department and has been permitted to buy important US defence companies like Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems and United Defense.The US operates several British designs including Chobham Armour, the Harrier GR9/AV-8B Harrier II and the US Navy T-45 Goshawk. The UK also operates several American designs, including the Javelin anti-tank missile, M270 rocket artillery, the Apache gunship, C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.Do you ask what is our economic policy??The US is the largest source of foreign direct investment to the UK, and the UK is likewise the largest single foreign direct investor in the US. British trade and capital have been important components of the American economy since its colonial inception. In trade and finance, the Special Relationship has been described as "well-balanced", with the City of London's "light-touch" regulation in recent years attracting a massive outflow of capital from Wall Street. The key sectors for British exporters to America are aviation, aerospace, commercial property, chemicals and pharmaceuticals and heavy machinery.British ideas, classical and modern, have also exerted a profound influence on American economic policy, most notably those of the historian Adam Smith on free trade and the economist John Maynard Keynes on countercyclical spending, and the British government has adopted American workfare reforms. American and British investors share entrepreneurial attitudes towards the housing market, and the fashion and music industries of both countries are major influences on each other. Trade ties have been strengthened by globalisation, and both governments agree on the need for currency reform in China and for educational reform at home to increase their competitiveness against India's developing service industries. In 2007, US Ambassador Robert H. Tuttle suggested to British business leaders that the Special Relationship could be used "to promote world trade and limit environmental damage as well as combating terrorism".In a press conference that made several references to the Special Relationship, US Secretary of State John Kerry, in London with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague on 9 September 2013, said:We are not only each other's largest investors in each of our countries, one to the other, but the fact is that every day almost one million people go to work in the United States for British companies that are in the United States, just as more than one million people go to work here in Great Britain for U.S. companies that are here. So we are enormously tied together, obviously. And we are committed to making both the U.S.-UK and the U.S.-EU relationships even stronger drivers of our prosperity.Public Opinion:It has been noted that secret defence and intelligence links "that [have] minimal impact on ordinary people [play] a disproportionate role in the transatlantic friendship" and that perspectives on the Special Relationship differ.A 1942 Gallup poll conducted after Pearl Harbor, before the arrival of American troops and Churchill's heavy promotion of the Special Relationship, showed the wartime ally of the Soviet Union was still more popular than the United States for 62% of Britons. However, only 6% had ever visited the United States and only 35% knew any Americans personally.In 1969, the United States was tied with the Commonwealth as the most important overseas connection for the British public, and Europe came in a distant third. By 1984, after a decade in the European Economic Community, Britons chose Europe as being the most important to them.British opinion polls from the Cold War revealed ambivalent feelings towards the United States. Thatcher's 1979 agreement to base US cruise missiles in Britain was approved of by only 36% of Britons, and the proportion with little or no trust in the ability of the US to deal wisely with world affairs had soared from 38% in 1977 to 74% in 1984, when 49% wanted US nuclear bases in Britain removed, and 50% would have sent American-controlled cruise missiles back to the United States. At the same time, 59% of Britons supported their own country's nuclear deterrent, with 60% believing Britain should rely on both nuclear and conventional weapons, and 66% opposing unilateral nuclear disarmament. 53% of Britons opposed dismantling the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines. 70% of Britons still considered Americans to be very or fairly trustworthy, and in case of war, the Americans were the ally trusted overwhelmingly to come to Britain's aid and to risk its own security for the sake of that of Britain. They were also the two countries that were most alike in basic values such as willingness to fight for their country and the importance of freedom.In 1986, 71% of Britons, questioned in a Mori poll the day after Reagan's bombing of Libya, disagreed with Thatcher's decision to allow the use of RAF bases, and two thirds in a Gallup survey opposed the bombing itself, the opposite of US opinion.The all-time low poll rating of Britain in the United States came in 1994, during the split over the Bosnian War when 56% of Americans interviewed considered Britons to be close allies.In a 1997 Harris poll published after Blair's election, 63% of people in the United States viewed Britain as a close ally, up by 1% from 1996, 'confirming that the long-running "special relationship" with America's transatlantic cousins is still alive and well'. Britain came second behind its colonial offshoot Canada, with 73%, while another offshoot, Australia, came third, on 48%. Popular awareness of the historic link was fading in the parent country, however. In a 1997 Gallup poll, 60% of the British public said they regretted the end of the Empire and 70% expressed pride in the imperial past, 53% wrongly supposed that the United States had never been a British possession.In 1998, 61% of Britons polled by ICM said they believed they had more in common with US citizens than they did with the rest of Europe. 64% disagreed with the sentence 'Britain does what the US government tells us to do'. A majority also backed Blair's support of Bill Clinton's strategy on Iraq, 42% saying action should be taken to topple Saddam Hussein, with 24% favouring diplomatic action and a further 24%, military action. A majority of Britons aged 24 or over said they disliked Blair supporting Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal.A 2006 poll of the American public showed that Britain, as an 'ally in the war on terror, was viewed more positively than any other country, and 76% of the US people polled viewed the British as an 'ally in the War on Terror' according to Rasmussen Reports. According to Harris Interactive, 74% of Americans viewed Great Britain as a 'close ally in the war in Iraq', well ahead of next-ranked Canada at 48%.A June 2006 poll by Populus for The Times showed that the number of Britons agreeing that 'it is important for Britain's long-term security that we have a close and special relationship with America' had fallen to 58% (from 71% in April) and that 65% believed that 'Britain's future lies more with Europe than America.'[309] Only 44% agreed that 'America is a force for good in the world.' A later poll during the Israel-Lebanon conflict found that 63% of Britons felt that the United Kingdom was tied too closely to the United States. A 2008 poll by The Economist showed that Britons' views differed considerably from Americans' views when asked about the topics of religion, values, and national interest. The Economist remarked:For many Britons, steeped in the lore of how English-speaking democracies rallied around Britain in the second world war, [the special relationship] is something to cherish. For Winston Churchill, [...] it was a bond forged in battle. On the eve of the war in Iraq, as Britain prepared to fight alongside America, Tony Blair spoke of the 'blood price' that Britain should be prepared to pay in order to sustain the relationship. In America, it is not nearly as emotionally charged. Indeed American politicians are promiscuous with the term, trumpeting their 'special relationships' with Israel, Germany and South Korea, among others. 'Mention the special relationship to Americans and they say yes, it's a really special relationship,' notes sardonically Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington.In January 2010 a Leflein poll conducted for Atlantic Bridge found that 57% of people in the US considered the special relationship with Britain to be the world's most important bilateral partnership, with 2% disagreeing. 60% of people in the US regarded Britain as the country most likely to support the United States in a crisis, and Canada came second on 24% and Australia third on 4%.In May 2010, a poll conducted in the UK by YouGov revealed that 66% of those surveyed held a favourable view of the US and 62% agreed with the assertion that America was Britain's most important ally. However, the survey also revealed that 85% of British citizens believed that the UK has little or no influence on American policies and that 62% thought that America did not consider British interests. Another poll by YouGov in September 2016 revealed that 57% still believed in the special relationship, whilst 37% did not.