"Falklands war 1982- a US diplomat's private view" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase ArticleI promised to show pictures of the AK47 army that I'm painting - here are the regular forces.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 06 Aug 2021 3:07 p.m. PST |
I found this document while looking for something completely different. One of the most interesting things I've read about the Falklands war for a while. I can't vouch for it's authenticity but the named writer was a US diplomat and member of Al Haig's 'shuttle diplomacy' mission before the war. It is quite long and really gets going around page 20, but some of its insights are quite striking: - The views of the US diplomats of the Argentinian leadership after dealing with them for a while. - Their view of Margaret Thatcher- just as tough as the TV image. - Their view of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to the UN. See what you think. PDF link |
emckinney | 06 Aug 2021 3:37 p.m. PST |
What the heck is the site it's from? |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 06 Aug 2021 4:34 p.m. PST |
Not sure what that website is, but having done some googling, the doc is also hosted here: link The actual cables that Rentschler drafted are in the State Department Archive: link |
Nine pound round | 21 Aug 2021 5:44 a.m. PST |
Stylistically, this reads a lot like the reporting I remember INR (the State Department's in-house intelligence section) putting out twenty Hearst's ago. It's what Americans who imagine themselves to be Harold Nicholson write like. Showy, simultaneously vulgar and pretentious ("gonadal") and focused on the unimportant atmospheric details, which are laid on so thickly that they obscure the important insights. This kind of self-satisfied prose demonstrates a problem that anyone used to dealing with today's official class will recognize- they are deeply unserious people, confusing the trivial with the serious. The dismaying thing about this is that the rot was visible already nearly forty years ago. |
|