Sir: Does Simon Jenkins really expect us to find his
reasons for the sinking of the Relgrano credible (11 June)? He is naive if he does. Regardless of all the debate sur- rounding Francis Pym and the Peruvian Peace plan, two stark facts remain: a) The Belgrano was apparently sailing away from the task force, and has been estimated as being ten hours' sailing time away from our ships. Jenkins says that if the Conqueror had merely played 'tag' with the Be!gran°, then it may have risked being counter-attacked. Does this not lose credibility in the face of the 'retreat' of the Argentinian ship from the battle zone? Could it not have been left alone, and a notice of extension of the exclusion zone then flashed to Buenos Aires, to deter bringing the ship back? b) Does Jenkins really believe that the Belgrano was sunk to speed up the chances of Peace, because of the shock of the large numbers who lost their lives? True, the British may have been even more determin- ed to end hostilities as a result, but he claims that they did not realise how much damage would be sustained by the ship, and Were thus shocked and surprised after- wards! Furthermore, anyone with an ounce of wit would realise that the junta would have retaliated to gain revenge, especially in a country which oozed with propaganda, and where the three rulers could be toppled if they drew back at that stage. No, Mr Jenkins, the sinking of the Belgrano was more than 'unfortunate', to use your word, it was disastrous! No amount of Mrs T. waving the flag and saying it was necessary to 'save our boys', as she did on the recent Nationwide programme, can stop many of us from fearing that the incident was radically mishandled, and that too many People are now trying to fudge the issue. Kevin O'Donnell
32 New Street, Altrincham, Cheshire
Previous page
