General Belgrano sinking.

[Rising Sun*]

On 14 October 1939, German u-boat captain Gunther Prien sailed his u-boat undetected into Scapa Flow and torpedoed the British battleship HMS Royal Oak - riding at anchor - to the consternation of the UK and the elation of the Germans. 833 British sailors lost their lives. Question: Did the British take the Germans to court and sue them over the "illegal" sinking of their "helpless" battleship, and, if so, what was the outcome of the court case? England and Germany were at war at the time of the sinking.

Was this "completely different"? If so, how?

Yes, it was completely different.

The difference is that Britain didn't destroy Argentina from the air; on the sea; and on land, and then occupy it and try its leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity as Britain did to Germany in conjunction with the other Allies in WWII.

Argentina inflicted damaged on the Falklands but, unlike Germany, never experienced an attack on its own land in that conflict and has not the faintest understanding of what modern total war is like. This allows it to get excited and sulk about the Belgrano which, frankly, was a trivial event in the scale of things that happened in a major war of the sort that Britain and many other nations have fought over the past few centuries.

As I said at #78 above

Maybe learning to accept war's terrible misfortunes and gross injustices is part of the acquired character of Australia and other British dominions which, like but to a much lesser early extent than Britain, are among the few nations that have been involved in long and sapping conflicts in two world wars from start to finish (not just a couple of months like the Falklands), and that, like America and Britain, were involved in another one in Korea less than a decade after the end of WWII and, like America, was involved in another one in Vietnam well before the 25 year mark from Sydney's sinking. When a nation gets used to losing ships and men, the sinking of something like the Belgrano is a great but passing misfortune. It is not grounds for a sense of national persecution and eternal whingeing.

Whatever the reasons for drawing a line under things, it's 25 years since the Belgrano went down, so isn't it time to draw a line under it, and move on?

[royal744]

Yes, it was completely different.

The difference is that Britain didn't destroy Argentina from the air; on the sea; and on land, and then occupy it and try its leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity as Britain did to Germany in conjunction with the other Allies in WWII.

Argentina inflicted damaged on the Falklands but, unlike Germany, never experienced an attack on its own land in that conflict and has not the faintest understanding of what modern total war is like. This allows it to get excited and sulk about the Belgrano which, frankly, was a trivial event in the scale of things that happened in a major war of the sort that Britain and many other nations have fought over the past few centuries.

As I said at #78 above

Right you are RS - completely different. I'm not familiar with the word "whingeing" but assume from the context that it's the same meaning as the American "whining".

[Rising Sun*]

I'm not familiar with the word "whingeing" but assume from the context that it's the same meaning as the American "whining".

The same.