Talk:Southern Thule

message: There is already an article called Thule Island. Now there is one called Southern Thule is this the same place, just known by another name? Which is the correct name? I know nothing on this. Are they two different places? Did the Argentinians set up two seperate bases?
:No, there were not two separate bases. The two separate articles are about the same island. I propose we merge them here, to Southern Thule, since that is the more complete name, and let Thule Island be a redirect. Jonathunder 14:57, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
This page Corbeta Uruguay says that Southern Thule is in the South Shetland islands, but there is no mention of it in the South Shetland Islands page. In the article Southern Thule it states that the islands are in the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Something seems to be wrong somewhere, but I don't know enough about the subject to correct the mix up. --Monk Bretton 00:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Read the last paragraph at  if you understand German. Is there another island with the same name, or was it one of Morrell's hoaxes? 03:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another island called "Morrell Island" 

message: "The Argentine action, which was nothing less than a military invasion (and occupation) of sovereign British territory"
How can anyone honestly believe Britain had a sovereign right to this territory? The word sovereign means "supreme rule" by dictionary definition and honestly if the Argentine people were able to establish a base on the island and raise their flag then it would seem the Brits did not have sovereign rule.
Colonialist non-sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "Prime Minister, James Callaghan, ruled out sending in the Royal Marines to end the occupation, preferring diplomacy."
Callaghan sent a nuclear submarine to the islands in response to their occupation, so his diplomacy included a Royal Navy task force which was sent down there. Canalwalker (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  As it happens most nations will deploy military forces just in case, they made no aggressive moves.  Justin talk 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: British Response to Occupation

message: Wee Curry Monster has objected to addressing the previous bias on this page, i.e. by text original describing the British response to the occupation of Southern Thule thus:
:It was not until December 1976 that the British discovered what had happened. The Argentine action became the subject of a number of official British protests, the first of them on 19 January 1977. Arrangements to legitimise the station were discussed in 1978 but failed. More than a year went by before word of the occupation of Southern Thule leaked out to the public. The then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, ruled out sending in the Royal Marines to end the occupation, preferring diplomacy. This unwillingness to project force, plus the British Government's intention to cut back the British military presence in the Antarctic for financial reasons, led the Argentine Government to believe that they could successfully occupy and annex the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, which they attempted in April 1982, sparking the Falklands War.
This gives the misleading impression that the British response did not go beyond diplomacy, and that the Falkland Islands only entered the equation some time later, with the Argentinians seeing supposed inaction over Southern Thule as evidence that they can invaded the Falklands proper. In fact, it's now well established that the Callaghan government regarded the Southern Thule occupation as a possible stepping stone to an invasion of the Falklands at the time, and responded with the deterent five-ship naval taskforce under Operation Journeyman. Prior to my edits, we had the bizarre situation that this page said one thing without citations, while Operation Journeyman said something quite different with citations. In particular, it is intellectually dishonest to talk of a supposed, "unwillingness to project force," while wilfully not mentioning the very obvious projection of force that Operation Journeyman represented. I have therefore reinstated my edits. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks for clarifying your objection.  I believe the article is correct in stating there was an unwillingness to eject the Argentine base (ie project force), relying on diplomacy to normalise the base.  Of itself, that was one of the reasons cited by the Junta for invading (that Britain wouldn't eject them).  However, I would agree that Operation Journeyman could be mentioned but the changes that removed the fact that the Government attempted to legitimise the situation should not be removed or the fact that sending in the Marines to remove the base was ruled out.  I don't think what you're removing to replace with the reference to Journeyman works.  In that respect you're removing material and yes I will be adding cites presently.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a citation to clarify why exactly how sending a five-ship naval taskforce constitutes an "unwillingness to project force"? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will that do, the Official history is most illuminating in that regard.  Does that satisfy your need for a cite, or am I looking for the earlier book Signals of War for how the situation over Southern Thule lead the Argentines to believe the UK wouldn't react?  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Official History may be difficult/expensive to consult, but Signals seems more accessible, although obviously it pre-dates the declassification of the Op. Journeyman files (actually, I have a programme about Gamba-Stonehouse somewhere that I haven't watched in an age, so will have to check that, as well). One would think, though, that if it's so clear-cut, sources would be more prevalent. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have both.  I suggested them as authorative reliable sources.  Curious as to what makes you think that this isn't a common comment?  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because generally it seems to be that what led the Argentinians to think they could invade was what seemed to be a lack of conviction on the part of Thatcher's government, rather than the previous administration. It seems accepted - now that it is known about - that Operation Journeyman in itself was enough to deter Argentina from following up with invading the Falklands proper. The fact that the illegal base on Southern Thule wasn't evicted seems a much lesser point than the passage of several years, the change of UK administration, the annoucement about withdrawing HMS Endurance, scaling back the military presence on the Islands, a false belief in Buenos Aires that Washington would be OK with it, etc. Clearly it will have been a factor, but we can't give the impression here that it was the only or overwhelming one. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Journeyman