ABSTRACT
The most important controversy in the years after the war concerned the sinking of the Belgrano. At the heart of the controversy was the conviction of a number of journalists and MPs that the sinking was more political than military, designed not so much to torpedo a 44-year old cruiser, which posed little threat at the time, but instead to torpedo a new Peruvian-led opportunity for peace, which was showing signs of real promise. On 21 December 1982 Tam Dalyell MP (Lab Linlithgow) alleged in the Commons that the Prime Minister:
coldly and deliberately gave the orders to sink the Belgrano, in the knowledge that an honourable peace was on offer and in the expectation-all too justified-that the Conqueror’s torpedoes would torpedo the peace negotiations. 1
It should be evident from this study that this allegation is simply not true. From May 1982 to the end of February 1985, Defence Ministers and the Prime
Minister answered some 205 written and 10 oral questions on the sinking of the Belgrano and related issues. In addition there were several statements and full-scale debates on the subject, and exchanges in other debates. The intensity of the questioning only concluded when the issue was examined by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2
The starting point for this challenge to the Government’s record lay in statements made by the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister immediately after the attack on the Belgrano. These were, in a number of respects, inaccurate. As this became apparent, allegations of a cover-up came to be added to those already tabled on the events themselves. This produced some of the more bizarre aspects of this case, taking in missing logs from the submarine, the trial of a senior civil servant under Section Two of the Official Secrets Act, and even a suggestion of murder.
