Was the Falklands war necessary?

Question

Britain was in behind-the-scenes negotiations with Argentina over the Falklands.
My view is that this could have been settled through diplomatic discussions.
I think this was just 'The Iron Lady' - Thatcher - showing she is not one to be messed with. A very expensive price to pay.

But what do you think?

Answer 1

The irony of this was that throughout the 70s, the UK government was trying to figure out a way to hand the islands to Argentina - a powerfull Falkland Islands lobby in Parliament continually blocked the moves. What annoyed Thatcher was the way in which Argentina lost patience and helped themselves to the islands. In part this was because Galtieri wanted to distract the Atgentinian population from the economic crisis the country was in - in another irony, this was also one of the reasons that Thatcher was determind on a 'military solution' to the invasion.

To answer the question, no, I don't think military action was necessary, except for short term electoral gain and a quick end to the occupation, as diplomacy would have probably taken a longer.

Answer 2

Argentina could be very stupid to attempt it back. yet while they did they could be destroyed. before everything Argentina's militia equipment is punctiliously old while in comparison with Briatin's. The Afghanistan/ Iraq wars have ensured the British forces are totally waiting and arranged to handle extreme resistance. The Falklands has cutting-edge anti- plane emplacemts surrounding the islands. It additionally has 4 typoons permanenlty stationed there. one thousand militia personel are stationed there. The Falklands has the optimal militia expenditure according to guy or woman interior the international. there is likewise the main cutting-edge warship and different warships. to no longer point out the nuclear submarines in Britain's arsenal. hey voonie the stratedgy isn't mine it extremely is the RAF's. they are there for in basic terms shielding reasons and blended with the rapier missile sites and warships there is plently of aricover. i've got self assurance the only authentic way Argentina might desire to mount an attack is to conceal a civilan airline being in hassle and touchdown it on the airport. This airplane might have Argentine specific forces take over the airport and probably land greater desirable troops in that way.

Answer 3

If the Conservatives had not run down the armed force's, it's very likely that Argentina would not have invaded the Falklands, Margret Thatcher was responsible for making cuts in our armed forces. Had we let the Argentinians get away with it, all our other British outpost's would have suffered the same fate, which would have cost us millions of pounds as far as resource's were concerned. Plus the one fact was the Islander's wanted to remain under British rule.Margret thatcher was wrong to allow the armed force's to be cut so badly, and the blame lies at her Government's feet.

Answer 4

The Falkland Islands are under British control, and have been for a long long time. The area is resource rich and there are tremendous oil reserves there that are yet to be exploited. Argentina is once again trying to take them for those resources, and will once again be spanked for trying. The corrupt leaders in Argentina used the Falklands to gather the people together over an issue on nationalism when the country would have fallen to revolution because it was bankrupt. It is all in the history books.

Answer 5

I think your off the mark. The Falklands are totally British and if you visited it you would find little difference between it and the north of England in the terrain and the character of it's people. The Argentines were very much in the wrong to invade and Thatcher was very much in the right to kick the Argentines out. If your country won't defend it's territory than what is it's purpose? If you surrender or cede all your land that is invaded just because the price might be high then you might not have a country in short order.

Answer 6

the argentinian decision to invade and occupy a the Falkland Islands was an act of war. they invaded our sovereign territory.. they terrified and held captive the British Ambassador...

so, what would you prefer, innocents dead and encarcerated by a military junta... no, so we did what we do, and retook the island. dont forget we suffered great strategic losses, and over 50% of our hardware went down on the conveyor and the many warships the cowardly argies shot with exocet missiles...

if it hadnt been for our troops, and their determination to retake the island, it would im sure be flying the malvinas flag...

but that wasnt an option was it? we are a world power, we are the British Empire... we did something the yanks have never managed.. that is to fight a war 8 thousand miles from home, and win.

and yes the iron witch had a part in it, well it got the old whore relelected... and although i despise her, and her forked up politics, she did what needed to be done. the argies werent going to go away... we had asked them nicely... and they took the pish, so we let fly the dogs of war... and to hell with the consequences.

if we hadnt retaken the falklands our position as a world power would have been undermined, and our credibility as a world player would dissapear. it was nessecary, it was prudent, and we reasserted our position.

Answer 7

There were a few nations with vested interests:

ARGENTINA: the population was on the verge of kicking out the then President, and a good war was a way to unite the country again

ENGLAND: at that time, they couldn't just take it laying down. The tide was turning against communism around then and Thatcher wanted to show what they were made of

USA: was officially uninvolved in that war. However, modern weapons had not been used in anger since Vietnam, 1975. A Brit ship was sunk by a missile that went up in price straight after.

Answer 8

"The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina, whose ownership had long been disputed. (See Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for the background to that dispute.)

The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands, and ended with Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982. War was not declared by either side. The initial invasion was considered by Argentina as reoccupation of its own territory, and by Britain as an invasion of a British dependency. It is the most recent invasion of British territory by a foreign power.

In the period leading up to the war, Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive military junta that was governing the country. The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-standing feelings of nationalism by invading the islands, although they never thought that the United Kingdom would respond.[5] The ongoing tension between the two countries over the islands increased on 19 March when 50 Argentines landed on the British dependency of South Georgia and raised their flag, an act that is seen as the first offensive action in the war. On 2 April, Galtieri ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands, triggering the Falklands War.

Britain was initially taken by surprise by the Argentine attack on the South Atlantic islands, but launched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force, and retake the islands by amphibious assault. After combat resulting in 258 British and 649 Argentine deaths, the British eventually prevailed and the islands remained under British control. However, as of 2007, Argentina shows no sign of relinquishing its claim to the Falkland Islands.

The political effects of the war were strong in both countries. The Argentine loss prompted even larger protests against the military government, which hastened its downfall, while a wave of patriotic sentiment swept through the United Kingdom, bolstering the government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and helping its victory in the 1983 general election, which prior to the war was seen as by no means certain. The war has played an important role in the culture of both countries, and has been the subject of several books, films, and songs. However, it is not seen as a truly major event of either military or 20th century history because of the low number of casualties on both sides and the small size and limited economic importance of the disputed areas. The cultural and political weight of the conflict has had less effect on the British public than on that of Argentina, where the war is still a topic of discussion. Militarily, it remains the only notable naval and amphibious operation between modern forces conducted since the Korean War."

Answer 9

Thatchers Baby. Totally unnecessary.

Answer 10

It is the difference between Maggie Thatcher being regarded as a great leader or a total destroyer of industries and communities.