Thatcher refused to act till it was almost too late because she regarded Galtieri as an ally against communism.
The 1965 UN resolution on the islands called for a peaceful agreement between London and Buenos Aires on the matter. Them invading it wasnt.
I don't disagree with you. There was dialogue from the Callaghan regime that proceeded her. Once they invaded though the austerity cuts to defence and failings in intelligence and diplomacy were not ever going to be papered over by Lord Carrington going full on 'English Gentleman' and and falling on his sword by resigning out of principle as Foreign Secretary though. The war was inevitable.
Very much this. Given the nature of the limited press at the time and their political leanings it wasn't much reported how the government had sent an indifferent signal to Argentina. It's only through watching countless documentaries about the time that it becomes clear how close the UK came to losing the battle. I'm pretty sure I read that at one stage the Argentinians had located our aircraft carrier(s) and were ready to scramble. The weather turned and they were prevented from doing so. Not long after a sub sank the ship they were on. It was that close. The UK was lucky, very lucky. And should never have been in that situation. Thatcher should have been less lauded and more questioned about why so many lives had to be sacrificed (and it could have been a lot more).
Once we bombed Port Stanley in Operation Black Buck with the Vulcans they pulled fighter jets off the islands back to Argentina. We were bloody lucky throughout, as is the British way, but they started it and got what they deserved.
I'm always a bit haunted by Lord Craig's famous 'Six better fuzes and we would have lost' statement. It was a reference to the non detonating weapons. It's why it irks me how Thatcher took so much praise. The outcome was the right one. But there are no winners in war. Especially when it's started by a failing Junta trying to keep power.
It is very interesting to read about now, firstly how constrained the press was at the time and secondly how the Government at the time got away with such little criticism.
For me it's always been a source of irritation how much crap and falsehood our lives were infected by back then. It's bad enough now. But seems that societies understandings of the wider world was founded on collusive untruths. Kind of makes me angry really. A free press not being a vessel to truth, quite the opposite. I thought the internet age would cause it to recede, but it seems to have amplified it.
We need to convince Trump that Chagos is Olde English for “Tax Haven with Golf” and then generate some AI images of wealthy men putting. He’ll bid immediately.
But, with similar stupidity to Trump fanatics, it won her an election...
Not rejoicing but hoping we’d get to the Falklands. It’s easy posting this now, decades later, but my StepMum was born in the Falklands, and my Dad had served on Protector in the 60s. They married in 1966.You mean to say that after South Georgia was retaken and the Union Flag was flying above Grytviken once again you weren't rejoicing at that news and congratulating our forces and the marines?
