The easiest and best description of the Falklands conflict as given to an American who asked what is was about…
It’s one of those childish things; no one wanted the islands until we decided we’d have them, then they’re all “but they is ours, look they’re dead near to us and everyfink.”
So we said, “pfft. Come get them then, poofters.”
So they did, and our mum Maggie Thatcher said “You’ll want to be giving those back now, or else.” And they said “Yeah? Or else what?” And she sent some spare boats down there with some of the lads who kicked seven different types of crap out of them and then said “Or else that.” And they went home sulking saying “we still say they belong to us”, but from a safe girly distance.
Broadly.
Harold Wilson tried to give the Falkland Islands to the Argentinians, but they didnt want them.A few decades later they wanted them but Maggie needed to stamp her authority some how.
No coincidence that she called a snap election immediately afterwards is it?
I did not realise snap parking accounts were hers, no wonder she was rich.
the maoster:
No coincidence that she called a snap election immediately afterwards is it?
snap election immediately afterwards? erm,what in june 1983? a year after the Falklands war finished?
blimey,history isn’t your strongest subject is it … 
andrew.s:
the maoster:
No coincidence that she called a snap election immediately afterwards is it?
snap election immediately afterwards? erm,what in june 1983? a year after the Falklands war finished?
blimey,history isn’t your strongest subject is it …
A few months either way doesn’t remove the basic premise.Starting with the convenient decision to scrap instead of mothball the catapult equipped Ark Royal, which operated Phantoms,in 79/80 thereby obviously giving the Argies an incentive.Then conveniently turning down US offers to put a US carrier at the RN’s disposal to replace it which would obviously have had the same result in deterring any move against the place.While she just then gambled,almost with catastrophic results,with the lives of our forces,that the Argentine land based air threat couldn’t compensate for the Navy’s submarine capability negating the Argentine carrier threat.So yes loads of lives needlessly lost on both sides to help Maggie’s re election chances.
Carryfast:
andrew.s:
the maoster:
No coincidence that she called a snap election immediately afterwards is it?
snap election immediately afterwards? erm,what in june 1983? a year after the Falklands war finished?
blimey,history isn’t your strongest subject is it …
A few months either way doesn’t remove the basic premise.Starting with the convenient decision to scrap instead of mothball the catapult equipped Ark Royal, which operated Phantoms,in 79/80 thereby obviously giving the Argies an incentive.Then conveniently turning down US offers to put a US carrier at the RN’s disposal to replace it which would obviously have had the same result in deterring any move against the place.While she just then gambled,almost with catastrophic results,with the lives of our forces,that the Argentine land based air threat couldn’t compensate for the Navy’s submarine capability negating the Argentine carrier threat.So yes loads of lives needlessly lost on both sides to help Maggie’s re election chances.
March 1980 Maggie had a popularity of 16%.
June 1982 59%. (figures from ipsos MORI.)
Pre/post war she was one of the least/most popular UK Prime Ministers.
If the Argentinians had looked at what was about to happen to our surface fleet, they would have held on a few more months. This would also have taken the battle into the heart of the winter which most of our ships would not have survived, let alone the men on them and ashore.
Have a read of 100 days in May amazon.co.uk/Hundred-Days-A … 0007436408 it’ll fill in lots of gaps for those that weren’t there.
Going back to the OP, the best description I heard given to a yank when he asked the question was “It was like Vietnam, but we won”.