That's the function of the Military. If you don't defend your own people, what good is the Military? I don't see why the justification is even a question. Just me as an outsider.
This seems to be a modern trope by certain people who watch and react to Falklands War videos of throwing this shade of British ego that was what made them go...flipping garbage - it was British territory with and this is also the crucial bit, a population who fervently wanted to remain under British sovereignty not by Argentinean duress. So of course the British government of the time was going to send in the task force to liberate the Falklands l mean, how is that so hard by some to understand! At the end of the day it was Argentina that started that war Argentina not Britain.
25:00 At this time the Cold War in Europe was at its height with Britain being a leading part of NATO. The world was watching to see if Britain would in this perspective have the guts to fight a modern war.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... .
The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory that govern themselves, but whose defence is the responsibility of Britain. There was no real moral question that Britain would not defend the islanders and return them to their freedom - despite the cost, which Britain could ill afford.
I may be biased as a Scotsman, but the way I see it, the islands were uninhabited, then the British and the French got there first, the French gave up, and the islands became British. No indigenous people where oppressed by this. The Spanish claimed them, true, but only the British successfully started long-lasting settlements. Plus, it was the Spanish that claimed them, not Argentina. If that was how it worked, then Argentina could invade every other former Spanish colony in South America. And British citizens were about to be ruled over by an Argentinian dictator. I think the war was justified.
Honestly I find it funny how despite all of us being trapped on a small rock off the coast of Europe at least we can all agree on our outright hatred of foreigners and the French 😂😂, but honestly the Scott’s really pulled their weight in this conflict and unfortunately the British do have a tendency to forget most of our Allie’s which again is sad but the same could be said about the polish fighter pilots during ww2 or the Indians contributions in South Africa and the Asian theater who let me completely stress, we’re all volunteers, even the Africans were more than happy to fight for the British even if it meant being disowned or even kicked out of their entire family or even community which again as I said, all of those commonwealth soldiers who fought for Britain did so more or less voluntarily which has earned my respect
The people of the Falklands had been given an undertaking that we would protect them, it was a matter of honour and principle. I lived in Portsmouth at the time and the preparation that went in to everything was amazing. When the task force left Portsmouth, as well as other ports, it was an incredible sight. The lads had a job to do and they did us proud. Of course it was devastating that too many of them would pay the ultimate price but there are also many Falklands veterans that are still deeply affected by the war to this day. I've been privileged to meet a number of them and what I found is that they held no ill will for their former enemy. They know that both sides had their duty to perform and any anger was directed towards the likes of Galtieri. There certainly was a sense that national pride had been restored. When the ships returned they were certainly given a hero's welcome, although of course it tinged with sadness.
Yes, protecting the 'British' people was the main objective and Connor sees it as not wanting to be seen losing more of the 'Empire' and appearing weak! He got the reason so wrong!
Connor. It is nothing to do with beng a "post Colonial pushover". The people occupying the Falklands are of British descent and have no connection with Argentina. We had promised to protect the British occupants. We really had no choice. It was a fantastic victory after sending an army 8,000 miles when the Argentinians were already bedded down on the islands.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... .
I was in the army at the time but didn't go, I was stationed in N Ireland at the time so watched it unfold on TV like most of us did. Several of my mates went down there, one was killed and another two were wounded. At army reunions the lads who went to the Falklands often sit together, they experienced something the rest of us didn't.
My father was a Para, he fought in the Falklands conflict at Goose Green. He strongly supports the decision to go to war despite losing friends and crucially his commander, Lt. Col H Jones. That was a monumental moment, to lose such a high ranking commander on the battlefield and then WIN the battle. His argument was always that the paras, and the rest of the military no doubt, learned so much from the Falklands conflict. Learning that enriched the paras for decades. Goose Green was faught on land, sea and air simultaneously. Dad faught in hand to hand combat and used a bayonet. He still hasn’t reached retirement age. That is mad.
It was absolutely worth it for the UK. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens and it is the first and last duty of any government to protect its citizens. It was also a warning to all those other rogue states around the world that Britain was not a push over and so likely averted many other such instances in other places.
It was definitely not an ego thing, I was in the Royal Navy when this happened I had shipmates go down South, 3 were on ships that were sunk, fortunately they survived. A brutal military junta invaded this island which was occupied by British citizen. We did what was required, I suppose if Hawaii was occupied by a foreign country America would just say sure take them.. nothing to do with Ego.!!!! We defendended it because its British territory with British citizens.
I am American, I supported England when they went to war to defend their citizens and their territory and still do. Having my mother from England, I knew you would win. Argentina did not understand the British mind set and did not anticipate any response.
Fueron Españolas y por ende enredadas al independizarse de España.....ustedes no son los dueños del mundo , son usurpadores mundial.....desplazan a los nativos plantando poblaciones que son afines a la corona .....
There were very very few British people living in the Falklands (and there are still very few) but sovereign British territory was invaded by a military dictatorship. It was worth it to go to war. It had to be done. It was defensive.
Not true. In 1983 every Falkland Islander was given full British citizenship. Since then, 59% have claimed they are Falkland Islanders and 29% British with the remaining declaring other nationalities. 29% isn't 'very few'.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... .
@@yaqui4994 You lost mate. You failed to invade Britain, what is modern day Italy and the Netherlands and Hannover was liberated and you failed to conquer what is today Germany and Poland. Your leader Napoleon died in exile so you lost big time. And at the end of the day you remained Spanish so were losers twice over because had you surrendered you could have been Canada or Australia, instead you are stuck being Argentine.
The General Belgrano, went into service in 1938, but not with the Argentinian navy. It was originally the USS Pheonix, and survived the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Well said. I was a young soldier who went to the Falklands - and although I was no infantry man and nothing dramatic or traumatic happened to me - I firmly believe it was "just" war. Argentina's military junta was not something you wanted to abandon people under your protection to. Naked aggression must never be ignored - history teaches that well enough. If Argentina really wants the Falkland Islands it need to convince the Islanders - since it will always remain their choice. The Argentinians have no real legitimate claim to the islands, and it is the people who have made their lives there that matter. CIWS - radar dome!
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... .
Of course it was 'worth it'. Imagine some country tried to take Hawaii. Those people are US citizens requiring protection, just as the Falklanders are British. Btw the Harrier VTOL 'Jump Jet had been around since 1969, long before the Falklands conflict. We don't use them any more but I think the USA still has and uses some of those we sold them.
"Was it worth it?" The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory. They are internally self-governing but rely on the UK for its defence and foreign affairs. To fail to defend the territory would be no different than failing to defend the UK mainland itself. I was serving in the Royal Air Force at the time and, although far from the action in my radio workshop, we were still involved in the preparations pushing out spares and equipment to support the taskforce. We, in common with almost all British people, followed the action from afar, trusting, despite our traditional inter-service rivalry, in the professionalism of our comrades in the Navy and Army but acutely aware of the difficulties in operating with such extended supply lines. Moreover, our armed forces had, for nearly four decades, been shaped to oppose an attack by the Soviet Union in Europe and, with the gradual dismantling of imperial obligations, had little capacity to operate outside the European theatre. The risks were great and the outcome far from certain but the UK really had no choice. "Was it worth it?" The United Kingdom stood by its obligations. The Falklanders were protected and assured both of their future security and the right of self-determination. The military junta in Argentina, weakened by the very public military failure, collapsed and was replaced by a democratically elected civilian government. The practice of resolving territorial disputes by force was overwhelmingly rejected by the United Nations and Britain regained much of the self-confidence it had lost during the dark years of the 1970s. Yes, it was worth it.
The question of whether it was worth the UK sending troops and ships to re-capture this rather insignificant island is one that you have to weigh up with international politics, ruling party reputation and the effect on national morale. If Thatcher had just said, 'it's not worth us going out there' the reputational damage would have sunk any re-election hopes her party might have had for the next election. Indeed, it would be likely to encourage factions within her party to sack her through a vote of no-confidence. It would also have left a poor reputation internationally as the UK would then be a country that willingly abandons its citizens. This would have had a knock on effect on public morale as many people in the UK would be angered by this, possibly inciting troubles at home. In conclusion, if Thatcher was to remain Prime Minister she had to send a military response. I am not endorsing Thatcher in any way, this was just the political reality of the time and any leader in that situation would be left with little choice but to respond (unless of course your name is Putin in which case you can do whatever you want as anyone who says otherwise tends to fall out of a window).
Yes! Absolutely correct to take the islands back. All the civilians consider themselves British and it's a British territory. Would America take hawaii back if it was invaded by a military state? Or any state? Yes I think it definitely would. And I so wished we had our leader today leading. The harrier goes back to the 60s
Good question. But there's no question the U.S would take Hawaii back at any cost- except what if the UK was the invader? Hawaii still flies the Union flag, tops left its State flag? 😂
@@thesummerthatwas76 in the real world, we wouldn't invade hawaii. You're missing the point, the islands are American and the people's choice to be under American law and governance etc. Matters I wouldn't be happy if we put troops into one of our commonwealth countries, unless the people wanted it due to a bad regime commiting atrocities etc.
@@tobytaylor2154...probably Guam would be a better analogy, what if China or the Phillipines decided to invade Guam what would the Americans do....I think he's just a little nieve is all...
@@glastonbury4304 true, I used hawaii due to previous historical events there, he's i assume an American so we gotta make it easy for them to understand.
@@tobytaylor2154 ...totally understand , I took Guam as its much smaller , plus the fact most living their have a Indonesian heritage rather than American, whereas the Falklands have a British heritage giving us a far stronger argument to take back the Falklands than America ever taking back Guam if it was ever invaded , which as we know they would do...that would be more of an ego trip ...just think he's a little nieve, but bless he's trying to engage and hopefully improving his knowledge and getting stronger at engaging his brain before speaking
Back then Argentina was ruled by a military committee (Junta) led by a General Galtieri. They were very unpopular and thought that invading the Falklands would get more people on-side. They didn't ask the people who live there what they wanted. They badly miscalculated. If the majority of people who live in the Falklands, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland vote in free and fair elections to leave the UK, that would be the outcome. But to invade without asking....In terms of the aftermath, we need to acknowledge the death toll on both sides and the grief of those families, Argentinian and British. But viewed from the brutal lens of reality, the UK learned a huge number of lessons militarily, and the truth is that to stay battle ready you need troops that have seen active service. I don't like or advocate for war but we need to be ready to deal with the likes of Putin and Xi in these times and we need armed forces that can handle it!!
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... ................
14:57 The exclusion zone wasn't just for Argentine ships & aircraft it was ALL ships & aircraft from anywhere. Argentine military assets were fair game wherever they were in the world, in or out of the exclusion zone. 24:53 It's a shame it had to happen but it was the right thing to do. The islanders now are safe to live how they have lived for centuries. They are British people in British territory and that's that.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... ................
Its not about sheep its about protecting British people. Imagine you living there amd and begging for help and to have your whole culture changed Sheep? SHEEP? OH MY DAYS
Considering that the Military Junta ruling Argentina had 'disappeared' at least 30,000 of their own citizens (mainly students and young people) over the previous few years, and indulged in the sort of torture techniques that made the Nazis look like Girl Guides, it was certainly highly probable that the population of the Falkland Islands would simply habe been murdered, or worse. Napalm bombs were found ready to be deployed, when Goose Green was captured. Fortunately, Commandos destroyed or disabled the dozen or so Bokhara turboprop short-range aircraft at Pebble Island, which the Argentinians no doubt used at home 'for crowd control' - I am guessing about that last bit.
The documentary mentioned the Argentinian Exocet missiles. These were one of the greatest threats to the British task force, but the Argentine military only had a small number in supply. They tried to procure more from the French manufacturer during the conflict, but the French DGSE and British MI6 collaborated to waste Argentinian time by staging fake negotiations over the Exocet missiles - which France had already agreed with the UK that wouldn’t be supplied.
What was so devastating was that the NATO affiliated French supplied the Exocet missiles to Argentina. The NATO affiliated UK ships were attacked by these missiles but our ships anti-missile defences recognised these Exocets as NATO and therefore 'friendly' and did not try to shoot them down, hence the loss of so many ships and lives before this oversight was discovered and remedied.
As far as I remember the French as usual were reluctant to stop selling them to Argentina & I'm pretty sure NATO intervened in negotiations between MI5 & their French counterparts.
@@themoderntemplar1567 Not true the French as ever due to our thousand or so of years animosity between each other saw a chance to make money and to stick it to the UK. The French government are and always will be pricks when it comes to Britain
@@themoderntemplar1567 I agree, my memory from the era was that the French really couldn't care what happened to the British and happily carried on selling the missiles. It was only after Thatcher threatened the French did they stop.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ .... ..........
The issue was the inhabitants. True, the government had other motivations, such as losing face and emboldening other invasions, but the fact the islanders were being held hostage and abused made the UK seem like the ones in the right. What is worse losing money and hundreds of trained, volunteer soldiers, or around 1000 innocent civilians stuck on the island? Of course, death and war are always bad, but you can't abandon your citizens without fighting. Other wise, what is the point of having a military? It's supposed to be to protect the people.
Admiral Leach when proposing the task force said, "if we do not act now and aren't entirely successful, in a few months time we will live in a country which is greatly diminished and who's words will count for little" i might not be word perfect there but nearly, the dome on top of the Phalanx CIWS is the radar which directs the 20mm vucan cannon at it base, the minigun incidentally is so called because it is a mini version of the vulcan firing rifle caliber 7.62mm ammunition.
Actually the US had started building harriers under license in 1981, although it took until 1985 for the first squadrons to become active duty. The final US squadrons will be retired in 2025.
Hawker Siddeley P.1154 development began in 1957, taking advantage of the Bristol Engine Company's choice to invest in the creation of the Pegasus vectored-thrust engine.
Of course it was worth it - for a start Argentina thought we were weak, and reclaming the Falklands would be a walk- over for them. Let bullies in once, and they'd keep on coming
The Hawker Siddley Harrier was invented in the 1960s. The US Marine Corps still use this amazing British aircraft, although British forces no longer use it.
It is interesting how you mentioned that "Britain" is much less powerful now. I would like you to consider this: The Government of the United Kingdom has less "power" than it did in previous centuries however, "The Crown" has lost far less power than the UK Government. The British Empire may have decolonised but in most countries in the Commonwealth, the armed forces, police and politicians all swear loyalty to the current Monarch of the UK, their heirs and successors. While I can't speak to the specifics in other Commonwealth nations - In Australia, ALL federal politicians must swear allegiance to the Monarch before taking their seat, as does the Governor-General (MPs becoming Ministers only swear an oath to the Commonwealth), members of the Australian defence forces swear allegiance to the crown as does all the Police in my state (QLD). Some British institutions still have a very long reach after all this time.
Just another hangover from our far flung colonies and Empire, the bottom line is these Falkland islanders are more British then us ourselves. Thatcher could not simply hand over thousands of British people to a murderous dictatorship that was Argentina of that time. It's down to the islanders to decide their futures. My brother was on one of the support ships and never seen any violence thankfully. Chile was threatened with war from Argentina and was the only south American country to support the UK.
I live near the Lincolnshire Bomber Command memorial. They recently had the Falklands memorial on site. It's a collection of life size silhouettes of every British casualty.
Best TV of my childhood watching the Brits sail half way across the world and demolish a dictators attempt at saving his regime. Tatcher proved herself just marvelous as well. Argies still upset over it which makes it that much more enjoyable.
As a Brit, I am immensely proud of our achievement in winning the Falklands war. Delivering a taskforce to the other side of the planet, near enough, and delivering a victory is something our entire country can look back on with pride, as it all could have gone disastrously wrong. If Argentina ever wants to learn this painful lesson ever again, they are more than welcome: Might makes right.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires Criolla Victory !!! 1845 - 1850: War of Parana Criolla Victory !!! ........ ......... .
I've witnessed Phalanx CWIS firing. It fires for about two seconds at a time. The rounds are loaded at the side of it, the dome is where the tracking radar is. It is the last point of defence though.
I was there and it was worth it. It had nothing to do with ego. The islands were British with people who wanted to stay British. How would America react if someone invaded an island where there had been British people for over 150 years with no other people living there. When Argentina claimed it they were part of Spain so by Argentinian logic they have the right to all of Spain's ex-colonies.
I remember president Reagan slating Britain for attempting to retake the islands (stating they weren't important enough) but a couple of year's later the island of Grenada was invaded & the US went in all guns blazing to PROTECT the islands. Hypocrisy of the first order!
Britain made the Harrier Jump Jet in 1950's, it first flew in 1960 as Kestral. USA was so impressed with the technology, they purchased a foreign military contract for them. Harrier 2's are upgraded Harrier's jointly Built by UK and USA. USA still use Harrier 2's today. "Was there talks between Chile and UK about taking on Argentina?" Yes. But Britain wanted to avoid a full scale war and since there was prior negotiations before the invasion, Britain knew it could revert back to it quickly if the damage is minimal. Chile however provided spots to stop and fuel for UK if needed. Hence the Exclusion zone being introduced, it was a set battle line set by Britain... "if you enter or go here, we will destroy you". If Britain went to a full scale war... The war would be a massive toll on life and finances for both countries. Falklands was Britain being old fashioned... a war of principle and rules. The Argentine cruiser that was sunk was just outside the exclusion zone, however British intelligence had intercepted that the ship was tasked with engaging the Royal Navy, so as soon as it made a move to enter the zone, it was sunk. The captain and crew even admitted after that they were tasked to engage and had just plotted a course to enter the zone. And yes... Nearly every Brit and Falklander thinks the war was unfortunate but justified. Those are Brits on that island... Brits that ALL wanted British help... that's a rare opportunity for a military to do to the only honourable and rightful thing they were designed for... Protect the people and their homes. It was purely about protecting the people and the land... Not a fading Empire, not image, not oil... just people. It of course had other positive consequences... Oil has been found since, it protected the UK's image in strength and even diplomacy. It also help highlight problems going on with Argentina's leadership at the time, with some if not most of the problems now resolved. The president of America at the time once said something similar as you... "Why don't you just give them the islands for peace"... and rightfully... Margarette Thatcher replied "If Hawaii was invaded by a foreign power tomorrow, would you just roll over and give the islands to them, or would you fight for the islands and the people living there!?". After that reply, the American President offered full support to Britain in resolving the conflict. And it did... with most battles being resolved in relatively short time and with a high rate of unharmed prisoners... all of which were quickly allowed to go back home just after the war. For a Modern War... it was infact quite old fashioned... there were lots of rules set and both sides generally stuck to them.
Of course it was worth it. There might have been some doubts at the time (who cares about a few hundred people 8000 miles away) but the results speak for themselves. Argentina's replaced the military junta with democracy, the profile of the Falklands back in the UK was raised leading to increased infrastructure spending and support, military cutbacks were halted, lessons were learned and technology developed to address the threat that fast attack aircraft posed to warships. I think it says a lot about British restraint that we restricted our actions to defending the islands, and that we didn't attack, or go anywhere near, Argentina itself. We could have bombed or shelled their military bases, but we didn't. It sent a message that we were acting as a strictly defensive force and that Argentina itself wasn't a target.
It's called the Falklands Conflict because no-one actually declared war. Likewise, in Northern Ireland, the 30 years of terrorism were (and still are) referred to as 'the Troubles'.
Britain used to have something called 'gunboat policy'.... There was a time that if Britains were threatened anywhere in the world, Britain would threaten to send a gunboat to resolve the situation... the Falklanders are British, therefore we will protect their right to stay British...Thats how most ordinary Brits see it.... though of course, politicians have their own objectives
Chile has a very good relationship with the uk. And has done for centuries . So yeah, they would tie the argies down for a bit. As Argentina also lay claims to island of Chile too.
As First Sea Lord said to the PM in early Apr 1982, our not re-taking the FIs would see the UK as a different, reduced, country in the eyes of the world. The outstanding success of the British armed forces surprised the world, not least the US and the Soviet Union. The landings were planned by Brigadier (now Major General) Julian Thompson RM and Commodore Michael Clapp RN - age 88 and 91 (and my privilege to dine with them next week). General Moore arrived Down South when 5 Brigade was deployed in order to supplement 3 Commando Brigade. Chile was quietly supportive of the UK and its border disputes with Argentina real. At the time of the invasion, the British Army + RAF thought we could not recover the islands successfully (so thought the Pentagon too). The First Sea Lord, head of the Royal Navy, advised Margaret Thatcher differently - he was right. Was it worth it, you ask. Absolutely is the answer and I expect most of us who wear a South Atlantic Medal would agree. The then 1,800 islanders were British and could not be left to be subjected to occupation of their land by a disgusting, murderous Argentine dictatorship. Not ego at all but looking after British people and British interests; be mindful that the UK has 14 Overseas Territories around the globe. The war of 1982 was the first of the missile age and a lot was learned. The conflict was the last time that an amphibious landing was made (21 May 1982) and that expertise remains central to Royal Marines doctrine. I knew three of the British dead and my chums and I salute them each year.
I at least as a mere civilian knew back then where the Falkland Islands were, because I was aware of the naval battle down there in 1914. The Royal Navy had lost the battle of Coronel to Imperial German warships off the western coast of South America, early in WE1 and the Admiralty in London gave absolute priority of sending a task force, headed by two of our mighty battle cruisers, to avenge this loss at a time when the RN was the mightiest navy in the world. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and insisted that a seemingly impossible deadline be met to get the task force to sea. It was met, and eventually nearly all of the German force was sent to the bottom at the Battle of the Falkland Islands by Vice Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee’s force.
As a veteran of the war serving in the Royal Navy can I point out certain facts about the Naval War that very few ever seem to take account of (except perhaps the Navy itself). Just before the War the Royal Navy carried out an exercise to test whether or not we were capable of winning a war if Argentina invaded the islands, the conclusions were that it was not possible. And it would not have been, if our Allies Chile had not keep Argentinians best troops back home in Argentina and the USA hadn't given us access to intelligence gathering, that warned of the Argentinian Navy's attack on the task Force by the ARA General Belgrano (formally the USS Phoenix which survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941) and the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. At the time the RN was equipped to fight in a World War with the USSR and was tasked with guarding the Western Approaches to the English Channel for the convoy route from the USA, so it was assumed the RAF would be able to provide Air cover for the ships (from land bases), and the Navy's main task would be to defend against Russian subs, not fighting a war 9,000 miles away. Therefore the RN was equipped with only escort carriers for Anti Submarine warfare and of the two that were sent, HMS Hermes was due to be scrapped and HMS Invincible had been sold to the Australians (who very kindly gave it back at the start of the war). This coupled with the fact that none of the ships had any anti air weapons to speak of, meant we were a sitting ducks for the Argentinian Air force (who were exceptionally good at their jobs) and as a result making the whole operation a wild gamble that we were only just able to pull off because of the exceptional training and bravery of our forces and because the Argentinians were not able to get more bombs and missiles with which to sink our ships (thanks to the support of our close allies the French and the USA). That Phalanx gun that you asked about Connor is radar guided and the dome you see is the radar, it puts up 3,000 rounds/min and is used for close in air defence in confined areas such as bomb alley (it was available at the time and we really could have done with it but spending cuts meant it was not), all we had were a few GPMG's we had to tie them to the guard rails and make do. Our ships are now bristling with Anti Air systems and can take down any number of fast jets, and the Navy has two fleet carriers designed to provide full air cover with fast jets and carry enough helicopters to carryout a battalion sized air assault anywhere in the world, ah well you live and learn (not so pleasant being the guinea pig though).
It was never a question of Argentina 'getting the islands back' as they had never been under Argentinian control. The objective was to distract the Argentinian people from the dire economic situation under the military junta lead by General Galtieri. It was generally assumed that the UK would not react beyond diplomatic protests and therefore it would be an easy public relations victory for the regime. The UK had offered to take the dispute to the International Court but Argentina consistently refused as they knew there was no legal basis for their claim. At the end of the day, the United Nations holds the right of self-determination to be paramount.
The US Marines bought the Harrier - 102 AV-8A and 8 TAV-8A - between 1971 and 1976. From 1973, McDonnell Douglas and Hawker Siddeley (later acquired by British Aerospace) entered into an agreement to develop the Harrier into a more capable aircraft called the AV-8B in the US and Harrier II in the UK. The first AV-8Bs were delivered to the USMC in 1983.
Fun fact: ARA General Belgrano served in WW2 under the name USS Phoenix and survived Pearl Harbor. Afterwards sold by the US to Argentina and renamed. And it was worth it: about 250 lost British soldiers to save 1500 civilians.
To answer your question, yes it was worth it. You have to defend your own people, plus not doing it would have had bigger world implications and other countries would be invading countries feeling that they could get away with it. I think you answered that question yourself and I agreed with your sentiments.
Italian pilgrims left Italy and settled in Argentina and took the land from the natives there, but have the audacity to declare the Falklands or Malvinas as their land. As long as the people of the Falklands islands wish to remain British, GT. Britain has the right to protect it. As for vertical take off planes, the British Harrier Jump Jet was the pioneer, which was the inspiration for the F35 plane today, a joint project between countries, including the U.S. and Britain which contributes 15% to the overall design. 12:46
Given the Islanders voted to remain British there wasn't much alternative given the nature of the Argentine government .I remember the carriers sailing and the arrival of Harriers landing on the decks on a Sunday morning . The navy had been devastated by planned defence cuts but the next few months were busy with amazing transformations on ships and regiments embarking . Certainly it led to a big rethink by Thatchers government as our servicemen showed their professionalism and bravery in a totally unexpected and unprovoked war and many shops and regiments due for the scrap heap were saved .When they returned many had problems caused by their experiences and we owe them a lot of respect .
9:57 Britain thinks of the people there mate, that's why we ask all our territories, "do you want to be independent or stay with us?" all the time. Given Falklands, Gibraltar and Scotland independence referendums in the last 10 years or so
What was so devastating was that the NATO affiliated French supplied the Exocet missiles to Argentina. The NATO affiliated UK ships were attacked by these missiles but our ships anti-missile defences recognised these Exocets as NATO and therefore 'friendly' and did not try to shoot them down, hence the loss of so many ships and lives before this oversight was discovered and remedied.
One of the reasons this war is still seen favourtable by almost everyone in the UK is preciesly because it wasn't really done for selfish reasons. It was a genuine case of defending people and little else.
As a Brit well old enough to remember, there's a couple of small things missed. Thatcher needed a political boost at the time, she was on very thin ice. Vulcan Bombers with the most amazing in-flight refueling schedule ever were the first strike. Flying via the Ascention islands to bomb the runway on the Falkland Islands. At the time, the Vulcan was about to be decommissioned as they were obsolete and just weeks from becoming museum pieces. So it came as a massive shock to the Vulcan crew members to be on a war footing. Given that the Vulcan was designed to drop atomic bombs I guess accuracy had never been super high in its list of capability. So to hit a runway at night with conventional un-guided bombs was a mixture of skill and luck! There's a sperate video on RUclips all about this first strike.
HMS Conqueror is still the only nuclear sub that has sunk an enemy ship in battle The French kept arming the Argentinians with exocett missiles throughout the war, so much so the SBS were planning on sinking a cargo ship loaded with missiles in a French port
You should read about Chile's secret role, the UK secretly used their radar & airbase. There is an amazing story from the British military attaché there who was downed in a helicopter and had to glide across the border to cover it up.
You would do well to consider the invasions that have happened since the Falklands ... Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.. A British politician came up with the phrase "No reward for Aggression*, which seems apposite.
It was the Gurkas that scared the Argentinian troops, they had seen TV coverage of them displaying those knives. Their imaginations about what might be done with them got a bit carried away.
The Argentine leadership wanted the conscripts to fight bravely and so they stupidly told them the Ghurkas would eat then if they caught them. As a result they always fought to surrender to non Ghurka soldiers.
The Gurkhas had a jolly little habit of visiting Argentinian sleeping quarters in the dead of night and leaving small indications next to the heads of the Argentinian troops to find in the morning...
To answer you question about the CIWS Phalanx defense system, inside that "pill" on top is 2 radars to track the target. The ammo is stored under it inside a drum.
The talks between Argentina and the UK not long before the war were moving towards some sort of transfer of sovereignty to Argentina with a long term leaseback, say for 100 years, to the UK. Ironically the Argentinian invasion put back any such resolution indefinitely. Of course both Galtieri and Thatcher were at the time unpopular leaders in their respective countries, both of whom would benefit from a successful war: as it turned out, Thatcher was the beneficiary.
I was turning ten in the middle of this, so at the time I didn't really pay much attention to what was happening in the news. But years later, in my early 20's I remember watching a documentary about the Falklands War, and one of the thing that really stood out for me, that was touch on in this, was the disinformation that the Argentine troops were told. The programme I watched interviewed many of the soldiers that fought on both sides, and amongst the facts, and positions of both of the armies, the soldier also spoke about what they felt, and what they were told and led to believe. I remember on Argentinian soldier saying that when they were still in Argentina, their military officers were telling all the soldiers in their briefings that they had to move swiftly, because the British were holding Argentinian families practically hostage, that they were being forced to do manual labour. That these poor Argentinian people were virtually slaves. That the British had taken our islands, and they had to be stopped. He went on to say that, of course, they were all in favour of rescuing their countrymen, and the thing that they were led to believe, made them determined to fight and win, setting their people free! Except, when he got there, he quickly realised that they had been completely lied to. That there were only a couple of South American families living happily on the Islands. That these people were practically all British. Everything in and around the Islands were completely British.That there was no one to rescue. He wondered why they were even there. On a lighter note, while I was doing my A-Level History, a question came up about the Falklands, from one of the others in the class. And our tutor was telling us that when the war started she was teaching in a secondary school, (11-16 at the time.), and just a week or so before the war, one of her students asked her where the Falkland Islands were? She told us that at the time she had no clue what's so ever where they were, and she was a history teacher, not a geography teacher! But she said to the student, I'm not sure, but with a name like the Falkland Islands, they sound like they're probably way up north, somewhere off the coast of Scotland. Up by either the Hebrides, Orkney or the Shetland Islands. And she thought nothing more of it. A week later, Argentina invaded, and on the front page of the Sun newspaper was a map of Argentina, with the Falkland Islands. And the banner head line was, THE FALKLAND ISLANDS ARE HERE! With a huge arrow pointing at the Islands, and yes, she said, all day I had the kids, "Helpfully" pointing out exactly where the islands actually were!
The point isnt the distance, the point is you dont invade Sovreign British Territory. At all. We'd probably have declared war on China if they'd invaded Hong Kong. Argentina was a fascist dictatorship, and us Brits do not like that.
Whilst I understand the confusion, given history, the two main point are that: It was uninhabited when it was colonised The people living there wish to remain British Its got very little if anything to do with 'not wanting to be a push over' Also you scoff at the vote to remain British as obvious but self determination is important. :)
My brother served then on an amphibious assault ship, HMS Intrepid. I have been deployed there 3 times myself in the past 20 years. The people who live there are of British descent, and want to stay connected to the UK.
Our old Empire causes all sorts of problems. Face value No to defend it. But the people of the Islands wanted to remain British. That the important thing. Falklands saved Thatcher. Our Forces did the job. She had her eye of the ball. And was trying to make cuts to the Navy. We ended up with her in power for years. The country has never recovered in my view
... caused all sorts of problems to slave traders, tyrants, and military juntas all over the world, so it actually depends on your point of view. As my mother (herself a survivor of Hitler's 'Blitz' on London) always said - there's nothing wrong with upsetting people, as long as it's people who have got it coming to them...
I was in middle school when the war started and the school's head teacher had a son that had gone to fight She held a school assembly and all she spoke about was bringing the troops home and hitting the major cities of Argentina with nuclear weapons and to a ten year old child that sounded exciting right until I spotted the looks on other teachers faces then I knew how serious it was and if that head teachers was in government it would have probably been the start of the third world war :(
There are a number of similar British “protectorates” and some of them threatened by neighbouring nations. After the war some of them said that if the Argentine attack had been successful they would have carried out similar attacks. So in the end a lot of trouble was averted. But the deaths were nothing short of tragic.
Britain had vertical take off jets (Harriers) long before the Falkland war - as early as 1969 I think. We even let the US buy some over the next decades (they hadn't managed to develop any I guess)
Considering that unlike Spain or outside of the UK where laws as well as democracy and stability is concerned as well as order that being said Spain isn’t a crime ridden country like Mexico (no offense, but Spain has had its fair share of corruption as well as civil wars, and most people living in the former colonies are more than happy being British.
The residents of the island identify as British. They have for years. They were invaded by a foreign country with foreign laws and ways of living.. imagine tomorrow Russia took over new England and you had to be russian all of a sudden? We fought for the people that needed us to fight.... Also the fact a British person named after another British person when he found it uninhabited. as said in the video??
the islanders have a deep connection with the mainland, they went to do their shopping, send kids to schools, mail, all that is close since 82, first the 2 peoples must have normal relations. Argentina have deep cultural influence by Britain.
I remember a story back in 2012 when an Argentinian athlete was filmed doing step-up exercises on a British War Memorial in the Falklands, even though it was a while ago that I read it I still remember it as it was so offensive and disrespectful. I also remember seeing a video on RUclips that there are elephant seals that migrate between Argentina and the Falklands and Argentinians believe that because of this the Falklands must be part of Argentina, there are creatures that migrate between countries and continents sometimes and suggesting this as a reason seems a joke, unless these seals hold Argentinian citizenship I am not sure how this can be used to support an argument.
I visited the Falkland Islands about 15 years after the war. The Islanders were more British than anyone I met in the UK. They certainly don't want to be part of Argentina.
@mcjibbin I applaud the fact that you nearly always TRY to do the right thing by referring to the original content, but I've been ignoring my internal pedant too many times, and it's actually, cumulatively, pushed past my "let it go" barrier, this time. Grammar and word order matter! The way you say it "Original link to the video...." suggests at best that you are providing a SECOND link to your own video which sounds like its been removed once already(?), or worse, a plagiarist link to someone else's content that you claim as your own. I KNOW this is not true, but.... What you mean is [presumably], "Link to the original video...." Please help me maintain my mental health by taking this on board? Thanks.
It's stunning how Americans talk about colonization. The islands were empty when we claimed them, we claimed them before Argentina as a country even existed. How would America react if Hawaii was invaded tomorrow?
How can you colonise a place if there is no population to colonise?... The Falklands were empty... there wefe no people there until some English pleople decided to live on these empty islands
" It was an ego thing for the British " ? It was about protecting OUR citizens from an invading army ! What would America have done in the same circumstance !? WE had VTOL jets...YOU DIDN'T ! Chile = Chilee NOT Chilay ! OF COURSE IT WAS WORTH IT !! Part of Britain had been invaded ! We didn't do just for oil or natural resources like the Yanks would have !! You need to watch news footage of the time to get the real impact.
I was a very young airman, detached from my unit to the UK HQ during Operation Corporate, responsible for logistics. We moved people from all over the globe to fulfil roles in the conflict. The guys who went down South and picked up the SA Medal with Rosette are my heroes 40 years on. I managed a commendation for my involvement, which I was appreciative of, but I salute British bravery and improvisation.
If, if i remember correctly the General belgrano was fired upon 20/25 miles away and the torpedoes were controlled by a "comand wire" that spooled out from behind to control the torpedos to their target. The French came out of all this with a bounus.....they got loads of orders for their "Exocet missiles" used by the Argentine air force 😂
It wasn’t an ego trip. It was the British standing up for and protecting it’s own people.
That's the function of the Military. If you don't defend your own people, what good is the Military? I don't see why the justification is even a question. Just me as an outsider.
This seems to be a modern trope by certain people who watch and react to Falklands War videos of throwing this shade of British ego that was what made them go...flipping garbage - it was British territory with and this is also the crucial bit, a population who fervently wanted to remain under British sovereignty not by Argentinean duress. So of course the British government of the time was going to send in the task force to liberate the Falklands l mean, how is that so hard by some to understand! At the end of the day it was Argentina that started that war Argentina not Britain.
25:00 At this time the Cold War in Europe was at its height with Britain being a leading part of NATO. The world was watching to see if Britain would in this perspective have the guts to fight a modern war.
did they think we wouldn't take it back.
No body takes our territory and gets away with it.
Ego trip for thacher who was on the way out and I'm convinced she let it be taken.
6 months later she would have sold most of our fleet off
Rescue of British people by Britain is 'an ego thing'?
99.8% of the population voted to stay British.
but i heard those 3 votes were done for a joke so an even higher % to stay British
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
.
@@yaqui4994I fail to see the relevance?? Yet apparently so do u
@@yaqui4994 britain occupied buenos aires for over a month on multiple occasions while british colonies were many miles away
Until people from Britain lived there, the Falklands had been uninhabited -
Britons lived there more than a century before Argentina even existed.
The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory that govern themselves, but whose defence is the responsibility of Britain. There was no real moral question that Britain would not defend the islanders and return them to their freedom - despite the cost, which Britain could ill afford.
Prince Andrew was a pilot in the war..people forget that
Yes, it was absolutely worth it. If Angola kidnapped 1,600 US citizens, what would you do?
Exactly
Does Angola have oil?
@Richard Pieroux what's that got to do with anything?
Bingo! Well said.
But yes Angola does have oil, gold and diamonds
I may be biased as a Scotsman, but the way I see it, the islands were uninhabited, then the British and the French got there first, the French gave up, and the islands became British. No indigenous people where oppressed by this. The Spanish claimed them, true, but only the British successfully started long-lasting settlements. Plus, it was the Spanish that claimed them, not Argentina. If that was how it worked, then Argentina could invade every other former Spanish colony in South America. And British citizens were about to be ruled over by an Argentinian dictator. I think the war was justified.
Argentina is a Spanish-Italian mess ;-(
As an Englishman I second this.
Honestly I find it funny how despite all of us being trapped on a small rock off the coast of Europe at least we can all agree on our outright hatred of foreigners and the French 😂😂, but honestly the Scott’s really pulled their weight in this conflict and unfortunately the British do have a tendency to forget most of our Allie’s which again is sad but the same could be said about the polish fighter pilots during ww2 or the Indians contributions in South Africa and the Asian theater who let me completely stress, we’re all volunteers, even the Africans were more than happy to fight for the British even if it meant being disowned or even kicked out of their entire family or even community which again as I said, all of those commonwealth soldiers who fought for Britain did so more or less voluntarily which has earned my respect
@@hadesdogs4366 "Scott's".
The what?
@@rockwellcollins6768they sent all the scots named Scott.
The people of the Falklands had been given an undertaking that we would protect them, it was a matter of honour and principle.
I lived in Portsmouth at the time and the preparation that went in to everything was amazing. When the task force left Portsmouth, as well as other ports, it was an incredible sight. The lads had a job to do and they did us proud. Of course it was devastating that too many of them would pay the ultimate price but there are also many Falklands veterans that are still deeply affected by the war to this day. I've been privileged to meet a number of them and what I found is that they held no ill will for their former enemy. They know that both sides had their duty to perform and any anger was directed towards the likes of Galtieri.
There certainly was a sense that national pride had been restored. When the ships returned they were certainly given a hero's welcome, although of course it tinged with sadness.
Yes, protecting the 'British' people was the main objective and Connor sees it as not wanting to be seen losing more of the 'Empire' and appearing weak! He got the reason so wrong!
Connor. It is nothing to do with beng a "post Colonial pushover". The
people occupying the Falklands
are of British descent and have no connection with Argentina. We had promised to protect the British occupants. We really had no choice. It was a fantastic victory after sending an army 8,000 miles when the Argentinians were already bedded down on the islands.
@@valeriedavidson2785
Absolutely 100% correct ✔
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
.
I was in the army at the time but didn't go, I was stationed in N Ireland at the time so watched it unfold on TV like most of us did. Several of my mates went down there, one was killed and another two were wounded. At army reunions the lads who went to the Falklands often sit together, they experienced something the rest of us didn't.
Having served in NI, I think you could also say that you experienced something the rest of others don't.
'Do you think it's worth it?'
a resounding YES
My father was a Para, he fought in the Falklands conflict at Goose Green. He strongly supports the decision to go to war despite losing friends and crucially his commander, Lt. Col H Jones. That was a monumental moment, to lose such a high ranking commander on the battlefield and then WIN the battle. His argument was always that the paras, and the rest of the military no doubt, learned so much from the Falklands conflict. Learning that enriched the paras for decades. Goose Green was faught on land, sea and air simultaneously. Dad faught in hand to hand combat and used a bayonet. He still hasn’t reached retirement age. That is mad.
We’re there repercussions for the idiots who announced the battle of goose green?
I hope he's well mate. They were heroes, not that you'd EVER hear that from them.🇬🇧
He’s getting on a bit but still fighting fit. Blames his bad hearing on the battles but otherwise you don’t hear a peep out of him.
I don’t think so.
As the widow of a Vietnam veteran, I thank your father for his service.
It was absolutely worth it for the UK. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens and it is the first and last duty of any government to protect its citizens. It was also a warning to all those other rogue states around the world that Britain was not a push over and so likely averted many other such instances in other places.
It was definitely not an ego thing, I was in the Royal Navy when this happened I had shipmates go down South, 3 were on ships that were sunk, fortunately they survived. A brutal military junta invaded this island which was occupied by British citizen. We did what was required, I suppose if Hawaii was occupied by a foreign country America would just say sure take them.. nothing to do with Ego.!!!! We defendended it because its British territory with British citizens.
I am American, I supported England when they went to war to defend their citizens and their territory and still do. Having my mother from England, I knew you would win. Argentina did not understand the British mind set and did not anticipate any response.
Well said John and thank you. Richard.@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
The initial attack by British Vulcan against occupied Port Stanley airport ... was epic guts.
The amount of times they had to refuel mid air would tax most crews let alone carrying out that mission. Heroes to a man.🇬🇧
@@themoderntemplar1567 Even the planes that were the fuel tankers had to be refuelled.
Having been to the Falklands and some of the battlefields, some of the achievements of the British forces were damn impressive.
Especially 8000 miles from home when the Argentine forces were only a few hundred miles away.
The difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands is that the Falklands has never been Argentine.
Fueron Españolas y por ende enredadas al independizarse de España.....ustedes no son los dueños del mundo , son usurpadores mundial.....desplazan a los nativos plantando poblaciones que son afines a la corona .....
There were very very few British people living in the Falklands (and there are still very few) but sovereign British territory was invaded by a military dictatorship.
It was worth it to go to war. It had to be done. It was defensive.
If Britain couldn't stand up to Argentina, then every British citizen around the world would have been in danger.
It was to protect British citizens FIRST, and to keep the islands (second)...
Not true. In 1983 every Falkland Islander was given full British citizenship. Since then, 59% have claimed they are Falkland Islanders and 29% British with the remaining declaring other nationalities.
29% isn't 'very few'.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
.
@@yaqui4994 You lost mate. You failed to invade Britain, what is modern day Italy and the Netherlands and Hannover was liberated and you failed to conquer what is today Germany and Poland. Your leader Napoleon died in exile so you lost big time. And at the end of the day you remained Spanish so were losers twice over because had you surrendered you could have been Canada or Australia, instead you are stuck being Argentine.
We fought for the British Islanders and paid in British blood. They're British and staying that way.
The General Belgrano, went into service in 1938, but not with the Argentinian navy. It was originally the USS Pheonix, and survived the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Well said. I was a young soldier who went to the Falklands - and although I was no infantry man and nothing dramatic or traumatic happened to me - I firmly believe it was "just" war. Argentina's military junta was not something you wanted to abandon people under your protection to. Naked aggression must never be ignored - history teaches that well enough. If Argentina really wants the Falkland Islands it need to convince the Islanders - since it will always remain their choice. The Argentinians have no real legitimate claim to the islands, and it is the people who have made their lives there that matter. CIWS - radar dome!
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
.
@@yaqui4994 And? Will any of that help convince the Islanders to choose Argentina?
Of course it was 'worth it'. Imagine some country tried to take Hawaii. Those people are US citizens requiring protection, just as the Falklanders are British.
Btw the Harrier VTOL 'Jump Jet had been around since 1969, long before the Falklands conflict. We don't use them any more but I think the USA still has and uses some of those we sold them.
"Was it worth it?" The Falklands are a British Overseas Territory. They are internally self-governing but rely on the UK for its defence and foreign affairs. To fail to defend the territory would be no different than failing to defend the UK mainland itself.
I was serving in the Royal Air Force at the time and, although far from the action in my radio workshop, we were still involved in the preparations pushing out spares and equipment to support the taskforce. We, in common with almost all British people, followed the action from afar, trusting, despite our traditional inter-service rivalry, in the professionalism of our comrades in the Navy and Army but acutely aware of the difficulties in operating with such extended supply lines. Moreover, our armed forces had, for nearly four decades, been shaped to oppose an attack by the Soviet Union in Europe and, with the gradual dismantling of imperial obligations, had little capacity to operate outside the European theatre.
The risks were great and the outcome far from certain but the UK really had no choice. "Was it worth it?" The United Kingdom stood by its obligations. The Falklanders were protected and assured both of their future security and the right of self-determination. The military junta in Argentina, weakened by the very public military failure, collapsed and was replaced by a democratically elected civilian government. The practice of resolving territorial disputes by force was overwhelmingly rejected by the United Nations and Britain regained much of the self-confidence it had lost during the dark years of the 1970s. Yes, it was worth it.
The question of whether it was worth the UK sending troops and ships to re-capture this rather insignificant island is one that you have to weigh up with international politics, ruling party reputation and the effect on national morale. If Thatcher had just said, 'it's not worth us going out there' the reputational damage would have sunk any re-election hopes her party might have had for the next election. Indeed, it would be likely to encourage factions within her party to sack her through a vote of no-confidence. It would also have left a poor reputation internationally as the UK would then be a country that willingly abandons its citizens. This would have had a knock on effect on public morale as many people in the UK would be angered by this, possibly inciting troubles at home. In conclusion, if Thatcher was to remain Prime Minister she had to send a military response.
I am not endorsing Thatcher in any way, this was just the political reality of the time and any leader in that situation would be left with little choice but to respond (unless of course your name is Putin in which case you can do whatever you want as anyone who says otherwise tends to fall out of a window).
'The retaking of the Falkland Islands is a military impossibility.' United States Navy, April 1982.
Yes! Absolutely correct to take the islands back. All the civilians consider themselves British and it's a British territory. Would America take hawaii back if it was invaded by a military state? Or any state? Yes I think it definitely would.
And I so wished we had our leader today leading. The harrier goes back to the 60s
Good question. But there's no question the U.S would take Hawaii back at any cost- except what if the UK was the invader? Hawaii still flies the Union flag, tops left its State flag? 😂
@@thesummerthatwas76 in the real world, we wouldn't invade hawaii. You're missing the point, the islands are American and the people's choice to be under American law and governance etc. Matters
I wouldn't be happy if we put troops into one of our commonwealth countries, unless the people wanted it due to a bad regime commiting atrocities etc.
@@tobytaylor2154...probably Guam would be a better analogy, what if China or the Phillipines decided to invade Guam what would the Americans do....I think he's just a little nieve is all...
@@glastonbury4304 true, I used hawaii due to previous historical events there, he's i assume an American so we gotta make it easy for them to understand.
@@tobytaylor2154 ...totally understand , I took Guam as its much smaller , plus the fact most living their have a Indonesian heritage rather than American, whereas the Falklands have a British heritage giving us a far stronger argument to take back the Falklands than America ever taking back Guam if it was ever invaded , which as we know they would do...that would be more of an ego trip ...just think he's a little nieve, but bless he's trying to engage and hopefully improving his knowledge and getting stronger at engaging his brain before speaking
Back then Argentina was ruled by a military committee (Junta) led by a General Galtieri. They were very unpopular and thought that invading the Falklands would get more people on-side. They didn't ask the people who live there what they wanted. They badly miscalculated. If the majority of people who live in the Falklands, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland vote in free and fair elections to leave the UK, that would be the outcome. But to invade without asking....In terms of the aftermath, we need to acknowledge the death toll on both sides and the grief of those families, Argentinian and British. But viewed from the brutal lens of reality, the UK learned a huge number of lessons militarily, and the truth is that to stay battle ready you need troops that have seen active service. I don't like or advocate for war but we need to be ready to deal with the likes of Putin and Xi in these times and we need armed forces that can handle it!!
You did not mention that Argentinian children were/are indoctrinated at school with the Argentinian version of the history.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
................
It's not a matter of worth, it's a matter of keeping your promises.
The Chileans secretly gave the British access to an airfield on an island off their Pacific coast allowing a much shorter flight than from Ascension.
14:57 The exclusion zone wasn't just for Argentine ships & aircraft it was ALL ships & aircraft from anywhere. Argentine military assets were fair game wherever they were in the world, in or out of the exclusion zone.
24:53 It's a shame it had to happen but it was the right thing to do. The islanders now are safe to live how they have lived for centuries. They are British people in British territory and that's that.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
................
Its not about sheep its about protecting British people. Imagine you living there amd and begging for help and to have your whole culture changed
Sheep? SHEEP? OH MY DAYS
Considering that the Military Junta ruling Argentina had 'disappeared' at least 30,000 of their own citizens (mainly students and young people) over the previous few years, and indulged in the sort of torture techniques that made the Nazis look like Girl Guides, it was certainly highly probable that the population of the Falkland Islands would simply habe been murdered, or worse. Napalm bombs were found ready to be deployed, when Goose Green was captured. Fortunately, Commandos destroyed or disabled the dozen or so Bokhara turboprop short-range aircraft at Pebble Island, which the Argentinians no doubt used at home 'for crowd control' - I am guessing about that last bit.
The documentary mentioned the Argentinian Exocet missiles. These were one of the greatest threats to the British task force, but the Argentine military only had a small number in supply. They tried to procure more from the French manufacturer during the conflict, but the French DGSE and British MI6 collaborated to waste Argentinian time by staging fake negotiations over the Exocet missiles - which France had already agreed with the UK that wouldn’t be supplied.
What was so devastating was that the NATO affiliated French supplied the Exocet missiles to Argentina. The NATO affiliated UK ships were attacked by these missiles but our ships anti-missile defences recognised these Exocets as NATO and therefore 'friendly' and did not try to shoot them down, hence the loss of so many ships and lives before this oversight was discovered and remedied.
As far as I remember the French as usual were reluctant to stop selling them to Argentina & I'm pretty sure NATO intervened in negotiations between MI5 & their French counterparts.
@@themoderntemplar1567 Not true the French as ever due to our thousand or so of years animosity between each other saw a chance to make money and to stick it to the UK. The French government are and always will be pricks when it comes to Britain
@@themoderntemplar1567 I agree, my memory from the era was that the French really couldn't care what happened to the British and happily carried on selling the missiles. It was only after Thatcher threatened the French did they stop.
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
....
..........
The issue was the inhabitants.
True, the government had other motivations, such as losing face and emboldening other invasions, but the fact the islanders were being held hostage and abused made the UK seem like the ones in the right. What is worse losing money and hundreds of trained, volunteer soldiers, or around 1000 innocent civilians stuck on the island? Of course, death and war are always bad, but you can't abandon your citizens without fighting. Other wise, what is the point of having a military? It's supposed to be to protect the people.
Admiral Leach when proposing the task force said, "if we do not act now and aren't entirely successful, in a few months time we will live in a country which is greatly diminished and who's words will count for little" i might not be word perfect there but nearly, the dome on top of the Phalanx CIWS is the radar which directs the 20mm vucan cannon at it base, the minigun incidentally is so called because it is a mini version of the vulcan firing rifle caliber 7.62mm ammunition.
You didn't have vertical takeoff capability then.....we did. British invention. 😊
Actually the US had started building harriers under license in 1981, although it took until 1985 for the first squadrons to become active duty. The final US squadrons will be retired in 2025.
@@paulmidsussex3409 We had them in the late 1960s...
@@jimmyfiddlesticks337 Yes but the Falklands War was in 1982 and 1981 is a year earlier than 1982.
@@paulmidsussex3409 It wasn't a typo, I said 1960 because it's true
@@jimmyfiddlesticks337 It wasn't a typo, I said 1981 was before 1982 because it was.
12:50 VTOL jets go back a bit further than that - the Harrier first flew in 1967 and entered service in 1969.
Hawker Siddeley P.1154 development began in 1957, taking advantage of the Bristol Engine Company's choice to invest in the creation of the Pegasus vectored-thrust engine.
Of course it was worth it - for a start Argentina thought we were weak, and reclaming the Falklands would be a walk- over for them. Let bullies in once, and they'd keep on coming
The people n the Falkland islands were glad to be liberated .
The Hawker Siddley Harrier was invented in the 1960s. The US Marine Corps still use this amazing British aircraft, although British forces no longer use it.
Simple Connor, our Island with Brits on it.
The Falklanders enjoyed the Queen's (now the King's) protection. We had to rescue them or nobody would ever trust us again.
It is interesting how you mentioned that "Britain" is much less powerful now. I would like you to consider this: The Government of the United Kingdom has less "power" than it did in previous centuries however, "The Crown" has lost far less power than the UK Government. The British Empire may have decolonised but in most countries in the Commonwealth, the armed forces, police and politicians all swear loyalty to the current Monarch of the UK, their heirs and successors. While I can't speak to the specifics in other Commonwealth nations - In Australia, ALL federal politicians must swear allegiance to the Monarch before taking their seat, as does the Governor-General (MPs becoming Ministers only swear an oath to the Commonwealth), members of the Australian defence forces swear allegiance to the crown as does all the Police in my state (QLD). Some British institutions still have a very long reach after all this time.
the same applies for the military and RCMP in C|anada
Just another hangover from our far flung colonies and Empire, the bottom line is these Falkland islanders are more British then us ourselves. Thatcher could not simply hand over thousands of British people to a murderous dictatorship that was Argentina of that time. It's down to the islanders to decide their futures. My brother was on one of the support ships and never seen any violence thankfully. Chile was threatened with war from Argentina and was the only south American country to support the UK.
We did not want to give in to dictators and be seen to do so. To do otherwise would have been a dangerous precedent.
I live near the Lincolnshire Bomber Command memorial. They recently had the Falklands memorial on site. It's a collection of life size silhouettes of every British casualty.
Best TV of my childhood watching the Brits sail half way across the world and demolish a dictators attempt at saving his regime. Tatcher proved herself just marvelous as well. Argies still upset over it which makes it that much more enjoyable.
As a Brit, I am immensely proud of our achievement in winning the Falklands war. Delivering a taskforce to the other side of the planet, near enough, and delivering a victory is something our entire country can look back on with pride, as it all could have gone disastrously wrong. If Argentina ever wants to learn this painful lesson ever again, they are more than welcome: Might makes right.
Chauvinist. The plague of mankind.
Absolutely... Connor has TOTALLY misunderstood WHY! It was more to PROTECT, DEFEND and RESCUE British people wherever they are (if possible).
And it was all in 6 months
1806: First British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1807: Second British invasion of Buenos Aires
Criolla Victory !!!
1845 - 1850: War of Parana
Criolla Victory !!!
........
.........
.
I've witnessed Phalanx CWIS firing. It fires for about two seconds at a time. The rounds are loaded at the side of it, the dome is where the tracking radar is. It is the last point of defence though.
I was there and it was worth it. It had nothing to do with ego. The islands were British with people who wanted to stay British. How would America react if someone invaded an island where there had been British people for over 150 years with no other people living there. When Argentina claimed it they were part of Spain so by Argentinian logic they have the right to all of Spain's ex-colonies.
I remember president Reagan slating Britain for attempting to retake the islands (stating they weren't important enough) but a couple of year's later the island of Grenada was invaded & the US went in all guns blazing to PROTECT the islands. Hypocrisy of the first order!
Britain made the Harrier Jump Jet in 1950's, it first flew in 1960 as Kestral.
USA was so impressed with the technology, they purchased a foreign military contract for them. Harrier 2's are upgraded Harrier's jointly Built by UK and USA. USA still use Harrier 2's today.
"Was there talks between Chile and UK about taking on Argentina?"
Yes. But Britain wanted to avoid a full scale war and since there was prior negotiations before the invasion, Britain knew it could revert back to it quickly if the damage is minimal. Chile however provided spots to stop and fuel for UK if needed. Hence the Exclusion zone being introduced, it was a set battle line set by Britain... "if you enter or go here, we will destroy you". If Britain went to a full scale war... The war would be a massive toll on life and finances for both countries.
Falklands was Britain being old fashioned... a war of principle and rules. The Argentine cruiser that was sunk was just outside the exclusion zone, however British intelligence had intercepted that the ship was tasked with engaging the Royal Navy, so as soon as it made a move to enter the zone, it was sunk. The captain and crew even admitted after that they were tasked to engage and had just plotted a course to enter the zone.
And yes... Nearly every Brit and Falklander thinks the war was unfortunate but justified. Those are Brits on that island... Brits that ALL wanted British help... that's a rare opportunity for a military to do to the only honourable and rightful thing they were designed for... Protect the people and their homes. It was purely about protecting the people and the land... Not a fading Empire, not image, not oil... just people. It of course had other positive consequences... Oil has been found since, it protected the UK's image in strength and even diplomacy. It also help highlight problems going on with Argentina's leadership at the time, with some if not most of the problems now resolved.
The president of America at the time once said something similar as you... "Why don't you just give them the islands for peace"... and rightfully... Margarette Thatcher replied "If Hawaii was invaded by a foreign power tomorrow, would you just roll over and give the islands to them, or would you fight for the islands and the people living there!?". After that reply, the American President offered full support to Britain in resolving the conflict. And it did... with most battles being resolved in relatively short time and with a high rate of unharmed prisoners... all of which were quickly allowed to go back home just after the war.
For a Modern War... it was infact quite old fashioned... there were lots of rules set and both sides generally stuck to them.
Of course it was worth it. There might have been some doubts at the time (who cares about a few hundred people 8000 miles away) but the results speak for themselves. Argentina's replaced the military junta with democracy, the profile of the Falklands back in the UK was raised leading to increased infrastructure spending and support, military cutbacks were halted, lessons were learned and technology developed to address the threat that fast attack aircraft posed to warships.
I think it says a lot about British restraint that we restricted our actions to defending the islands, and that we didn't attack, or go anywhere near, Argentina itself. We could have bombed or shelled their military bases, but we didn't. It sent a message that we were acting as a strictly defensive force and that Argentina itself wasn't a target.
It's called the Falklands Conflict because no-one actually declared war. Likewise, in Northern Ireland, the 30 years of terrorism were (and still are) referred to as 'the Troubles'.
but The Argentine actions they declared war.
Britain used to have something called 'gunboat policy'....
There was a time that if Britains were threatened anywhere in the world, Britain would threaten to send a gunboat to resolve the situation... the Falklanders are British, therefore we will protect their right to stay British...Thats how most ordinary Brits see it.... though of course, politicians have their own objectives
Chile has a very good relationship with the uk. And has done for centuries . So yeah, they would tie the argies down for a bit. As Argentina also lay claims to island of Chile too.
As First Sea Lord said to the PM in early Apr 1982, our not re-taking the FIs would see the UK as a different, reduced, country in the eyes of the world. The outstanding success of the British armed forces surprised the world, not least the US and the Soviet Union.
The landings were planned by Brigadier (now Major General) Julian Thompson RM and Commodore Michael Clapp RN - age 88 and 91 (and my privilege to dine with them next week). General Moore arrived Down South when 5 Brigade was deployed in order to supplement 3 Commando Brigade.
Chile was quietly supportive of the UK and its border disputes with Argentina real.
At the time of the invasion, the British Army + RAF thought we could not recover the islands successfully (so thought the Pentagon too). The First Sea Lord, head of the Royal Navy, advised Margaret Thatcher differently - he was right.
Was it worth it, you ask. Absolutely is the answer and I expect most of us who wear a South Atlantic Medal would agree. The then 1,800 islanders were British and could not be left to be subjected to occupation of their land by a disgusting, murderous Argentine dictatorship. Not ego at all but looking after British people and British interests; be mindful that the UK has 14 Overseas Territories around the globe.
The war of 1982 was the first of the missile age and a lot was learned. The conflict was the last time that an amphibious landing was made (21 May 1982) and that expertise remains central to Royal Marines doctrine.
I knew three of the British dead and my chums and I salute them each year.
I at least as a mere civilian knew back then where the Falkland Islands were, because I was aware of the naval battle down there in 1914. The Royal Navy had lost the battle of Coronel to Imperial German warships off the western coast of South America, early in WE1 and the Admiralty in London gave absolute priority of sending a task force, headed by two of our mighty battle cruisers, to avenge this loss at a time when the RN was the mightiest navy in the world. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and insisted that a seemingly impossible deadline be met to get the task force to sea. It was met, and eventually nearly all of the German force was sent to the bottom at the Battle of the Falkland Islands by Vice Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee’s force.
As a veteran of the war serving in the Royal Navy can I point out certain facts about the Naval War that very few ever seem to take account of (except perhaps the Navy itself). Just before the War the Royal Navy carried out an exercise to test whether or not we were capable of winning a war if Argentina invaded the islands, the conclusions were that it was not possible. And it would not have been, if our Allies Chile had not keep Argentinians best troops back home in Argentina and the USA hadn't given us access to intelligence gathering, that warned of the Argentinian Navy's attack on the task Force by the ARA General Belgrano (formally the USS Phoenix which survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941) and the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo.
At the time the RN was equipped to fight in a World War with the USSR and was tasked with guarding the Western Approaches to the English Channel for the convoy route from the USA, so it was assumed the RAF would be able to provide Air cover for the ships (from land bases), and the Navy's main task would be to defend against Russian subs, not fighting a war 9,000 miles away. Therefore the RN was equipped with only escort carriers for Anti Submarine warfare and of the two that were sent, HMS Hermes was due to be scrapped and HMS Invincible had been sold to the Australians (who very kindly gave it back at the start of the war). This coupled with the fact that none of the ships had any anti air weapons to speak of, meant we were a sitting ducks for the Argentinian Air force (who were exceptionally good at their jobs) and as a result making the whole operation a wild gamble that we were only just able to pull off because of the exceptional training and bravery of our forces and because the Argentinians were not able to get more bombs and missiles with which to sink our ships (thanks to the support of our close allies the French and the USA).
That Phalanx gun that you asked about Connor is radar guided and the dome you see is the radar, it puts up 3,000 rounds/min and is used for close in air defence in confined areas such as bomb alley (it was available at the time and we really could have done with it but spending cuts meant it was not), all we had were a few GPMG's we had to tie them to the guard rails and make do. Our ships are now bristling with Anti Air systems and can take down any number of fast jets, and the Navy has two fleet carriers designed to provide full air cover with fast jets and carry enough helicopters to carryout a battalion sized air assault anywhere in the world, ah well you live and learn (not so pleasant being the guinea pig though).
It was never a question of Argentina 'getting the islands back' as they had never been under Argentinian control. The objective was to distract the Argentinian people from the dire economic situation under the military junta lead by General Galtieri. It was generally assumed that the UK would not react beyond diplomatic protests and therefore it would be an easy public relations victory for the regime.
The UK had offered to take the dispute to the International Court but Argentina consistently refused as they knew there was no legal basis for their claim. At the end of the day, the United Nations holds the right of self-determination to be paramount.
You didn’t have vertical takeoff planes back then , we did
The US Marines bought the Harrier - 102 AV-8A and 8 TAV-8A - between 1971 and 1976. From 1973, McDonnell Douglas and Hawker Siddeley (later acquired by British Aerospace) entered into an agreement to develop the Harrier into a more capable aircraft called the AV-8B in the US and Harrier II in the UK. The first AV-8Bs were delivered to the USMC in 1983.
Fun fact: ARA General Belgrano served in WW2 under the name USS Phoenix and survived Pearl Harbor. Afterwards sold by the US to Argentina and renamed.
And it was worth it: about 250 lost British soldiers to save 1500 civilians.
To answer your question, yes it was worth it. You have to defend your own people, plus not doing it would have had bigger world implications and other countries would be invading countries feeling that they could get away with it. I think you answered that question yourself and I agreed with your sentiments.
Italian pilgrims left Italy and settled in Argentina and took the land from the natives there, but have the audacity to declare the Falklands or Malvinas as their land. As long as the people of the Falklands islands wish to remain British, GT. Britain has the right to protect it. As for vertical take off planes, the British Harrier Jump Jet was the pioneer, which was the inspiration for the F35 plane today, a joint project between countries, including the U.S. and Britain which contributes 15% to the overall design. 12:46
Given the Islanders voted to remain British there wasn't much alternative given the nature of the Argentine government .I remember the carriers sailing and the arrival of Harriers landing on the decks on a Sunday morning . The navy had been devastated by planned defence cuts but the next few months were busy with amazing transformations on ships and regiments embarking . Certainly it led to a big rethink by Thatchers government as our servicemen showed their professionalism and bravery in a totally unexpected and unprovoked war and many shops and regiments due for the scrap heap were saved .When they returned many had problems caused by their experiences and we owe them a lot of respect .
Yeah! No mention of the Vulcan bomber mission.
9:57
Britain thinks of the people there mate, that's why we ask all our territories, "do you want to be independent or stay with us?" all the time. Given Falklands, Gibraltar and Scotland independence referendums in the last 10 years or so
What was so devastating was that the NATO affiliated French supplied the Exocet missiles to Argentina. The NATO affiliated UK ships were attacked by these missiles but our ships anti-missile defences recognised these Exocets as NATO and therefore 'friendly' and did not try to shoot them down, hence the loss of so many ships and lives before this oversight was discovered and remedied.
One of the reasons this war is still seen favourtable by almost everyone in the UK is preciesly because it wasn't really done for selfish reasons. It was a genuine case of defending people and little else.
As a Brit well old enough to remember, there's a couple of small things missed.
Thatcher needed a political boost at the time, she was on very thin ice.
Vulcan Bombers with the most amazing in-flight refueling schedule ever were the first strike. Flying via the Ascention islands to bomb the runway on the Falkland Islands.
At the time, the Vulcan was about to be decommissioned as they were obsolete and just weeks from becoming museum pieces.
So it came as a massive shock to the Vulcan crew members to be on a war footing. Given that the Vulcan was designed to drop atomic bombs I guess accuracy had never been super high in its list of capability. So to hit a runway at night with conventional un-guided bombs was a mixture of skill and luck!
There's a sperate video on RUclips all about this first strike.
Also Thatcher had been pressing to reduce the Royal Navy just prior to the war
HMS Conqueror is still the only nuclear sub that has sunk an enemy ship in battle
The French kept arming the Argentinians with exocett missiles throughout the war, so much so the SBS were planning on sinking a cargo ship loaded with missiles in a French port
You should read about Chile's secret role, the UK secretly used their radar & airbase. There is an amazing story from the British military attaché there who was downed in a helicopter and had to glide across the border to cover it up.
You would do well to consider the invasions that have happened since the Falklands ... Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.. A British politician came up with the phrase "No reward for Aggression*, which seems apposite.
It was the Gurkas that scared the Argentinian troops, they had seen TV coverage of them displaying those knives. Their imaginations about what might be done with them got a bit carried away.
The Argentine leadership wanted the conscripts to fight bravely and so they stupidly told them the Ghurkas would eat then if they caught them. As a result they always fought to surrender to non Ghurka soldiers.
The Gurkhas had a jolly little habit of visiting Argentinian sleeping quarters in the dead of night and leaving small indications next to the heads of the Argentinian troops to find in the morning...
Iv never felt we are weak we defend our own any war uk was the first to defend we may be small but we have guts . Simple has that 👌
I agree and think that British bloodymindedness and stubborn ness also play their part, Janice
To answer you question about the CIWS Phalanx defense system, inside that "pill" on top is 2 radars to track the target. The ammo is stored under it inside a drum.
xThe first operational VTOL jet aircraft was the British Royal Air Force Harrier
The talks between Argentina and the UK not long before the war were moving towards some sort of transfer of sovereignty to Argentina with a long term leaseback, say for 100 years, to the UK. Ironically the Argentinian invasion put back any such resolution indefinitely. Of course both Galtieri and Thatcher were at the time unpopular leaders in their respective countries, both of whom would benefit from a successful war: as it turned out, Thatcher was the beneficiary.
I was turning ten in the middle of this, so at the time I didn't really pay much attention to what was happening in the news. But years later, in my early 20's I remember watching a documentary about the Falklands War, and one of the thing that really stood out for me, that was touch on in this, was the disinformation that the Argentine troops were told.
The programme I watched interviewed many of the soldiers that fought on both sides, and amongst the facts, and positions of both of the armies, the soldier also spoke about what they felt, and what they were told and led to believe. I remember on Argentinian soldier saying that when they were still in Argentina, their military officers were telling all the soldiers in their briefings that they had to move swiftly, because the British were holding Argentinian families practically hostage, that they were being forced to do manual labour. That these poor Argentinian people were virtually slaves. That the British had taken our islands, and they had to be stopped.
He went on to say that, of course, they were all in favour of rescuing their countrymen, and the thing that they were led to believe, made them determined to fight and win, setting their people free! Except, when he got there, he quickly realised that they had been completely lied to. That there were only a couple of South American families living happily on the Islands. That these people were practically all British. Everything in and around the Islands were completely British.That there was no one to rescue.
He wondered why they were even there.
On a lighter note, while I was doing my A-Level History, a question came up about the Falklands, from one of the others in the class. And our tutor was telling us that when the war started she was teaching in a secondary school, (11-16 at the time.), and just a week or so before the war, one of her students asked her where the Falkland Islands were?
She told us that at the time she had no clue what's so ever where they were, and she was a history teacher, not a geography teacher! But she said to the student, I'm not sure, but with a name like the Falkland Islands, they sound like they're probably way up north, somewhere off the coast of Scotland. Up by either the Hebrides, Orkney or the Shetland Islands.
And she thought nothing more of it.
A week later, Argentina invaded, and on the front page of the Sun newspaper was a map of Argentina, with the Falkland Islands. And the banner head line was, THE FALKLAND ISLANDS ARE HERE! With a huge arrow pointing at the Islands, and yes, she said, all day I had the kids, "Helpfully" pointing out exactly where the islands actually were!
The point isnt the distance, the point is you dont invade Sovreign British Territory. At all. We'd probably have declared war on China if they'd invaded Hong Kong. Argentina was a fascist dictatorship, and us Brits do not like that.
there british and im proud of what our boys did and i hope we will do it again if needed
Whilst I understand the confusion, given history, the two main point are that:
It was uninhabited when it was colonised
The people living there wish to remain British
Its got very little if anything to do with 'not wanting to be a push over'
Also you scoff at the vote to remain British as obvious but self determination is important. :)
Yes it was worth it. Its the principle.
My brother served then on an amphibious assault ship, HMS Intrepid. I have been deployed there 3 times myself in the past 20 years. The people who live there are of British descent, and want to stay connected to the UK.
100% worth it, if an island is a protectorate it can controls its own affairs but it will be protected.
We were asked to help.The islanders were 100% behind us .They were very happy with the UK. They did not want Argentina there.
Our old Empire causes all sorts of problems. Face value No to defend it. But the people of the Islands wanted to remain British. That the important thing.
Falklands saved Thatcher. Our Forces did the job. She had her eye of the ball. And was trying to make cuts to the Navy.
We ended up with her in power for years. The country has never recovered in my view
... caused all sorts of problems to slave traders, tyrants, and military juntas all over the world, so it actually depends on your point of view. As my mother (herself a survivor of Hitler's 'Blitz' on London) always said - there's nothing wrong with upsetting people, as long as it's people who have got it coming to them...
French companies made both the Argentine fighter planes and the Exocet missiles
Totally worth it , rule britania 🇬🇧
I was in middle school when the war started and the school's head teacher had a son that had gone to fight
She held a school assembly and all she spoke about was bringing the troops home and hitting the major cities of Argentina with nuclear weapons and to a ten year old child that sounded exciting right until I spotted the looks on other teachers faces then I knew how serious it was and if that head teachers was in government it would have probably been the start of the third world war :(
There are a number of similar British “protectorates” and some of them threatened by neighbouring nations. After the war some of them said that if the Argentine attack had been successful they would have carried out similar attacks. So in the end a lot of trouble was averted. But the deaths were nothing short of tragic.
Britain had vertical take off jets (Harriers) long before the Falkland war - as early as 1969 I think. We even let the US buy some over the next decades (they hadn't managed to develop any I guess)
Considering that unlike Spain or outside of the UK where laws as well as democracy and stability is concerned as well as order that being said Spain isn’t a crime ridden country like Mexico (no offense, but Spain has had its fair share of corruption as well as civil wars, and most people living in the former colonies are more than happy being British.
The residents of the island identify as British. They have for years. They were invaded by a foreign country with foreign laws and ways of living.. imagine tomorrow Russia took over new England and you had to be russian all of a sudden? We fought for the people that needed us to fight.... Also the fact a British person named after another British person when he found it uninhabited. as said in the video??
the islanders have a deep connection with the mainland, they went to do their shopping, send kids to schools, mail, all that is close since 82, first the 2 peoples must have normal relations. Argentina have deep cultural influence by Britain.
I remember a story back in 2012 when an Argentinian athlete was filmed doing step-up exercises on a British War Memorial in the Falklands, even though it was a while ago that I read it I still remember it as it was so offensive and disrespectful. I also remember seeing a video on RUclips that there are elephant seals that migrate between Argentina and the Falklands and Argentinians believe that because of this the Falklands must be part of Argentina, there are creatures that migrate between countries and continents sometimes and suggesting this as a reason seems a joke, unless these seals hold Argentinian citizenship I am not sure how this can be used to support an argument.
I visited the Falkland Islands about 15 years after the war. The Islanders were more British than anyone I met in the UK. They certainly don't want to be part of Argentina.
@mcjibbin I applaud the fact that you nearly always TRY to do the right thing by referring to the original content, but I've been ignoring my internal pedant too many times, and it's actually, cumulatively, pushed past my "let it go" barrier, this time.
Grammar and word order matter!
The way you say it "Original link to the video...." suggests at best that you are providing a SECOND link to your own video which sounds like its been removed once already(?), or worse, a plagiarist link to someone else's content that you claim as your own.
I KNOW this is not true, but....
What you mean is [presumably], "Link to the original video...."
Please help me maintain my mental health by taking this on board? Thanks.
It's stunning how Americans talk about colonization. The islands were empty when we claimed them, we claimed them before Argentina as a country even existed. How would America react if Hawaii was invaded tomorrow?
How can you colonise a place if there is no population to colonise?... The Falklands were empty... there wefe no people there until some English pleople decided to live on these empty islands
...thus forming a colony.
" It was an ego thing for the British " ? It was about protecting OUR citizens from an invading army ! What would America have done in the same circumstance !?
WE had VTOL jets...YOU DIDN'T !
Chile = Chilee NOT Chilay !
OF COURSE IT WAS WORTH IT !! Part of Britain had been invaded ! We didn't do just for oil or natural resources like the Yanks would have !!
You need to watch news footage of the time to get the real impact.
I was a very young airman, detached from my unit to the UK HQ during Operation Corporate, responsible for logistics. We moved people from all over the globe to fulfil roles in the conflict. The guys who went down South and picked up the SA Medal with Rosette are my heroes 40 years on. I managed a commendation for my involvement, which I was appreciative of, but I salute British bravery and improvisation.
If, if i remember correctly the General belgrano was fired upon 20/25 miles away and the torpedoes were controlled by a "comand wire" that spooled out from behind to control the torpedos to their target.
The French came out of all this with a bounus.....they got loads of orders for their "Exocet missiles" used by the Argentine air force 😂
No body takes british territory by force
And gets away with it, WITHOUT A SCRATCH.