Falklands War

[Pretty Flaco]

Why did Thatcher even care about the Falkland Islands and better yet: why did it increase support for Thatcher afterward?

[Optiow]

The British had lost most of their empire, and they were in the middle of an economic crisis. Thatcher could not afford for the British Empire to lose against Argentina. They were also strategically placed.

So when she recaptured the Falklands, she used it as a great propaganda tool to impress the masses and show that the British were still strong. When Brits heard that their government was 'fighting for them', they were over the moon about the victory, because it took the edge off their economic crisis.

[Tim Finnegan]

It also reflected the precariousness of the Thatcherites within the Conservative Party itself, specifically their conflict with the "Wet" faction, at that time most prominently represented by the Foreign Minister Francis Pym and his calls for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The opportunity to play Churchill for fifteen minutes allowed Thatcher to consolidate her leadership and sideline her internal opponents.

[RedStarOverChina]

The British had lost most of their empire, and they were in the middle of an economic crisis. Thatcher could not afford for the British Empire to lose against Argentina. They were also strategically placed.

So when she recaptured the Falklands, she used it as a great propaganda tool to impress the masses and show that the British were still strong. When Brits heard that their government was 'fighting for them', they were over the moon about the victory, because it took the edge off their economic crisis.
Much of it can be said of the Argentinian government at the time---It was under the rule of a military junta that felt the need to exploit Argentinian patriotism amidst a economic crisis.

[thesadmafioso]

Swift and decisive military victories generally lead to a generous bump in ones polling numbers, and underdeveloped nations with weak military's are usually favored targets to achieve this effect.

[stella2010]

Militaries need to be motivated, the Chinese are very good at this. The falklands was an opportunity for Argentinas military to become the strong of south America. Britain most defiantly won a moral victory here, for themselves. In the end it was really just a plain threat to British dominion and therefore, the way their military motivates.

[Invader Zim]

The British had lost most of their empire, and they were in the middle of an economic crisis. Thatcher could not afford for the British Empire to lose against Argentina. They were also strategically placed.

So when she recaptured the Falklands, she used it as a great propaganda tool to impress the masses and show that the British were still strong. When Brits heard that their government was 'fighting for them', they were over the moon about the victory, because it took the edge off their economic crisis.

The first part is false, the second part is true.

In regards the Falklands, the British government had actually tried to unload them from what was left of the empire back in the 60s because maintaining empire had become expensive, but they couldn't convince the local inhabitants to give up their British citizenship and soverignty, and they kicked up a fuss in the national media which as far as the government was concerned kicked the issue out of touch.

The actual war, on the other hand, was a propaganda tool, and nothing more. That was in-of-itself the reason to go to war.

[El Chuncho]

Like most UK PMs, Thatcher wanted a war to prove her metal. In a technical sense going to war with Argentina after the invasion of the Falklands was fair enough, the bulk of the populace of the Falklands being settlers from the UK, the Argentinians being pretty-Fascist imperialists who brutalized the Falklanders, however, Thatcher pretty much just goaded the Argentinians into war by moving the fleet away from the Island and by passing the British Nationality Act 1981, which took full citizenship from the Falklanders, and then she used it to forward her own political agenda.

The government actively encouraged war crimes such as the sinking of the retreating Belgrano, which they tried to blame on the captain of the vessel which sunk it, despite him being ordered to do it.

So the simple answer is that Thatcher wanted to show that her government was strong. She didn't care one iota about the actual people of the Falkland Islands. Her propaganda warfare paid off as she won the general election of 1983. The troubled economy and the myriad of other faults in Thatcher's era were almost forgotten.

[Invader Zim]

I agree with your post, to an extent. But I'm not convinsed that moving a fleet away from a region imlies that you want those islands to be invaded by a foreign power and can count as "goading".

[El Chuncho]

I agree with your post, to an extent. But I'm not convinsed that moving a fleet away from a region imlies that you want those islands to be invaded by a foreign power and can count as "goading".

Goading might be a bit strong a word, but doing that and taking away full citizenship from the Islanders is in my mind at least akin to goading. I will not argue such a trivial point though. :) Either way Thatcher's government didn't exactly try to hard to prevent an Argentinian invasion, because they knew it would be an opportunity for ''glorious victory'', Argentina being a known threat to the Falklands, and more ticks on the ballots! One of many disgusting things committed by that government.

[progressive_lefty]

Much of it can be said of the Argentinian government at the time---It was under the rule of a military junta that felt the need to exploit Argentinean patriotism amidst a economic crisis.

I think that's a valid point. I once saw an Argentinian film about the Falklands War and the young Argentineans that went to fight. It was quite depressing, poor young men were exploited in the name of Argentinean patriotism. I once met a Argentiniean who got pretty upset on the topic, and I would encourage anyone not to bring it up if they meet any Argentineans. I think the Argentineans had the belief that it would be a piece of cake, and I think they had some quick victories at first, but miserably lost to Thatcher's Briton, which in turn led to the deaths of a hell of a lot of young Argentinean men in the process.

[Means to a end]

Despite living in Britain I have never given this war much thought, was before I was born and it is rarely touched on taught about in schools, even from the biased imperialistic angle.

But I have always wondered, is there a possibility of such a conflict ever happening again?

[Tim Finnegan]

But I have always wondered, is there a possibility of such a conflict ever happening again?
A tricky question. On the one hand, given that Argentina is now a (bourgeois) democracy, and not the unsteady, US-backed military dictatorship that it was at the time, it's unlikely that they'd be quite as brash as they once were. On the other hand, the recent discovery of major oil reserves in Falkland waters have revived Argentinian interest in the islands, as such interests now have a solid economic base, and not, as thirty years ago, an essentially jingoistic one; Argentina now has good reason to pursue the islands for their own sake, and not to prop up a wobbly nationalist regime.

Long story short, not in the immediate future, but if Argentine politics were to take a turn for the ugly, and a suitably aggressive regime were to emerge, then it's not beyond imagining that we may see some conflict. Hopefully, then, that's not a turn we'll see.