Duration 18:57
Why the Falklands Conflict happened
Published 23 Mar 2022
The Falkland Islands have two names. To the people who live there and to Britain they are the Falkland Islands but to their closest neighbour across the sea Argentina and its people, they are las Islas Malvinas. The debate over what to call the islands is a symbol of a much larger dispute which has raged for hundreds of years and continues to this day. On the Argentinian side a claim based on territorial integrity and a perceived historical injustice. And on the British side, a claim based on historical precedent and the right to self-determination. In April of 1982, that debate became a conflict. One which would take the lives of nearly 1,000 people. But for Argentina, it was never meant to be that way. In fact, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands they believed that Britain wouldn't even respond. In this first episode of our five-part Falklands series IWM Curator Carl Warner looks at why the Falklands Conflict happened. Why did Argentina believe they could take the Falklands without a fight? What was the invasion like? And why did Britain choose to fight for these islands 8,000 miles from home? A short history of the Falklands conflict: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-short-history-of-the-falklands-war Licence the clips used in this film: https://film.iwmcollections.org.uk/c/2184 For information about licensing HD clips please email filmcommercial@iwm.org.uk From 2 April 2022, Imperial War Museums (IWM) will mark the 40th anniversary of the Falklands Conflict. New exhibits at IWM London and IWM North will include items from IWM’s rich collection that will go on display for the very first time. The story and legacy of the Falklands Conflict will also be explored through a digital programme, including a new episode of IWM’s Conflict of Interest and a series of five short films on the conflict, explaining the extraordinary land, sea and air operation carried out by British forces to retake the islands. CC Attributions: Congreso Nacional Buenos Aires by Jacobo Tarrío. CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT DSC by Henry Kellner. CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en Washington, White House by Arian Zwegers. CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en Government House in Stanley by John5199. CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ The Foreign & Commonwealth Office's main building in Whitehall by UK Government. OGL 2. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ Map from Free Vector Maps: http://freevectormaps.com 0:00 Intro 1:15 History of the Falklands 3:24 Argentina's claim to the Falklands 5:03 The Falkland Islanders 7:02 Falklands negotiations 8:59 Why Argentina invaded 12:21 The invasion 15:21 British reaction 16:11 Worldwide reaction 17:34 Conclusion
Category
Show more
Related videos for Why the Falklands Conflict happened:
![fuck it [meme xd]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HFsyXmjYBqM/mqdefault.jpg)
The Australian PM said "You are aware that doing so would send a message to every other member of NATO that you won't automatically help defend their territory if they are attacked meaning the NATO document become a meaningless scrap of paper?".
The VP glanced at his watch "Excuse me I have to make a phone call. Cabinet is meeting in Washington in 5 minutes"
He came back "The USA is supporting Britain's position" ... 2323
Not just the cherry picked little part of the timeline that Argentina want to show.
Their claim starts when they got independence from Spain.
But the British never gave the Spanish ownership. ... 10
Argentina: "Hippity Hoppity your islands are now my property to cover up economic downturn and problems domestically occuring within the country"
Britain: Brittania rules the waves "Get bombed" ... 3
Britain WAS a democracy whilst it was also an Imperial power: the two aren't mutually exclusive!! 137
At the same time all adults were acutely aware that a large part of Ireland was occupied by Britain. We admired Britain, but felt strongly against it at the same time. It's still there of course, but we also still have such a connection with Britain that it's opposite to some of our other feelings. We cheered for the Falklands to be liberated, but hated how Britain had control of a part of our own island.
The world is a strange place for a child. It doesn't get any less strange as you get older, unfortunately. ... 169
To quote Dr Shaltz(Django):because it looks like a bit of fun 2
Lovely people. 111
1) Flight - History of Aviation
Same fg & ep
"Seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims in Antarctica" ... 13
This support centered on the British people's instinctive feelings for self-determination for the people of the Falkland Islands while very few other considerations were considered as the people were not made aware that any other ones existed. At no time or in any way were the British people persuaded that the Argentinian people themselves were to blame, indeed they were often made out to be the victims of their own government's madness. The British media with the exception of a few popular news-papers were luck warm at best, the BBC openly hostile as they are to anything Conservative governments do or say. The Labour Party at the time was in general against Britain attempting to win back control over the Falklands, confidently predicting all kinds of horrors very few of which actually took place.
Thatcher came out of this as a national hero not so much because she won the War, but because she had the support of the great mass of the British people from the onset while enjoying little enough political support from both within and without her own cabinet. Given this lack of political, diplomatic, and to some extent military support, it is perhaps not surprising that the Argentinian government genuinely believed that they would get away with it. ... 5
"You'll have to kill me for it" 7
Mexico would invade Texas, New Mexico and California.
Germany would take back Alsace Lorraine and East Prussia (now part of Poland).
France would take the Channel Islands.
Sweden would take back Norway.
India would take back Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Japan would take back Sakhalin Island.
Britain would take back the Republic of Ireland, or else the Republic would take Northern Ireland.
Britain would recapture the USA. ... 147
So long as the islanders wish to remain a British overseas territory the UK will honour its obligation to protect their right to self-determination.
The Argentine Navy today, is not even worth speculating if it were to attack the Falklands. It is almost non-existent.
But lets assume the force that previously attacked the Falklands tried invading today.
The UK has a Type 45 Destroyer on patrol at all times around the Falklands. That alone could destroy the entire Argentine air force that attacked the Falklands in the past.
The current Defences around the Falklands -
- Rapier air defence missile system
- Between 1,200-1,600 troops on the island, including an infantry company, headquarters, logistics staff and engineers.
- Four Typhoon fighter jets armed with short and medium range air-to-air missiles.
- Permanently stationed coastal patrol vessels.
- Astute class nuclear submarines which are sent into the area with advance warning.
It’s not just Argentina who wouldn’t be able to take the Falklands today, few countries in the world could, and certainly no Latin American countries (including Brazil). Few countries possess the tech and power projection to get the job done.
The Type 45 destroyer is equipped with the Sea Viper (PAAMS) air-defence system utilising the SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function radar and the S1850M long-range radar. PAAMS is able to track over 2,000 targets and simultaneously control and coordinate multiple missiles in the air at once, allowing a large number of tracks to be intercepted and destroyed at any given time. This makes it particularly difficult to swamp PAAMS during a saturation attack, even if the attacking elements are supersonic.
You could send 48 of the latest Russian Sukhoi fighters together with a strategic bomber simultaneously in an attack and they would all be flying ducks—like clay pigeons at a shooting range—long before they were even able to come into range of anything to target. The RAF Typhoons would not even have to get involved. It is not an exaggeration, one would literally need 100s of attack aircraft to swarm the islands to even get close enough to attack; and even then, be prepared to lose 100s. That’s merely just to gain air superiority.
Any naval force or carrier battle group would struggle to get past the submarine threat. And if the British were given warning in advance of an invasion (48 hrs). Then the only Navy capable of getting past the submarine threat would be the US Navy, at great loss.
These islands are better defended than most countries. Not in numbers, but in the best equipment, military training and the sophisticated tech that is employed to reinforce its defences. It was the very first thing the British did after the war, fortify the defence of the archipelago. And given the waters around the islands are both mineral and oil rich, the UK isn’t going to ease up its military presence, anytime soon.
As a footnote:
Britain has always downplayed its capabilities. Historically, Britain has underfunded its armed forces during peacetime, ramping it up during times of war. It’s worked for them. But, nowadays Britain is actively increasing its defence spending even when in peacetime—double deadly, if you ask me. Argentina thought the British empire had entirely become the commonwealth, when it hadn’t—and still hasn’t. The UK administers 14 Commonwealth realms, where the British Monarch is the sovereign head of state—UN appropriate rebranding of what are essentially “Crown Colonies”. Unbeknownst to the Argentine's, (and those ignorant of British history) the UK was capable of sending its forces that far away (this ability of sending armed soldiers to any theatre of combat is a policy maintained even today by the British—estimated that the UK is always prepared to send 60,000 troops into active combat anywhere on the planet). Even the Russians acknowledge that no nation can deploy troops as quickly and as efficiently—on a global scale—as the British can. ... 74
1) President Galtieri was on the verge of being toppled from power and desperately needed to prove himself a great leader to stay in power. Therefore, annexing the Malvina's seemed like a good idea and an easy way to boost his popularity with the people of Agentina.
2) Prime Minister Thatcher had just been voted the most hated person in Britain following a number of very unpopular decisions such as the introduction of the Poll Tax. With an election imminent it was obvious that the Tory's were not going to win with her in the leader's position. So, the vultures were circling and she desperately needed something to help rescue her reputation both with the people of Britain and the Tory Party. Basically, she needed a 'Nice Little War' and Galtieri gave her one.
Incidentally, Tony Blair tried the exact same thing when he was voted the most hated man in Britain, courtesy of George Bush whose own reputation was flagging in the polls. Unfortunately, he got it totally wrong despite trying to lie to parliament and the British public about the threat posed by Iraq. ... 18
What I learned from this was the reasons Argentina thought they could "get away with it". The reasons they thought the UK wouldn't shed blood over it. Makes more sense to me now.
Looking forward to learning more things I didn't know.
The passing mentions of combat around Goverment House, and the defence of South Georgia Island - are worth looking up in detail. (er, if you're English). ... 26
He smiled and turned away, undestanding the folly of what was being proposed, but unable to change it. ... 3