Why did Britain give away most of their empire but fight over the Falklands?

So Argentina should have just been allowed to take the Falklands?

No. The Falklands conflict in 1982 was the very moment that the UK left 30 years of low morale, economic malaise and joke-tier status behind.

There are legitimate arguments, in that the Falklands were uninhabited when the British found them. This also has the practical benefit of there not being a rebellious native population, in contrast to India etc where control wasn't ceded so much as taken. But yeah, Thatcher was probably thinking first and foremost of her popularity ratings.

>whataboutism
OP asked for a reason why UK specifically chose to fight over Falklands, not whether it was justified to do so.

imo UK should defend it without much fuss, but Thatcher only really did it so that she can milked the PR shit out of it

This. She also had high levels of testosterone.

>Brits were perfectly willing to go to war over this . . .

Are you seriously claiming the Falklands war somehow boosted the UK economy?

No, but it coincided with the rise of the modern British economy based on financial services and banking. The 1970s was a god awful nadir for Britain but ever since the Falklands the country has basically been going, relatively speaking, from strength to strength. It's merely an interesting coincidence. I would possibly go as far as saying that the war restored British self-confidence after decades of decline and decolonisation.

Yeah good thing Britain is a superpower once again eh

This. Shitty interior politics are always hidden by external glory.
>USA! USA!

He said "relatively speaking." The UK obviously no longer has a globe-spanning empire but it is doing better than it was in the '70s.

Even after cutting of its nose to spite its face the UK will still be far better than it was in the 1960s and 70s.

> superpower once again
Someone please post that HMS Queen Elizabeth pic with built in mosque bridge. Google image must have censored it.

Thatcher didn't start the Falklands conflict, she simply responded to it.

>Because Thatcher needed a war
You have it backwards.
Argentina had a new insane military government that needed a military victory to stabilize political power.

It just happened to be helpful to the English as well.

as an Argentine myself, i argue ALL former colonial possesions should return to the Crown.
UK in power of more land means the advance and betterment of mankind.

as an Argentine, i DEFEND our military goverment, they tortured and executed 9,000 communists.
i also support Thatcher who cut off welfare for the lazy bums who leeched off it.

Actually it was for the same reason both times: Britain committed to granting self-determination to her colonies, and so liberated those that asked for it, and protected those who wished to remain British.

That was a Heinous mistake.
the wishes of meager Subjects do not matter. Hence why they are subjects and not monarchs.

Britain has never been a superpower you stupid faggot. It is, however, a nuclear power, one of the biggest economies in the world, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

This attitude is why France had such terrible problems losing its colonies, but Britain largely decolonised without incident (Malaysia notwithstanding).

>Europe leaves Africa
>genocides,famine, civil wars ensue
the tragedy that befell "liberated" colonies is in itslef and incident

The British colonies have largely done quite well. But in any event, it's not Britain's responsibility or right to insist that people remain inside the Empire. They wanted self-rule, they have self-rule. The Falklanders wanted to remain part of Britain, they remained part of Britain.

They were exterpitated from a wonderful Empire and left to rot as meager republics!

No, they asked for independence. Britain didn't throw anyone out. Also, many of the colonies remain members of the Commonwealth, and still have the British Queen as HoS.

They made a wrong decision.
A baby can't solve a trolley problem can he?

>Britain has never been a superpower you stupid faggot.
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

Lets be honest here, ever since WW2 ended UK has been USA's sock puppet.

Please cite the time period during which Britain was a superpower, you unbelievably stupid faggot.

Sure, but so has all of Europe. That's what happens when the period of Great Powers ends and the period of the Superpowers begins, all the nations of the world seek shelter under the Superpower of their preference.

Adult niggers may not be particularly intelligent but they ARE adults, and so have a right to self-determination.

Not true, half of it were Soviet sock puppets.

19th century. Early 20th.

I don't know what you're doing but you'd better stop it
It's not even really what you're saying just the way you're saying it. It feels off man, feels way off. I don't like this guys

So a century before the term existed? Wow, that's an amazing achievement! I wonder why literally no-one on Earth but you knows about Britain's 19th century atomic stockpile? You should totes write a book!

Nothing like a bit of Argy Bargie.

strategic sheep purposes

It's British territory inhabited by English-speaking British subjects for generations. Why WOULDN'T they defend it? Do they want to send a precedent of being pushed around by faggy latino paper tiger dictators? No.

I never stated they had nuclear weapons. They were a superpower though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

Check the terms you're using before you use them.

Thatcher.

>So a century before the term existed?

Are you fucking retarded?

The Greeks didn't have empires by that logic, because the Romans invented the term.

There's a difference between eras, and the UK was certainly a world power, or imperial power. Right after WWII it was considered a superpower, but then decolonization happened and it lost the title. Generally, only the US and USSR have ever been superpowers in a truly modern sense.

The term "superpower" originated after WW2. So no, neither the Greeks nor the Romans was a superpower.

Yeah, how could anyone be worse off under the British Empire?

This argument doesn't make sense. You can make up a new term today and write a book about how some country three centuries ago was 'that term'. Why wasn't Britain a superpower?

Because it's a stupid fucking term and kys for using it unironically.

You mean stamping out inflation, reducing bloated public sector and closing useless mines as well as getting economy and national pride back? Truly horrifying.

Good man.
t.another Argie

before the war they weren´t even UK citizens

/thread

British monarch still has full power under Canada, NZ and Australia. So empire is resuming.

Yeah, and Americans are British. British language, culture, and their ethnicity is the largest minority.
If we weren't so far away and so big, and instead were, say, on Ireland, and part of the UK, nobody would question that we were British.
Especially 60~ years ago, when we were whiter.

This thread again? Is it just one autistic or is there a tag team type arrangement?

>empire is resuming

meanwhile London is majority Muslim

meanwhile all top politicans and businessmen are British and muslims are just dirty fucked workers without citizenship.

London isn't the UK. They voted Remain for fuck's sake.

What there is to the UK outside of London? Couple inbred fishing villages, Scots that may or may not try to leave again in future and few smaller Paki slums.

>Couple inbred fishing villages
If I were calling somebody else inbred, I probably wouldn't make it so obvious I was inbred myself.

the us has literally no claim to hawaii

looks like wales, or the isle of man

>I know you are but what am I?

Argentina was weak enough for it to actually fight and have a chance at winning.

you're wrong and dumb stop posting

She already had the war in Belfast and Derry

>meanwhile London is majority Muslim
shitijustmadeup.txt

London makes up less than 10% of the uk's population.

So she convinced Galtieri to invade the Islands?

Do leftistis REALLY believe that?

>Britain has never been a superpower you stupid faggot

Argentinian veterans of the Falkland wars are insufferable. The war lasted two months and a half, and around 650 troops died, but every time they are interviewed they make it sound like fucking Stalingrad.

Not even a Brit, if you call somebody inbred you really ought to take care not to drop entire words from a sentence literally in the manner of a back country hick.

>the british government, whose job it is to tepresent the interests of british people, fought to defend british people from foreign attack
#wow #whoa

t. Taig

It isn't though.

Look at the post again. Did I say they shouldn't defend it? No so stfu

Which by no means could have anything to do with joining the EU in 1973

If only that Argie mechanic hadn't fucked up those torpedoes
>German U-Boot sinks the Invincible
Butthurt would have never been the same

>Please cite the time period during which Britain was a superpower, you unbelievably stupid faggot

>"Superpower is a word used to describe a state with a dominant position in international relations and which is characterised by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale"

>"No agreed definition of what is a 'superpower' exists, and may differ between sources.However, a fundamental characteristic that is consistent with all definitions of a superpower is a nation or state that has mastered the seven dimensions of state power; geography, population, economy, resources, military, diplomacy and national identity"

>"The term was first used to describe nations with greater than great power status as early as 1944, but only gained its specific meaning with regard to the United States, the United Kingdom and its empire and the Soviet Union after World War II. This was because the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union had proved themselves to be capable of casting great influence in global politics and military dominance."

>inb4 i know better than Wikipedia, Wikipedia is for Jews etc.

>britishpedia
Trash.

Indeed it's worth noting that the English version lists Britain as a superpower while other language versions don't.

I expect fr.wikipedia still lists France as the world's only hyperpower

just because you live in some nigger country were people are seen as cattle doesn't mean the British have to be the same. the war on terror was in the interest of protecting the people; the Falklands Conflict is a perfect example of this idea: that if nationals, no matter how few or many, no matter how close or far away they may be, are threatened then they should be defended

Funny that the only civilian victims in the Falklands were killed by british shelling while argentinians respected lives and property

>implying the Argentinians respect lives and property of civilians
>literally starting a war to have them removed

bullshit, there was no removing of population, no looting, no arrests, nothing. Even today Argentina will give citizenship to anyone born on the islands.

but were not talking about today. Argentina did not respect the civilians because they tried to claim their homeland

>Sure, but so has all of Europe

Not to anything remotely approaching the same degree.

>anglo mindset detected

Falklands are British and inhabited by British people.