Thatcher certainly benefited from the war, and probably called the 1983 election in part due to her rise in popularity from the war, but none of that suggests she started the war. If I land a job as a bouncer because I tackle some drunk guy who swings at me, I'm benefiting from that fight, but I didn't start the fight. You should need a damn good reason to start a war, and I don't see that here.
the british settlement did not differ in any meningful way from the spanish
The British one was permanent starting in 1840, the Spanish never was. How meaningful that is depends on your answers to those two key questions I highlighted, but there is a real difference.
My main contention is that several hundred people died so that a colony (which garrison is more expensive than the worth of the falklands economy) would remain as such for the good of “national dignity and self respect”
What's the alternative? Letting fascists invade and doing nothing? That's appeasement, and we know how that works out.
The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) regarded the islands as a nuisance and barrier to UK trade in South America, so, whilst confident of British sovereignty, was prepared to cede the islands to Argentina. When news of a proposed transfer broke in 1968, elements sympathetic with the plight of the islanders were able to organise an effective Parliamentary lobby to frustrate the FCO plans. Negotiations continued but in general failed to make meaningful progress; the islanders steadfastly refused to consider Argentine sovereignty on one side, whilst Argentina would not compromise over sovereignty on the other. The FCO then sought to make the islands dependent on Argentina, hoping this would make the islanders more amenable to Argentine sovereignty. A Communications Agreement signed in 1971 created an airlink and later YPF, the Argentine oil company, was given a monopoly in the islands.
In 1980, a new Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Ridley, went to the Falklands trying to sell the islanders the benefits of a leaseback scheme, which met with strong opposition from the islanders. On returning to London in December 1980 he reported to parliament but was viciously attacked at what was seen as a sellout. (It was unlikely that leaseback could have succeeded since the British had sought a long-term lease of 99 years, whilst Argentina was pressing for a much shorter period of only 10 years.)
Where's the unwillingness by the British to engage diplomatically? It seems like their FCO was fine giving the islands to Argentina, but the biggest obstacle was the people living on the islands. Britain tried at least three approaches: a straight transfer, a closer commercial connection of the islands to the mainland, and finally a Hong Kong-style lease scheme. It's honestly hard to argue they could have done more -- they tried to just give them away right off the bat! The only country acting outside of multinational organizations here was Argentina, when they abandoned diplomacy and invaded.
But maybe we should mark “appeasement” for discussion in the next session. I think it really doesn’t hold in this case
The junta had launched a quickly-aborted invasion of Chile in 1978. There are also oil interests that had already spawned one war near Argentina's border, and within the territory that had originally broken away from Spain as one unified country (before Bolivia and Uruguay split off). There were ample opportunities for continued aggression.
deleted by creator
Thatcher certainly benefited from the war, and probably called the 1983 election in part due to her rise in popularity from the war, but none of that suggests she started the war. If I land a job as a bouncer because I tackle some drunk guy who swings at me, I'm benefiting from that fight, but I didn't start the fight. You should need a damn good reason to start a war, and I don't see that here.
The British one was permanent starting in 1840, the Spanish never was. How meaningful that is depends on your answers to those two key questions I highlighted, but there is a real difference.
What's the alternative? Letting fascists invade and doing nothing? That's appeasement, and we know how that works out.
deleted by creator
Where's the unwillingness by the British to engage diplomatically? It seems like their FCO was fine giving the islands to Argentina, but the biggest obstacle was the people living on the islands. Britain tried at least three approaches: a straight transfer, a closer commercial connection of the islands to the mainland, and finally a Hong Kong-style lease scheme. It's honestly hard to argue they could have done more -- they tried to just give them away right off the bat! The only country acting outside of multinational organizations here was Argentina, when they abandoned diplomacy and invaded.
The junta had launched a quickly-aborted invasion of Chile in 1978. There are also oil interests that had already spawned one war near Argentina's border, and within the territory that had originally broken away from Spain as one unified country (before Bolivia and Uruguay split off). There were ample opportunities for continued aggression.
Seems you have a point there, should have known better than to argue only having read one article