Do you think the british Goverment lie with regard the invasion of the
Falklands,and do you think that was for political gain ie Maggie wining the next General Election

Did they lie about what? They've held those islands for a long time, so there's a lot of ground covered by that question.

Sorry for not being very clear

Do you think there was an effort on the the part of the British Goverment to let the Invasion HAPPEN, ie was our inteligence service so crap that we did not know that the Argentinians were building up military forces at perticular stratigic ports,the Captain of the Endurance did in fact reported this build up and he was ignored...comments i find this an interesting subject as the us had to go out on a limb regard this ie they were not supposed to provide intel but they did,and they could not be seen to be supporting us,and Thatcher won the next election.
Taff

Argentina had been sabre rattling in the south Atlantic for a number of years. In 1977? The Labour government had sent a small naval force to deter any Argentinian threat.

Thatcher and the Conservative government could never have expected the Argentines to invade. The Defence review of 1981 would have removed the Navy's capability to retake the islands and if Argentina had waited a few more months then this would have been the case.

The most compelling case that would be utilised against the accusation of the BG lying and orchestrating an invasion is the conflict itself.

When the surrender came, the British Task Force was within 10 days of logistical failure, the Navy had taken heavy casulaties in ships and the Army was in danger of grinding to a complete halt. Had one of the two carriers been hit or sunk, then unless Illustrious or the crippled Bulwark could be hurriedly sent from the UK then a stalemate, perhaps even a British defeat was on the cards. Combine this with the the danger of the exocet missile and many other factors, then the chances of conspiracy are minimal.

In conclusion, the war did wonders for Thatcher, Britains standing in the world and put the Great back into Great Britain.

'We have ceased to be a nation in retreat' Margaret Thatcher July 1982.

A far more interesting discussion would be on the Belgrano.

Thank you for your reply and the information, i still feel however that there was an element of let it happen, and if our intel service was that inept in knowing what was going on heads should have roled have roled and with all your related points Navel cas /damage/army grinding to a halt,even more reason why the intel/secrt service should have kept thier eyes on the ball, and perhape you should canvase the feelings of the famileys who lost loved ones on the Sir Galahad i dont think it put anything great back into their lives, perhaps there is another topic,regard Belgrano Came out got sunk their navey never ventured out agin i do belive saved far more lives than the men who died on the Belgrano.
Taff

Well...seems to me that the Falklands could be an interesting subject. But i dont think it would be interesting because of its hints at conspiracy or politcal situation...

Now that logistical item mentioned in the post...what was it?

The British had a right to protect thier land, but had Argentina have had a dozen more of exocets then a peace treayt would have resulted

Originally Posted by airmanpatroler

The British had a right to protect thier land, but had Argentina have had a dozen more of exocets then a peace treayt would have resulted

I do not see that UK had more rights to the Falklands than any of the other colonies they acquired through the centuries - and since had to let go.

As for "letting it happen" I sincerely think they felt so over-confident that they didn't need to bother too much. In this war, as in any other, the victors have "shaped" the history. As a matter of fact, the Argentine effort was rather amazing. Particularly impressive was the performance of their Skyhawk-jockeys.

The Brits probably didn't take the Argentine noise too seriously (probably happened to often) and when it did happen, probably got caught by surprise. After all, when it first happened, the UK's strategic reach was severely questioned.
The answer was: still enough to beat the Argies.

we seriously under-estimated their Air-force...which was why we had so many ships hit/sunk

but the ground war was no contest...after 50 SAS from 22Sqn took port san carlos and we could get the Paras and Marines inland it was pratically over. the falklands terrain is like a mirror of england and we were so used to it....and sheer numbers meant we could take prt stanley and goose green with relative ease