www.ditl.org

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:
Oh, so this Faukland place is a state(or the british equivilent)? I guess that makes sense then.

I don't know the UK term but yes it is.

Well, that makes a lot more sense then.

Wait till we get into Expats.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Wait till we get into Expats.

I'm afraid to even ask

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:
I'm afraid to even ask

Citizens of the UK (or any other country) living or working in a foreign country.

I'm coming in late and probably saying things repeated but.

HOW THE FUCKING HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW ABOUT ONE OF THE MAJOR CONFLICTS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY!

the american education system is officially shit.


Now. since its probably been explained about the technical side, i will represent the idealistic and patriotic side. Frankly, from a tactical point of view, Falklands war was pointless. Sending an armada of the relatively small British fleet including 2 aircraft carriers, the Hermes being absolutely frigging ancient and only in use because she was much larger than the Invincible (i think that was the other carrier ). It was a tiny rock of a few hundred colonists. Tactically, Falklands meant nothing.
Idealistically it meant two things.

1) Britains empire had been and still is crumbling to dust. We've handed back alot of our crown states and suchlike. But when a force actively invaded our territory, it was an act of war. Many countries expected, because of the crumbling empire mentality, that we would relinquish the Falklands, it would remain in Argentina's hands and be renamed the Malvinas islands, their Argentinian name. We did not.
When Margaret thatcher declared that the Royal navy, one of the most prestigious yet weakening forces in the world, was going to respond and defend our sovereign territory, it shocked the world. The Argentinian government wasnt expecting us to respond, Weren't expecting us to attack the garrison, werent expecting the HMS Conqueror to sink the ARA General Belgrano, the pride of the Argentinian fleet. The war showed that Britain still had strength. And it damn well had the will to use it.

2) Margeret thatcher was under alot of pressure, with trade unionist stuff and lots of riots and that kind of thing. By her showing that, inappropriately, she had some balls, she showed the people of Britain, who were in outrage at the invasion of our territory, that She was not a weak woman, not a woman that would succumb to demand, not a woman who was out to get at the people of England. It showed her true colours.

The Falklands/Malvinas war was not just a tactical battle. It was a political battle too. And in both counts....we won.


It cost us. We lost the type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield two days after the Conqueror sent the Belgrano to the deep, plus i found out we lost another destroyer and two frigates. But we payed a price for cheaper than the Argentinians did.

Blackstar wrote:Yes, the class of 07. I took, US history, World history, current events, Ancient history, and the History of laws(they had to add the history part on so that other schools knew it was a history class), and not one of them mentioned the Faukland war.

Just what the frak do they teach you in that world history class if they didn't so much as mention the Falkland War?

Rochey wrote:

Blackstar wrote:Yes, the class of 07. I took, US history, World history, current events, Ancient history, and the History of laws(they had to add the history part on so that other schools knew it was a history class), and not one of them mentioned the Faukland war.

Just what the frak do they teach you in that world history class if they didn't so much as mention the Falkland War?

Just what the frak are you doing ignoring my speech?!

I was asking hir what they thought in that class. Your speach didn't cover that.

True enough. Seriously, i'm rather appauled. I havent got to the late 20th century conflicts in history classes yet, but i am only starting my GCSE choices later next year.

I do alot of background research on naval conflicts and such cause i find it interesting ^_^

Hell, most of the students in my history class already know something about the Falklands War (even if it is just "it was a war the UK was in") before it's even thought to them.

I certainly do, then again i got an old navy dog of a father. (we wasnt in the navy at the time of falklands. Even if he was, HMS Juno wasn't with the Falklands fleet and his other ship HMS Campbeltown hadn't been layed down yet because she was one of the Cornwall (batch 3) versions of the type 22)

But we have to learn about American battles, so why dont they learn about our battles?

Rochey wrote:

Blackstar wrote:Yes, the class of 07. I took, US history, World history, current events, Ancient history, and the History of laws(they had to add the history part on so that other schools knew it was a history class), and not one of them mentioned the Faukland war.

Just what the frak do they teach you in that world history class if they didn't so much as mention the Falkland War?

I was never taught about the Falkland War either. And I'm a history major

I've had world history in middleschool, highschool.
European history pre-French Revolution at the 100 and the 300 level (basically 1000 AD to 1789 or so).
Eurpean history post-French Revolution- present. We got up to WWI in both my 100 and 300 level courses.
20th Century Eurpoean history at 300 level. Got past WWII.
Ancient and Medeval History 100 level- got to 16th Century or so
ignoring the american history courses I've had.
And this coming semester I'm taking English History 1 at 300 level and we only get to the War of the Roses I think. English History II which I won't be taking only gets to WWII.

Simply put there's just too much history to cover the Falkland War. Only reason why I know about it is cause of my own researching. Its just not a big enough war to really matter. Kind of like America's war with Trippoli, how many English classes go over that one? For that matter how many American ones do? >.>

Oh and its not taught in Military History either.

Reliant121 wrote:It cost us. We lost the type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield two days after the Conqueror sent the Belgrano to the deep, plus i found out we lost another destroyer and two frigates. But we payed a price for cheaper than the Argentinians did.

We lost a few more more than just them.

Two Type 42 destroyers (HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry), two Type 21 frigates (HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope), two landing ships logistic (RFA Sir Tristram and RFA Sir Galahad) and one container ship (MV Atlantic Conveyor). Plus most of the task force was hit at some point or other - only the fact that the Argentines were setting their fuses too long saved us from defeat in San Carlos Water.

The most serious losses were Atlantic Conveyor, which was carrying most of the task force's helecopters, and Tristram and Galahad at Buff Cove - 1st Bn Welsh Guards was destroyed as a fighting unit there, after they lost a hundred men killed or injured.

I only meant to include the military vessels, but true we lost them.