Throughout the era of colonialism European powers contended against one another to claim territories around the world. Needless to say, the consequences of this rapid period of expansion are ubiquitous. In fact many territorial disputes that exist today are remnants of this bygone era. Control over the Falkland Islands, for instance, has been a source of longstanding conflict between Argentina and Great Britain since the early nineteenth century. In 1982, Argentina launched an invasion upon the islands resulting in the rather enigmatic Falklands War. Given the enduring territorial struggle, the conflict initially appears to have been inevitable. However, upon closer examination, Argentina’s decision to engage the militarily superior Great Britain over a relatively insignificant territory is quite perplexing. The primary objective of this paper is to isolate the prevailing factors responsible for the onset of the Falklands War through careful analysis of the Argentine political atmosphere and of the conflict itself. Although a complex array of potential motivations may have contributed to the conflict, the most compelling explanation centers on reciprocal misinterpretation between nations. First and foremost, it is important to establish some preliminary historical context surrounding the situation. This territorial quarrel dates back to the late eighteenth century when control of the islands shifted from Spain to Britain. Eventually Britain withdrew from the territory, allowing Argentina the opportunity to seize control. However in 1833 Great Britain, “which had never renounced its own claim, protested and at the start of 1833 expelled Argentine forces.” (Freedman 1982, 197). Throughout the twentieth century Argentina continued its attempts to reclaim the Falklands, which they refer to as the Malvinas Islands. They based their claim on the territory on proximity that, “had great emotional significance for the Argentinean public, and had been part of public school history curricula for generations that grew up believing it implicitly” (Zellem). Britain, on the other hand, claimed their continued physical presence on the islands established sovereignty. After years of extensive lobbying, “The United Nations urged the two countries to sort out the dispute” (Freedman 1982, 197). Great Britain proved to be receptive to compromise, however the will of the local population hindered these negotiations as they made their preference for British rule readily apparent. Nevertheless despite opposition from the Falklands inhabitants, Britain began to, “push the islanders as gently as possible into cooperation with Argentina.” (Freedman 1982, 198). Unfortunately, these efforts were futile and the possibility of compromise slowly evaporated. Eventually as patience in Argentina deteriorated, “the reigning junta decided that enough time had been allowed for diplomacy” (Arquilla & Rasmussen 2001, 742). After realizing they could not acquire Malvinas through peaceful means, the Argentine Regime began to explore alternative strategies. In 1982, the Falklands situation came to a decisive turning point. After receiving an erroneous intelligence report regarding the whereabouts of a British nuclear submarine, the Argentine military junta decided to exploit this window of opportunity to mount an invasion on the Falkland Islands (Welch 1997, 491). The preliminary military operation under General Leopold Galtieri was a success and the people of Argentina rejoiced. The junta did not even consider the possibility of a British military response, but rather that they would receive support from the international community (Welch 1997, 491). However, in hindsight it is clear that they miscalculated their situation. The Junta believed that their use of force was a justified means to resolving the Falkland territorial dispute. Conversely, from the western perspective the Argentine invasion was an act of aggression (Welch 1997, 492). As a result, popular support for the British war effort in was overwhelming. This allowed Britain to act quickly in deploying its counter-attack on the disputed territory. Although British forces had to travel over 7000 miles to reach the Falklands, they easily outmatched their adversary resulting in Argentina surrendering after only a few weeks of fighting. This hasty victory exemplifies the fact that, “Popular support for the war effort and unity of purpose between the British people, government, and military was no doubt a major contributor to the relatively quick British victory.” (Zellem 1999, 26-27). Evidently, Argentina’s dismal attempt to reclaim Malvinas and the subsequent military loss was disastrous. The aftermath of the conflict deteriorated public faith in the Galtieri regime, and spurred the process of democratization. Evidently, the Junta’s decision-making process leading up to the Falklands Conflict resulted in significant consequences. However, in order to more fully explain the motivation behind their actions it is necessary to consider the political climate in Argentina during the time. In 1976, the military seized power in order to address perceived threats to national security. Under Jorge Videla, the junta began implementing economic reforms as well as an anti-terrorism campaign that came to be known as the “Dirty War”. Throughout this campaign thousands of citizens labeled as subversives were supposedly murdered, tortured or exiled by the military junta (Armstrong 1982, 37). Furthermore reforms aimed at strengthening Argentina’s economy only made matters worse. When Galtieri came into power in 1981 he inherited a failing economy and mounting civil unrest. As fate would have it, the opportunity to improve his dire political situation would present itself in the form of the Falkland Islands. According to one ex-government source, “ a successful resolution of the long-standing sovereignty controversy would represent a historically more important achievement for the new regime than any economic recovery program” (Armstrong 1982, 38). The return of the Malvinas territory would drastically improve Argentina’s political atmosphere, thus taking pressure off Galtieri to solve the problems created by the previous regime. However diplomatic negotiations with Britain proved to be futile and so as the situation in Argentina worsened, the prospect of the Falkland Islands became more appealing to the military junta. Yet nevertheless, the potential benefit of acquiring this territory through non-diplomatic means was associated with the considerable risk of a costly war with a formidable military power. Consequently, the following analysis will scrutinize several possible justifications for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands in 1982 to determine the most plausible explanation. Considering the widespread turmoil under the Galtieri regime, one possible explanation claims that the Falkland Islands War was essentially a diversionary tactic. In fact, in the aftermath of the conflict, “Newsweek asserted that 'the squabble presented the Argentine junta with a pretext to divert attention from 13 percent unemployment, 20 percent inflation and growing civil unrest… designed to line up Argentine public opinion behind a faltering government” (Arquilla & Rasmussen 2001, 746). This explanation supposes that a successful Falklands invasion might have been an attempt shift public attention away from domestic issues in Argentina. With this in mind, it appears to be a plausible justification for the military junta’s invasion of the Falklands. After all, “Galtieri needed a uniting diversion… to distract the public and maintain domestic control. The Falklands/Malvinas, which every Argentinean had grown up to believe was theirs, was a natural choice” (Zellem ). The struggle for this territorial sovereignty had been ongoing for over century, and thus the effort to reclaim it would undoubtedly unite the Argentinian people. However applying the same logic to the military junta the Falklands should represent a similar level significance, apart from simply a clever diversion. According to Welch, the temporary popularity boost was not the intended effect of the invasion but rather that, “their overwhelming intention was to resolve once and for all their sovereignty dispute with Britain” (Welch 1997, 486). This assertion contradicts the claim that the Falkland’s War was meant to be a national diversion. Instead Welch paints a picture of an entirely different military junta, with nationalistic pride and a sense of historical injustice. This is in stark contrast to the manipulative regime characterized by deceptive policies aimed at distracting the public. By applying historical context and exposing inconsistencies, Welch effectively refutes the diversionary explanation in favor of his own argument. He asserts that, “Argentine leaders were motivated overwhelmingly by a sincere and powerful desire to correct what they saw as an intolerable injustice” (Welch 1997, 486). This position is a much less cynical interpretation than other potential explanations. It does not presuppose that leaders are cold, calculating figures that only consider their political power when making decisions. Welch makes it quite clear that, “Domestic political, economic, and strategic considerations did not significantly shape their calculations” (Welch 1997, 486). He goes on to argue that this perceived injustice is a crucial component in explaining Argentina’s behavior. This position discards the notion of politically motivated conflict in favor of a cultural and historical perspective. Welch presents the conflict as a matter of cultural identity fueled by a desire to repudiate a pervasive sentiment of moral injustice. Although this argument raises several valid points it suffers from insufficient explanatory power. A sense of moral injustice may have been a contributing factor in the decision making process, however it does not necessarily constitute adequate motivation for war. Perhaps the strongest hypothesis of Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands is the assertion that the conflict was a result of misperception. Essentially this theory claims, “ that mutual misperceptions led to the onset of a conflict that neither side wanted” (Arquilla and Rasmussen 2001, 740). Given the considerable amount of miscalculation involved on both sides of the conflict this is not an entirely implausible scenario. In the context of the Falklands Conflict, Argentina’s underestimation of Great Britain’s resolve to maintain control of the disputed territory was a significant factor in the onset of war. In fact there are several reasons why Argentina may have miscalculated the possibility of a British military response. First the physical distance between Great Britain and the Malvinas islands is quite substantial. Furthermore, the Argentinian military underestimated Margaret Thatcher’s will to pay potentially significant costs associated with war to maintain control over a seemingly inconsequential territory of only a few thousand inhabitants. Lastly, they erroneously concluded that Thatcher would prioritize stable diplomatic relations at the expense of the Falklands territory (Welch 1997, 493-494). Accordingly, Argentina’s calculations could not have been less accurate. Another conceivable possibility is that Argentina did not actually misinterpret any information but rather the information itself was misleading. For instance, “Hugh Hanning argues that the British government conveyed the impression that the fate of the islands was not very important “ (Arquilla and Rasmussen 2001, 752). These arguments exemplify how Argentina might have been motivated to recover the Falklands as a result of incomplete information. In short, as opposed to the other possibilities this theory is not mutually exclusive with other explanations. This means that a desire for national unity or moral justice could have plausibly reinforced the miscalculations of the military junta warranting sufficient motivation to retake their territory from Britain. In conclusion, although it lasted just a few weeks the Falklands War is an enduring chapter in Argentina’s history. These islands, also known as the Islas Malvinas, are not particularly economically viable however they have been source of conflict for hundreds of years. Both Argentina and Great Britain have struggled for the possession of this territory since the age of colonialism. The culmination of this longstanding conflict occurred in 1982 when Argentina attempted to regain control of the islands. The ensuing war resulted in a decisive victory for Great Britain leading to disbanding of the military junta regime in Argentina. There are many possible theories aimed at explaining the invasion of the Falkland Islands. However the most plausible theory is that misperception of information by the junta regime motivated Argentina to take action to regain their territory. Although they were not successful in their endeavor, the Falklands Islands Conflict serves as an important testament to the resolve of the Argentinian people.