Australia is closer to the Falklands then the UK, so why wasn't

They did not need Australia to win the war

>>30315876
>They still has a serviceable carrier at the time
No they didn't. Also the Falklands is a British dependency and not part of the commonwealth.

>>30315876
The entire point of England fighting alone in the Falklands was to show the English people that England could defend its clay against aggression.

Now I suspect highly that the US gave England open access to our intelligence assets

>>30316065
>Now I suspect highly that the US gave England open access to our intelligence assets
AKA Carlos, an unemployed Argentinian bum.

>>30316065
Koff tanker support koff

File: britsgottabrit.jpg (109KB, 960x648px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 960x648px

>>30316065

>>30316065
>England fighting alone
>English
>England
>England

I realise the terms are interchangeable to some, but say British.

>>30315876
No strategic value to Australia.
We only said yes to ww1 and 2 because the Royal Navy was still of some use for maritime security at the time.

>>30316065
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

>>30315876
New Zealand sent a frigate to help but that relieved a british frigate's other duties so that it could join the task force and make it an all-british affair.