Sorry DieselDo, but history does tend to distort a few things. All Prime Ministers act under received advice. No matter how clever, how well educated and so on, it's naive to think of any Prime Minister as an all-seeing oracle. No matter how they present themselves or how the press represents them. The base line here was surely the fact that one well connected (British) family more or less "owned" the Falklands, hadn't looked after the place or its people and basically just wanted out at some profit to themselves.
The then Governor of the Islands remonstrated with the Foreign Office but his opinions were largely ignored on the grounds that he "wasn't one of them", whereas the absentee Landlord was. It also didn't help that Salvesons had more or less said that anyone who wanted were quite welcome to go to South Georgia and help themselves to whatever they wanted. South Georgia comes under the auspices of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. And that's how it started. I know this because I got it first hand over a convivial few wets with the then Governor and his wife about a month after the liberation. So please don't blame Margaret Thatcher. Blame Lord "X" and in all probability Lord "V" who'd recently liquidated his vast holdings in Argentina.
Just as a rider..."The Argentine" as it used to be called before it coalesced into the country called "Argentina" had never "owned" the Falklands. Almost since the time of its discovery the islands had been colonised (to a minor degree) by the British (and some others) and was an important way-station on the trade route to the Antipodes.
So, Mr.Diesel, apart from not knowing your history, you are actually blaming the wrong person. BY.