I don't think describing Britain as expansionist is accurate, in fact the remaining overseas territories were often considered a liability for the government ra

I don't think describing Britain as expansionist is accurate, in fact the remaining overseas territories were often considered a liability for the government rather than an asset. The reason Argentina invaded to begin with is because the military presence in the region had been heavily cut back and they expected Britain to settle the matter diplomatically. Nobody (including the US) believed that Britain would be successful in repelling the invaders with military force. There had even been suggestions before the war that the islands be sold to Argentina over the heads of the islanders, who didn't and still don't want to become Argentinian. You have to remember that was the moribund Britain of the early 1980s rather than the ascendent Britain of the 1880s, there was far more concern over the disasterous economic situation at home than holding onto a relatively unimportant bit of land in the South Atlantic. Invading was a footgun of international proportions, once Argentina forcefully occupied British territory any hope of a diplomatic solution (which may well have happened) went directly down the toilet because it turned the Falklands from an inconvenience to Britain into a military matter no country could simply shy away from without an enormous loss of prestige. Nobody loses prestige by selling some neglected islands to another country, but having them forcefully taken in a war of aggression is another matter entirely and could have invited no other reponse. It also turned a place that was more or less ignored by Westminster into a place that would be very, very difficult to invade again because of the increased military presence in the region. Nobody who's remotely literate denies the British Empire did many terrible things in its history, but in this specific case for once it actually wasn't in the wrong. The Falklands never had a native population to oppress or enslave, they simply had a small series of competing European colonists who in my 21st century eyes never seemed that committed to the place to begin with. I realise there's a lot of arguments around whose claim from the 19th century is most legitimate, but the fact of the matter is that the people who actually live there now have zero interest in becoming Argentinian and unlike the imperial powers of yore we actually tend to believe in self-determination these days.