I was 12, at a British Prep School (boardiing) andjust starting to become politicaally aware. My year were all geared to the TV news for the duration of active hostilities.
In later years as Irad more books on the subject and more on the internet I realised just how close the war was. WhenI studied History and Politics at university I better undestood the consequences had Britain lost within the wider context of the period. I also recall from the time that there were calls for Thatcher to resign after the initial Argentine invasions so, had the war gone other than it did this government, a deeeply unpopular one, mightvery weell have fallen to a No Confidence Vote if Thatcher had not already resigned overa British defeat. In these circumstances I doubt Conservative Government would have lasted verylong, most likely being forced into an early election and going down to a Labour landslide. That in turn could have been disasterous in the wider context of he Cold War.
You do seem to have believed the strident left-wing post propaganda though.
The Thatcher government was unpolular with the unions and the left wing. It was no more unpopular among the typical voter than any other mid-term government (if it had been, it wouldn't have been elected in the first place).
The idea that there would have been some sort of no confidence vots is completely unrealistic. What would be the basis for it? The only one that is believable is that the government failed to win the war, in which case the suggestion that Labour (stridently and fervently anti-defence spending) would somehow benefit is simply unfathomable.
Despite the 20 years of anti-Thatcher propaganda by the media and left wing (yes, I was around then, it disgusts me to see how they are rewriting history), she wasn't unpopular at the time. She was seen as someone who was making hard decisions, but it had to be done. Her boost in popularity due to the war was because she was doing what the country wanted, which was to beat the living c**p out of Argentina. No matter what the bleeding heart liberal intelligensia bleated, that was what the man in the street wanted. In fact, they wree a lot less restrained than the government.
The war wasn't ever that close, because Argentina hadn't made plans as to what to do to defend the islands after they got there (one wonders if the planners had ever read about Barbarossa...
). They had assumed that Britain would fune a bit, maybe do some sanctions, but in the end agree to a settlement.
While the actual campaign did go better than expected on the ground, the naval war was quite close to predictions. In fact the naval losses were less than those estimated. The main difference was that higher Argentina losses were expected because no-one realised they'd sit tight in port.
If the initial naval battles had gone worse (the invasion wasnt going anywhere until they were won), the fleet would simply have withdrawn (except for the subs) and waited to reinforce and get better AA defence. In the longer run, Argentina doesn't have a chance. She can't build replacement aircraft, ships or missiles; she cant buy them (UN sanctions, remember). Russia isnt going to help (all that would do is REALLY piss off the USA by mucking about in her percieved backyard). The RN can if it wishes blockade Argentina by sea. While Britain can build all the replacement it needs, can buy more (the Argentine economy was moribund, Britain funded the whole war (AND replaced lost units) out of its sluch fund), and was getting a lot of help from the US (a lot more went on than was 'official').
The suggestion Britian would for some reason give up after an initial loss is also simply wrong. Given the mood of the country the main reaction would be to hit Argentina even harder, not give up. To emphasise this, the day after the invasion Thatcher asked her senior colleagues what would happen if the government didnt respond with military action. She was told quite firmly that in that case a new government would be in power in a week which would take it. This is not 2012 and a fuzzy war somewhere in the Middle East. This is 1982 and military action taken against British citizens.