MYTH FOUR: THE WINK OF THE USA

There are many who maintain - without providing any evidence, except that "they told me", "I found out", etc. – that the US would have consented or supported the landing operation on April 2.

They are based, among other speculations, on the visit that General Galtieri made to the US in 1981.

In this regard, the following considerations should be made:

a) Galtieri's visit to the US was in style, ALL those who have held positions of political power in America

Latina – ooh! coincidence – they have landed first in Washington.

b) during the six years that Dr. Berkman and I worked with the general, no reference was ever made to

This question.

Simply because it did not exist.

If one applies common sense - no longer Logic - this topic, if it existed, would have been brought to our attention.

knowledge as a technical defense, to contemplate the possibility of introducing it in the defense before the Federal Chamber.

c) if this had existed, the assertions of the President of the USA, Ronald Reagan, cannot be explained.

In the first telephone conversation – April 2 – he ends by saying (later it was made public): “I never imagined that

dare to do it"

In the second – April 15 – (it can be consulted in the book MALVINAS/82: COMO Y QUE ”, he reiterates three times

that his government would maintain its role as "neutral and objective intermediary" between the parties.

d) if that "pact", "agreement" or "wink" had existed, for what reason Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense

(and the main enemy that the Argentine Republic had), began on April 2 to supply supplies to the British Fleet WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE US CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT.

If he had acted in compliance with that "agreement", he would not have needed to do so in hiding.

e) Based on this “wink”, what role did Great Britain play?

As part of it, did he offer the sinking of his warships or the breakdown of numerous of them, in addition to

of the losses in lives that exceeded 1,500 ?

All this to support the "wink" of the US to the Argentine Republic?

The argument is not only untenable.

It is decidedly ridiculous.