The shockwave generated by the Malvinas Museum in Bariloche, which raised British casualties during the 1982 war to 1,200 dead, has found its support in the archives and memoirs of the Argentine military leadership of the time.

A week after the controversy erupted, the Argentine press, including the newspaper La Capital of La Plata , collected the already known testimonies of high-ranking officers who argued after 1982 that the secrecy of the war until 2072 is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the true naval "disaster" suffered in the South Atlantic.

The window to the past opened by the Patagonian museum has allowed not-so-recent testimonies from key actors in the Air Force and the Army to revive the thesis that the official figure of 255 dead is a crude manipulation.

The quantitative argument: 1,090 dead and the mass graves

The main proponent of the counter-narrative was the late Brigadier General (Ret.) Ernesto Crespo , who, during the conflict, was head of the Southern Air Force. Crespo claimed that the British fatalities estimated by the Argentine high command amounted to “1,090, not the 255 officially recognized.” The objective, according to the Brigadier, was “to conceal the disaster suffered in a war that seemed won from the outset.”

The Argentine version regarding the high number of casualties is corroborated by direct testimonies from the battlefield . Commodore Arnaldo Favre , a former second lieutenant who fought at Darwin, declared that he was an eyewitness to the British haste in burying their dead after the fiercest land battle of the war:

Commodore Favre:

“I saw eight mass graves, where British soldiers were buried. They were large graves, in which at least ten bodies could fit.”

According to Favre , during the three days following the surrender at Goose Green , the Argentine prisoners were held without being able to leave the sheds at Darwin airport, "during which time they buried their dead," which would prevent an accurate assessment of the ground casualties.

The Naval Secret: An attack on the Hermes disguised as Sheffield ?

Argentina's greatest suspicion centers on the concealment of damage to the two aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible , vital centers of the British Task Force .

On May 4, 1982 , two hours after the launch of Exocet missiles by the Naval Aviation, Great Britain unusually quickly acknowledged the sinking of the destroyer HMS Sheffield . The Argentine Air Force maintains that this accelerated acknowledgment was a diversionary maneuver .

The doubt is based on technical and meteorological details . The Argentine crew that launched the missiles spotted a “large silhouette” on radar. Based on this, Argentine military officials deduce that the Exocet missile did not hit the destroyer, but rather the aircraft carrier Hermes . This theory is reinforced by a photo released by the British of the alleged attack, showing a “dead calm” or “flat” sea, whereas Argentine records and war testimonies indicate that the sea on May 4th was “stormy and with large waves,” in contrast to the calm of May 1st.

“The Argentine military’s conclusion is that the Exocet missile 'hit' the aircraft carrier Hermes ; that was the large silhouette the naval pilots saw.”

The enigma of the Invincible and the last Exocet

The second naval mystery is the attack on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible on May 30th . Commodore Rubén Moro , in his book "The Unheard War," recounts the complex mission planned to outwit the British defenses, where four Skyhawk aircraft escorted the last Exocet missile .

The Air Force pilots, after placing bombs on the deck and seeing the column of smoke, “claimed they saw the Exocet missile enter the central compartments.” The official British response was that the pilots mistook the target for the logistics ship Atlantic Conveyor , which had already sunk on May 25.

However, Vice Admiral Benito Rotolo , a naval pilot, provides another incriminating piece of evidence: an Argentine fishing vessel detained after the war was sent to the area where the Invincible was allegedly undergoing repairs. The men on the fishing vessel “saw the other aircraft carrier, the Hermes , approaching the Invincible to carry out repairs.”

Brigadier Crespo:

"So I do know that the Hermes was hit. Both were 'damaged'. But the Hermes was in worse condition."

The mistrust was reinforced by the attitude of Admiral Sandy Woodward, head of the Task Force , who omitted any mention of the Invincible in his weekly reports following the attack. Despite the ship's logbook stating "attacked by Super Etendard, no damage," the Invincible returned to a British port three months after the war and entered at night, an inexplicable fact for a ship that claimed to be in perfect combat condition .

The debate at the Bariloche Museum has achieved its goal : to use the British war secret, which only expires in 2072, as irrefutable proof that the truth about the casualties and the real damage to the pirate fleet in 1982 remains an open battleground in the press and diplomacy.