Secret NATO armies. Operation GLADIO and voltage strategy
Interview with Dr. Daniele Ganser
***
Our guest this week is simply a Swiss historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, author of the landmark book NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe, which joins us in a fascinating (although sometimes disturbing) conversation about Operation GLADIO.Shortly after planet War II, a pan-European network of secret armies was organized under NATO aegis to defy military and intelligence in the event of a feared russian invasion. Following the opposition movements of the years of war, many of these units "remained behind" remained faithful to their first mandate. However, in the early 1960s – under force from anti-communist politics and flirting with the utmost right – any of these groups began to transform into something more sinister, connecting with the utmost right that carried out acts of terrorism under a false flag, harassing leftist parties and assassinations State.
But was this transformation simply an unforeseen consequence of the unresponsibility and instability of the network itself? Or was it, at least in part, designed by the same Anglo-American establishment that spawned this project? And to what extent, then, can specified acts of panic be seen as a manifestation of a "stress strategy" implemented by the state against its own citizens in order to control interior and get geopolitical benefits abroad? (We besides discuss Operation Northwoods, alleged war on terrorism, 9/11 and fresh attacks on Charlie Hebdo).
Original notes audio in the transcription of Sarah Brand and Julian Charles
Julian Charles: Hello, everyone, this is Julian Charles from TheMindRenewed.com, coming to you, as usual, from the depths of Lancashire village in the UK. present is January 27, 2015 and I have the large honour of welcoming Dr. Daniele Ganser, the author of the breakthrough book "NATO secret armies: Operation GLADIO and terrorism in Western Europe". Dr. Ganser is simply a Swiss historian specializing in contemporary past since 1945 and global politics whose investigation focuses on survey of peace, geostrategism, secret wars, resource wars and economical policy. Lectures at the University of St. Galen and the University of Basel and is besides the founder and manager Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Researchwhich is besides located in Basel. Dr. Ganser, thank you for joining us.
Daniele Ganser: Thank you so much for inviting me.
JC: It's large to yet talk to you. At the outset, I gave very mysterious information about you, so could you give us a fuller thought of the work you do?
DG: Yes, the information you supply is correct. I'm forty-two, 2 kids, and I live in Switzerland. I do investigation on secret wars, war on resources, peculiar forces, secret services, I'm curious in investigation on peace and human rights. I'm an activist scientist, 1 of those scientists who doesn't think it's right that we're stuck in this planet of violence.
JC: Now we will discuss a peculiar issue of Operation Gladio (as it is usually called) and focus on your investigation that led to your book "The Secret Army of NATO". I realize that your book was based on your doctoral studies, so what made you even curious in this subject?
DG: I studied in Switzerland and wrote my first book before my doctorate. all past student here in Switzerland – and I guess it is the same around the planet – must look for the subject of his master's thesis. So I looked at the subject of the Cuban crisis, the CIA and the invasion of the Bay of Pigs, which occurred in the 1960s erstwhile the Americans tried to overthrow Fidel Castro. It was truly fascinating due to the fact that all the time we spent in Swiss advanced schools we never learned anything about secret wars; Our past teachers have never touched on this subject. Even erstwhile I applied for university studies, this subject never came up. It was only at the end of my studies, during my master's degree, that I first encountered secret warfare: that secret services exist; that the United Nations, its safety Council and its governments are lying to each other. I was confused. I was twenty-five and I thought, "This is interesting; I want to know more."
JC: That's interesting. We are raised to believe in our governments. I think it's understandable, but with that goes the assumption, "Well, they would never lie to us."
DG: That's right. In examining CIA's secret operation in Bay of Pigs, the invasion of Cuba in April 1961, which aimed at overthrowing Fidel Castro's government, I read the UN safety Council papers concerning this period and stated that their content was rather surreal. authoritative stenograms revealed a conversation between the Cuban typical and representatives of the 5 associate states of the UN safety Council: France, England, the USA, Russia and China. A Cuban typical tells them, "Kuba is being attacked by the CIA, who is trying to overthrow the government," to which the American ambassador replies, "This is all bullshit! It's most likely false information." Then the typical of Cuba says, "No, no! We're being bombed now; It's not." Then the American ambassador says, "Oh, yes, you're being bombarded, but according to my sources, it's most likely disgruntled pilots from the Cuban Air Force dropping bombs on their own country before leaving in protest of Fidel Castro's dictatorship." It's funny, but it's actually in the records. On top of that, the ambassadors of large Britain and France to the United Nations say, "If my colleague from the United States says so, we believe him completely." And the Chinese and the Soviets go crazy, "It's all bullshit!" It was the beginning of my interest in secret wars.
JC: And that led you to investigation into Gladio himself. How easy did you do it? Have you noticed that governments openly disclose their information?
DG: Actually, it's... my interest It guided my steps. I tried first to find if it was actual that NATO has secret armies. So I went back to the file and looked at European Parliament resolution of 22 November 1990., which I have here, and which states: "The Parliament of the European Union is vigorously protesting the takeover by any American military in form (Chief Command of the Alliance Forces in Europe) and NATO of the right to encourage the creation of a secret intelligence and operational network in Europe". I understood that there is simply a secret network in Europe against which the European Union is protesting and NATO is refusing to reply. So it was like a fight between large players: the European Union on the 1 hand and NATO on the other.
I found it very interesting, so I looked into the details and discovered that the Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, confirmed the existence of a secret army in Italy. And that was very comic due to the fact that then French president François Mitterand said, "No, we didn't have a secret army." Andreotti then said, "Oh yes, very much, in 1990 there was a gathering attended by the French". So Paris was truly embarrassed due to the fact that they had to retreat their denial and admit that they had an army left behind. It was a scandal in which countries were contradictory. It is adequate to say that in the end I had adequate solid data to confirm absolutely and beyond uncertainty that NATO has a secret army, called Gladio in Italy and lag behind in another countries.
JC: I imagine it must have been hard to break through all theorems, counterstatements and propaganda and decide what is actual about it. Anyway, I want you to explain what Gladio is. I fishy quite a few people will know what it was, but there will besides be those who have never heard of it before. So, could you give me a closer look at what Gladio was?
DG: Yes, gladio It's a word for a short double-edged sword, a weapon utilized by gladiators in ancient Rome. During the Cold War, an Italian secret military service, Servizio Informazione Sicurezza Militarye, had a branch called Gladio, a top secret part of Italian secret services. He was preparing to fight for 2 things and at this point everything becomes rather delicate. First: in the case of the russian invasion of Western Europe – and so we are talking about Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, etc. – this secret network of soldiers would fight as a guerrilla army behind enemy lines with explosives, weapons, ammunition, communication equipment and so on. For example, if a NATO pilot were shot down over, say, the Soviet-occupied France, a secret network would inform the governments of unoccupied territories – most likely Britain or the US – of a shot down pilot. So this was mostly in line with the thought Resistance. It was 1 branch.
JC: Was he truly inspired by planet War II resistance?
DG: Yes, absolutely. respective people from Norway told me, "We do not want to be referred to as either Gladiators or Secret Soldiers due to the fact that it would someway link us to acts of terrorism that are trying to destabilise European democracies. In fact, we did the opposite. During planet War II we were occupied by the Germans, and erstwhile this ended in 1945, our goal was to prepare for a fresh war with the russian Union, which required not only a regular army subordinate to the Department of defence of the country, but a secret army that would defy even after a regular army declared defeat. So we were opposition fighters doing an honorary job." Indeed, I believe that NATO's secret army included people who in no way were extremists, but they simply wanted to defend their countries from occupation. So we must not throw them all in 1 bag; It's crucial to separate these 2 things.
JC: Absolutely. How many countries had those armies left behind?
DG: Oh, many countries. The scandal broke out in Italy and was initially treated as another Italian mess due to the fact that there is always a scandal in Italy! But then it went further: the Belgian defence minister was in Italy and learned from the paper that Belgium besides had a secret army. Of course, as defence minister, he was terrified. So on his return to Belgium, he called the president of the College of Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest officer of the Belgian armed forces – and asked him if what he had read was true. And the president said, "Yes, that's right," to which the Minister of Defence replied, "That's strange; I'm the Minister of Defence, and yet I don't know anything about it!" The President's answer was, "We're military officers who dedicate their full life to military service; You're just a temporary defence minister, and a socialist. Governments come and go, and we're not gonna tell all defence minister about our secret operations.
The Belgian Parliament then conducted an investigation and stated that the Belgian Parliament had a secret army under the aegis of its secret services. However, this structure was not limited only to Italy and Belgium: secret armies besides existed in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, as well as in neutral countries specified as Finland, Austria and Sweden. Thus, in fact, it can be said that the full Western Europe was covered with a network of NATO armies falling behind, designed to become operational in the event of a russian invasion. Of course, now we know that this russian invasion never came, but at a time erstwhile these networks were created in the late 1940s and early 1950s, people were not so sure.
JC: You say that any politicians, any ministers, have been informed that these armies exist, but many have not been. How was this decision made?
DG: I think that NATO, Washington and London were afraid that providing delicate information to the socialist/communist minister – say to the Minister of Home Affairs or Defence, or even to the Prime Minister – could lead to the transmission of this secret to Moscow. NATO felt that not all European governments and media organisations could be trusted with specified secrets. You see, strictly speaking, you can't have a secret army in democracy. You can have police, safety and army, but they all gotta answer to parliament. It is unthinkable that Parliaments do not know about the existence of full networks of secret armies, and yet it has happened, so democratic control has failed.
I looked into the situation here in Switzerland, and the probable reason why parliamentarians were kept in ignorance was due to the fact that they were incapable to keep a secret, which is undoubtedly true, but keeping secrets from the government may be problematic. In Switzerland it was Untergruppe Nachrichtendienst und Abwehr, a Swiss military defence that works closely with British MI6 and together trained these secret networks. any executives knew this, but the public has never heard of it, so I imagine many of your listeners most likely never heard of it.
When I did my Ph.D., I studied for a while in London and spoke to professors of political discipline at the London School of Economics. These guys were trained in global politics, they wrote books and they knew a lot about it, but erstwhile I asked them, "Do you know anything about NATO's secret armies?", they replied vaguely, "Wait a minute. Yes, there was, but what precisely was it? Imagine you ask, "Do you know anything about the Vietnam War?" and they say, "Wait a minute. The Vietnam War? I've never heard of it. What was that? We're talking about this level of information gap.
JC: It's amazing, isn't it? You mentioned MI6. Is it actual that these armies that have been left behind from the very beginning were an Anglo-American arrangement?
DG: Yeah.
JC: Is it actual that the British peculiar Operations Management and the Bureau of strategical Services (the CIA's predecessor) organized this hand in hand?
DG: That is correct due to the fact that during planet War II (1939 – 1945) peculiar Operations Executive (British branch of this secret venture) operated behind enemy lines and attempted to fight Germany through an unconventional war, while the Office of strategical Services (OSS, US branch) did more or little the same. For example, in Italy they collaborated with communists due to the fact that they wanted them to grow stronger to defeat Mussolini (Italian dictator from planet War II). But erstwhile the war was over, OSS realized that if it continued to support the opposition of Italian communists, Italian communists would come to power at the end of the war, and they did not want to.
So they had to do 2 things. First, SOE and OSS stopped arming and working with this opposition grid. Secondly, the CIA falsified the 1948 Italian elections. (It was the first thing the CIA did. present we talk about CIA torture and another matters, but people forget the past.) Their task was to guarantee that no communist gained a dominant position in the Italian parliament, otherwise Italy could not become a NATO associate in 1949. So there was a vote first, and then it was rigged, manipulated. And it worked! In 1949, Italy was incorporated into NATO, but the CIA and MI6 made certain that through this network of soldiers kept secret control of all NATO states.
JC: This anti-communist impulse was the main reason why this organization turned into something far more sinister, in any cases with crucial ties to terrorism. What was the change? And why did this happen?
DG: Yeah, that's a very hard part of my research. You must remember that this network of remaining behind has not been accidentally discovered; It was discovered by an Italian justice who investigated a 1972 terrorist attack in Peteano, a tiny village in northern Italy. An anonymous call called the police to analyse an abandoned car in the village, and erstwhile they opened the door, the car exploded, killing 3 police officers. Immediately after that, individual called, claiming that the Red Brigades were liable (Italian terrorist group of the far left). This was later confirmed by a police "expert" from explosives, who told investigators that the explosive was very clearly utilized by the Red Brigades. This authoritative version was in force for a long time, until the Italian judge, Felice Casson, re-examined the attack and stated that the facts had to be falsified and manipulated; It was a sea of lies. He later discovered that the attack was not carried out by the far left, but by the far right, and that it was carried out by a terrorist named Vincente Vinciguerra, an utmost right-wing associate of Ordine Nuovo, a neofascist group in Italy. Vinciguerra openly admitted it, saying, "Yes, it is true, but I am protected by a network of secret services. Moreover, there is simply a secret network coordinated by NATO throughout Europe". That's what he said.
Remember, it was in the '80s. Many people in Italy simply thought, "This man is crazy; NATO's secret army is simply impossible!" However, the Italian justice was determined to discover the truth, so he pressed Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to give him access to the archives of Italian secret military services. unusual – and I admit that I can't explain it – he gained access. Imagine that! say I, the historian, would be given access to the archives of the CIA, MI6, Mossad or Italian secret services: it is not essential to add that I would besides discover the most revealing things!
So this Italian justice gets access to the archives and there – only there – finds papers from which it is very clear that Operation Gladio intended to fight 2 enemies. Firstly, the russian invasion (which never happened); and secondly, the interior enemy. The second thought is: first you carry out a terrorist attack – (usually terrorist attacks shock everyone and origin fear in them) – and then you blame your enemy for it. During the Cold War they would be communists; present they are Muslims. That way, your enemy is completely discredited, even if he didn't, and that's called a tension strategy under a false flag. The judge, Felice Casson, realized that the tension strategy was actually utilized to shock Italy in a very strong fear of communist terrorism. Actually, it was fabricated. Today, erstwhile we effort to put these elements together, NATO refuses to comment, as does the CIA and MI6; It's all a small complicated. But present we know that these terrorist attacks were carried out, and many of them were strategies of a false flag based on tension. We were lied to.
JC: So in this case, we're dealing with an utmost right-wing, Vinciguerra, a associate of Ordine Nuovo, conducting an attack under a false flag; It's 1 of the strategies. But was it not another strategy to infiltrate leftist environments and encourage them to commit acts of terror?
DG: It's true; it's another idea. Just infiltrate a left-wing group that you don't think is aggressive enough, and push it to do something violent, like kill someone. Then you created a alleged interior crisis that you can use, saying, "We request more money for the military and NATO, as well as more power for the Secret Service to warrant you freedom and freedom. We have evidence that these communists are evil and terrible." In 2000, the Italian legislature (one of the branches of the Italian Parliament) investigated a series of terrorist attacks in Italy and published its conclusions in the report. Let me quote this 1 sentence. The Italian parliament writes:
These massacres, these bombs, these military actions were organized, promoted or supported by people in Italian state institutions and, as it has late turned out, by people associated with United States intelligence structures.
That's a very revealing quote. (And to be clear, terrorist attacks in Italy – Straggia, as they are called in Italy – specified as Bologna, Piazza Fontana and Peteano, are undisputed and well-established facts of the Cold War.) Thus, the Italian legislature admits any 15 years ago that people in Italian state institutions – specified as the Italian Ministry of Defence and military intelligence units (secret services) – were associated with these attacks. Moreover, people from American secret services – specified as the CIA and possibly the DIA ( Defence Intelligence Agency) – were besides associated with these acts of terrorism. It is very saddening to realize that your taxes (which are already hard adequate to pay) are being utilized to let the defence department and its secret services of your country to attack, kill and cripple their own citizens. erstwhile I talk to people about it, they respond with disbelief, "Oh, no, it's impossible," and I say, "No, it's possible; look at the data." I have another quote for you, if I may?
JC: delight do this.
DG: Vincente Vinciguerra, the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in Peteano in 1972, who later confessed and was found guilty of terrorist attacks in Europe, explained this:
"It was essential to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people who were far from any political game".
So, basically, you just kill anyone, say, at the train station.
The reason was beautiful simple. They were to force these people, Italian public opinion, to ask you to be more secure. This is the political logic behind all the massacres and bombings that stay unpunished due to the fact that the state cannot convict or declare itself liable for what has happened.
So, in fact, we're dealing with a terrorist saying, "I was protected by the state due to the fact that the state wanted acts of terrorism to be able to argue for greater power, surveillance technology and money." After a terrorist attack, many things are admitted that would otherwise have been rejected. say you ask people to stay home after 8 o'clock on a sunny summertime day, erstwhile there are no signs of a terrorist threat, people would protest for understandable reasons; They would alternatively enjoy a pleasant evening in the open air. But let's presume that there's a terrorist attack, and then you get a warrant to stay home after 8: everybody follows. This is simply a shift of power. People do not realize that terrorism can be utilized as a tool to direct people in circumstantial directions.
JC: Inevitably, the question is: to what degree is it truly a NATO organization? I mean, you've been talking about these connections and allegations made by Vinciguerra, but how many of these can be justified?
DG: 1 thing is solid. We know for certain that these secret armies remaining behind were coordinated by NATO, due to the fact that the Italian generals who commanded the secret armies openly admitted that NATO had 2 troops that secretly coordinated these networks, the Allied Secret Committee and the Secret Planning Committee. These are NATO substructures. People don't realize that NATO is not a transparent organization. They think they can just call NATO and ask about Gladio, and the press officer will give them information. This is not the case; NATO is simply a military organization and very well guarded its secrets. There's 1 more thing. On November 5, 1990, NATO spokesperson said to the inquisitive press:
"NATO never considered guerrilla war nor secret operations".
Thus, in 1990, erstwhile the scandal broke out, NATO initially denied that it had any connection to Operation Gladio. However, the next day NATO officials acknowledged that the denial from the erstwhile day was false, adding that the Alliance would not comment on the issue of military secrecy. So basically, NATO denied the existence of behind individuals, and then, erstwhile adequate states said otherwise, they said, "Oh, yes, but we can't comment on it; it's top secret. In fact, the CIA and MI6 did the same. erstwhile we asked NATO (i.e. our network of secret war researchers) "Are you related to terrorism?" they said, "No, we have nothing to do with terrorism. If anyone on this network were connected to terrorism, it would be a dishonest agent who might have alcohol, moral or sexual problems.
JC: I say they can besides cover themselves with a method issue: there is "the right" NATO and "hidden" NATO, but since "NATO" refers only to "the right" NATO, this means that NATO has nothing to do with it; No request to comment.
DG: That's right; it's a good way to put it. NATO's "right" has nothing to do with terrorism, and NATO's "hidden" may be active in terrorism. This is crazy. present NATO claims it is fighting terrorism, but given NATO's past since 1949, as a historian, I must say that it is not very clear. It looks like NATO itself is connected to terrorism and does not want to talk about it. So the question remains: is NATO inactive linked to acts of terrorism? Do we have data to support this? What are the facts? There's another communicative I want to share with you about a French terrorist attack. Do we have time for this?
JC: I wanted to ask you at the end, but delight tell us now.
DG: A terrorist attack by the French took place in 1985. The French conducted atomic trials in the Pacific, and Greenpeace (NGO) protested, directing his ship, Rainbow Warrior, consecutive to where the French defence Ministry planned to detonate its atomic weapon.
Unmoved by this rebellion, Paris decided to retaliate and sent a group of agents of French secret military services (DGSE, Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, a secret service in the Ministry of Defence capable of conducting secret operations) to fresh Zealand, where the ship was docked to blow it up. 1 Greenpeace associate was killed in the attack. erstwhile this communicative came to light, Admiral Pierre Lacoste, then manager of DGSE, was forced to step down, and since he was in charge of this terrorist operation, he could be called a terrorist, though not in the sense that we usually think.
Lacoste then stated that during the 1960s and 1970s, the Natatian "stay-behind" network operated, terrorist activities against the then French president De Gaulle and his Algerian peace plan were led by groups which included, I quote, "a limited number of people from the French stay-behind network". This is simply a very delicate statement, as this means that part of the armed forces or secret services of a given country may turn against their own government. De Gaulle was determined to grant Algeria independence, which was opposed by the French military, arguing that this could be seen as humiliation, especially given their defeat in Vietnam and the German business of France during planet War II. So they turned against de Gaulle utilizing terrorism. The problem was not limited to Italy. Intriguing is that even in France there was a scheming component to overthrow the government.
JC: Yeah, blowing up the Rainbow Warrior brings to head Operation Northwoods. It seems that this transformation of the name Gladio (I say "Gladio" as an abbreviation for the full network) coincided about in time with the appointment of General Lyman Lemnitzer to the position of Chief Commander of NATO Alliance Force in 1963. Lemnitzer served as president of the United Chiefs of Staff College of the United States at the time erstwhile Operation Northwoods was submitted to president Kennedy, who fortunately rejected it. Do you think the Northwoods have anything to say to us about this transformation of Gladio?
DG: Oh, yeah, that's a very crucial and interesting issue. Anyone who is not acquainted with Operation Northwoods should look for it on the net and get acquainted with it, otherwise he simply won't realize the secret war. Back to the beginning of our conversation where we talked about the war between Washington and Havana.
As we said earlier, the CIA wanted to overthrow Fidel Castro utilizing the alleged Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. erstwhile this failed, Kennedy asked the Pentagon for a better plan to get Castro out. The Pentagon generals then sat together and developed a plan, and now, more than 50 years later, we have this first document. At the time, it was top secret, but it's available today. Lyman Lemnitzer was at the time president of the College of Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(To those who are not acquainted with the military hierarchy, president of the Joint Chiefs of Staff College is the highest ranking officer in the full army, as it were, the head of the Pentagon, the U.S. defence Ministry. Above him is the Minister of Defense, but he is not an officer, he is simply a civilian, and above him is the Vice president and the President. This is the chain of command).
If we look at the ideas Lemnitzer has come to, it is clear (against any people's disbelief) that military officers sometimes consider manipulating terrorism to accomplish their goals. The paper is dated March 13, 1962, and generals suggest:
The "Remember Maine" event could be organised in respective forms: We could blow up an American ship in Guantanamo Bay and drop the blame on Cuba.
Guantanamo is an American base where suspects of muslim terrorism are presently being held, and there is simply a debate on torture. But at that time, they had American ships there and they said, "We could blow up an American ship ourselves and then say Fidel did it." specified deviant reasoning is panic based on a false flag, a tension strategy. Here's another 1 of their ideas:
Let me just present the implications. This proves that Pentagon generals planned to carry out terrorist attacks in Florida, Washington and Miami, and then blame Fidel Castro. (It is unclear whether people would die in these attacks, but they propose events). They then urge arresting alleged Cuban "agents" or anyone else, saying, "You did it," and then revealing false papers prepared and planted in advance to justify your claims.
JC: And wasn't there another proposition to shoot down a passenger plane and then play people's sympathy, saying, "Oh, there were plenty of young people on the way to volunteering or something?"
DG: Yes, it's true; It is on another page of the same document. In fact, it suggests flying a drone—unnamed aircraft—over Cuba and detonating the bomb it carries with the pilot. No 1 would have died, but they could have claimed it was a civilian plane full of young Americans who were flying to Peru to aid a malnourished mediocre woman, and that he was shot down by Fidel Castro. That would be a very emotional story. It is an crucial component of terrorism under the false flag: to shock public opinion so that it becomes emotionally incapable of questioning authoritative narrative. After all, who would say, "It's most likely a drone, blown up by a pilot by the Pentagon"?
JC: Of course, that would be conspiracy theory.
DG: Oh, yeah, exactly, conspiracy theory. And historians like me who are investigating this issue would be called "crazy about conspiracy theories."
JC: That's right; but erstwhile a appropriate paper comes out, it's a small harder to say.
DG: It's very difficult; But it's been 50 years, and who cares if "crazy" is right or wrong?
JC: Returning to Lemnitzer, he commands a group that suggests it, and then becomes head of NATO around the same time that the remaining armies begin to transform into something far more hideous.
DG: Yeah, that's right, and we request to thank JFK for uncovering out about Operation Northwoods, he rejected it. But then there was a problem with what to do with this leading General Lemnitzer, who was clearly crazy (in the sense that he planned terrorism in the US). Kennedy now suspected that the military-industrial complex was more dangerous than he thought, so he felt he had to shift Lemnitzer side by side to another advanced position (maybe somewhat lower) so that it did not look like degradation. He came up with the thought of the NATO Commander in Europe. A year later, in 1963, Kennedy was murdered. Although it is inactive unclear who killed him, we know that he tried to face what Eisenhower called a military-industrial complex in his farewell speech. (This is not a hoax, as any believe; the military-industrial complex exists, and the papers of Operation Northwoods prove that it plans fabricated terrorist attacks).
JC: But it's only circumstantial; This is very suggestive, but it is not equivalent to proof. In fact, no. proves It is NATO/Pentagon/MI6/CIA's engagement in the terrorist aspect. Do you agree with that statement?
DG: We gotta separate it. But we know for certain that planned they carry out terrorism in the US to face Cuba.
(I frequently talk to Europeans who say something like, "Well, I know that American intelligence has done nasty things in Iran to overthrow Mosadegh in 1953, and in Chile to overthrow Allende in 1973; but we are talking about the Persian Gulf and Latin America. Who wouldn't care? They are all barbarians. Americans would never do specified a thing in Europe").
In addition, we besides have General Giandelia Maletti, erstwhile head of the Italian counterintelligence unit, who said during the trial on Piazza Fontana in 2001 that American terrorism is simply a reality in Europe. He said this:
This is his quote and it's terrifying. Maletti was a associate of Italian secret services. He was even accused by his compatriots of leading terrorism in his territory against Italy – mothers, children, aged people. There were voices to shut him down. Maletti replied, explaining that he was not guilty due to the fact that he acted only on the orders of the global network. He besides said that US president Nixon could usage right-wing terrorism as a tool to fight communism. That's what Maletti said. But as historians, it is very hard to establish the fact about this. In 1969, erstwhile this terrorist attack occurred, I was not yet in the world, so I just request to look at the data and ask the right questions.
JC: Not all armies left behind were associated with terrorism. You mention Turkey, Spain, Greece and Germany, but you say that any another countries have remained faithful to their first intentions, quietly preparing for a possible russian invasion.
DG: It's true. For example, there were no terrorist attacks in Norway, Switzerland or Austria. 1 of them took place in Munich (Germany) in 1980. In fact, there is simply a large debate on this in 2015. Generalbundesanwalt [The lawyer General] re-examines the attack; he reopened a case which was abruptly closed by the death of a alleged "single shooter" who blew himself up.
JC: [Chuckles] That sounds familiar.
DG: It's familiar. Where have we heard that before? Or is it a bit like 2 madmen who committed this crime in Paris, but now they're dead, so you can't question them? Anything. What I wanted to say about the 1980 Munich affair was that the lone shooter who blew himself up was Gundolf Köhler. Interestingly, during this time the Germans besides had a secret army remaining behind. However, in 1981, a immense weapons depot was discovered, and any right-wing extremists claimed that it was utilized as explosives for the Munich attack. (Explosives were an indispensable part of an army arsenal remaining behind, needed for the guerrilla war and blowing up key installations, etc.)
JC: Presumably they must be hidden somewhere, but in specified a way that they can be accessed if necessary. But where's the control?
DG: That's the point. In the democratic system, we do not want to have unexplained weapons and ammunition stores, but they were essential elements of secret networks. Moreover, in Germany, it is intriguing that NATO and the CIA recruited erstwhile Nazis into military units remaining sufficiently, as they were considered fit for this task due to their hatred of the Russians. I think it was rather common.
JC: Yeah, amazing; I noticed that in Francovich's documentary film And I was amazed erstwhile the man in the movie said it truly happened.
DG: My students are frequently surprised. It is hard for them to realize that we should first fight fascists and justice them in Nuremberg, hanging any and convincing others to see a mistake or their ways, and then utilizing them in this fresh war against communism. I gotta agree.
JC: And the answer is, they were useful.DG: Yeah, that's the point; They were useful. 1 of the most interesting erstwhile Nazis was General Reinhard Gehlen. He fought under Hitler, but at the end of the war, erstwhile he realized Hitler was losing, Gehlen switched to the American side. Knowing that he was an crucial general, the Americans moved him to Washington where he met president Truman. There Gehlen was not only able to delight the Americans, pulling out an anti-Soviet card, but was able to present himself as essential due to his in-depth cognition of Germany. In fact, he was so impressed with the Americans that they appointed him manager of postwar German secret service,Bundesnachrichtendienst. It's crazy erstwhile you think about it. As a student, erstwhile you learn this for the first time, you wonder how all this adds up. First the Allies defeat the Nazis and then advance them to top positions, specified as the head of the Secret Service. As you rightly pointed out, it all comes down to utility; This was due to the fact that they were strategically useful.
JC: It's scary, but it's comic in a unusual way. It reminds me of those James Bond movies where individual says, "No, don't kill them, they might be useful to us." Ironically, it turns out to be true!
DG: Yes! As a child, I watched James Bond movies; I thought they were wonderful. (I have a fascination with peculiar forces and secret services.) erstwhile you watch the Bond movie and then control to BBC news, you think these 2 worlds are 2 different worlds. In fact, however, everything in the Bond movie is taken from reality. But there are differences: firstly, past disagrees with real political analysis; secondly, the thought that NATO is always "the good one", is not necessarily true, contrary to what we would like to think. Narration prompts us to think that we are the "good ones" and that the Soviets or Muslims are "bad", but sometimes it is precisely the opposite; But people don't like to hear it.
JC: quite a few what you say seems to match Operation Paperclip. Do you describe a akin policy here?
DG: I'm afraid I don't know anything about that, so I can't comment on that.
JC: Finally, I would like to ask you about this unusual organization called Propaganda Due Lodge Or the P2 Lodge and this man named Licio Gelli. They seem to give insight into any of the control mechanisms that were in force at the time.
DG: Yes, it brings us back to Italian politics. Licio Gelli was the head of this Propaganda Due, and the strangest in its release was that its members were people from the Italian parliament, media, banking and industry. They met secretly and fundamentally functioned as a parallel government, controlling events in specified a way that the communists would never come to power. They would endanger journalists to lose their jobs if they had always printed reports incompatible with the P2 programme, or could have bonded with criminals or mobs and forced them to do dirty work. Even Berlusconi was part of P2. This is not a textbook democracy that we are told to believe in, in which elected parliamentary representatives carry out the will of the people, executive power performs the rights of parliament, and if something goes wrong, the press is to inform and exposure the facts to people. I say, "Keep dreaming; it's for birds!" If we look at past – actual past – very frequently it turns out that power is abused by a very tiny minority, which creates an illusion that people have free press and participation in the structure of power, while in reality we are dealing with oligarchy. Oligoi it is simply a Greek word meaning "only a few," and I think it is actual present as well. Those who control the global game of power are few; and many – you, me and the listeners – may occasionally effort to look behind the curtain, but always fewer will dictate the terms.JC: This organization, which I realize was a Masonic lodge, although I am not certain how it was linked to the remainder of the masonry, most likely in any ways besides resembled the mafia: manipulating people, blackmail and so on.
DG: Yes, very corrupt.
JC: Let me quote from your book. You describe Gladio as "a US-funded anti-communist parallel government". What evidence do we have that it was funded by the United States?
DG: We know that Propaganda Due was funded by the United States, and we know that Operation Gladio was funded by the US. The comic thing is that the British have offered to train these secret forces in guerrilla tactics, à la James Bond, provided the Italians buy British weapons. And then cunning Italians, looking for benefits from both sides, argued that they should get weapons from Americans due to the fact that they were free and training from the British due to the fact that quality was better. Many papers confirm that throughout the Cold War Washington and London were determined to keep Italy in the NATO camp. This meant keeping the Communist organization – which was very strong and controlled a large part of the Italian parliament – distant from the government. So erstwhile Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro proposed introducing Italian communists to the government, was murdered.
So the full thought that Europe was erstwhile unstable and violent, but since 1945 there has been peace and transparency is not entirely true. During the Cold War, many terrorist incidents have occurred in Europe: attacks on politicians; right-wing dictatorships in Spain and Portugal; military coup in Greece, 3 military coupsin Turkey; terrorist attacks in Germany, Italy, France and Belgium. Thus, the perception of the European Union as a completely peaceful territory since 1945 has been alternatively superficial.
JC: Yes, let me return to the Propaganda Due Lodge and this interesting character, Licio Gelli. In your book you compose that he was very respected by the establishment, and surely in the US; yet he besides had a Nazi past.
DG: Yeah, he was like Gehlen: useful. If you think about it, Germany and Italy not only had Hitler and Mussolini as leaders, but each had millions of supporters. Of course, after 1945 there were people who were inactive convinced that Mussolini and Hitler were right, and any of these people were considered useful and invited to the US and England to fight communists in Italy, Germany and another countries. Licio Gelli was invited by US presidents, including Reagan; He played on a very advanced level and it never occurred to anyone to say, "History shows that this man is straight related to fascism."
JC: Yeah, you have a couple of paragraphs connecting amazing facts about him. You say he fought Franco's side in the Spanish civilian War; he became a elder sergeant in the SS under the command of Hermann Goering; and yet (according to the evidence you present) it seems that General Hague and Henry Kissinger authorized him in 1969 to recruit 400 high-ranking Italian and NATO officers to this lodge P2.
DG: Yeah. If you inactive have the attitude that Washington would never cooperate with fascists, it's evidently hard to accept. But erstwhile you quit that conviction, it is easier to see reality: geostrategic interests were crucial, and with communism as a fresh enemy it was considered that after 1945 American and British secret services should cooperate with fascists in Germany, Italy and another countries. This is fundamentally the data I collected during my investigation into NATO's secret armies. But you're absolutely right. If you said to NATO today, "I have a fewer questions for you: Have you always worked with fascists? Were you connected to terrorism? Why did you make a secret army without informing the population?", NATO's spokesperson would just say, "It's all a conspiracy theory; we don't respond to it." NATO is not a transparent organization.
JC: You mentioned Turkey earlier. It fascinates me due to the fact that Sibel Edmonds claims that Turkey has always been a very crucial aspect of this process. Indeed, it seems to me that Turkey was the most crucial centre of operations akin to Gladio. It describes Turkish paramilitary organizations as linked to the Turkish mafia, heavy active in drug trafficking, trained by NATO and carrying out attacks under the false flag. Do you agree? Do you think Turkey was possibly even more crucial than the Italian scene of Gladio?
DG: I think Sibel Edmonds has done good investigation on this. (I admit I've never met her, but I've seen any of her YouTube videos.) The fact is that all investigator is limited by language barriers, and due to the fact that he speaks Turkish, he is in a much better position to measure the situation in Turkey than I am. But we know that during the Cold War Turkey had 3 flips The military and it seems that the secret armies were involved.
Even after the end of the Cold War in Turkey, the conflict against the Kurds continued. Grey Wolf Groups and another groups of the far right actively fought against part of the Turkish population, resulting in many fatalities. So, Turkey provokes a number of questions: What was NATO's secret army doing in Turkey? Were they active in coups? After all, Turkey is always this balance: it is simply a associate of NATO, but it is besides a Muslim country. (People frequently forget this fact.) Turkey borders Europe, the mediate East and Asia; So, historically, it was always in 2 worlds. It was so in NATO's interest to have a strong Turkish army there, which sometimes engaged in secret operations, which Sibel Edmonds rightly criticises.
Consider the Susurluk incident. It turned out that members of the Turkish stay-back group and members of the drug cartel traveled together in the same car erstwhile he was active in the accident. As a consequence of this scandal that broke out in the media, the Turkish military was found to have gotten out of control and many debates were held about the alleged Real Authority (uncontrolled military-industrial complex) in Turkey, which they call Ergenekon (although they besides call him otherwise). It shows that they were trying to find out if the military had any ties to terrorism under the false flag. So yes, Turkey is simply a completely fresh chapter and surely important.
JC: And Sibel Edmonds opens this "chapter" with the "head" Gladio B, which I realize as a kind of transition from activities under the false flag to left-wing groups in Western Europe, towards manipulating groups specified as Mujahedini and Al-Qaeda. Do you think that's a reasonable hypothesis?
DG: This is simply a reasonable hypothesis. During the Cold War, Gladio was tasked with fighting communism, but with the collapse of the russian Union in 1991 this request was pushed into the past textbooks. (No 1 fights communism today. China is simply a communist country [by name], but they have adapted beautifully to capitalism. Nobody cares much about North Korea, and Cuba is in transition. So communism is no longer a problem today.) But what we are dealing with present is war on resources: wars on oil and gas; and of course, the largest resources – oil and natural gas – are in Muslim countries. If we look at Saudi Arabia – a Muslim country – it has immense oil reserves. If we look at Iraq, which was attacked in 2003 (under the false pretext of having weapons of mass demolition that did not exist), we must ask: why was this attack carried out? In my opinion, this was due to oil. So possibly Sibel Edmonds is right. We may now be dealing with a Muslim terrorism of a false flag to discredit and justify the bombings of Muslim countries. possibly Western secret services support any militant Muslims in carrying out their attacks due to the fact that it helps to shock Europeans and Americans in fear of Muslims.
If we consider papers from Northwoods and the past of Gladio and decision this modus operandi to our time, we gotta ask ourselves, "Are we now surviving in an era in which Muslim terrorists are supported by Western secret services? Do governments frame Muslims to justify NATO's bombing of Muslim countries, as they erstwhile intended to frame communists for Operation Northwoods? (I can't prove it, but I think it's crucial that we examine it). Allowing, causing or supporting the grounds behind specified attacks would be a state offence. possibly this is where we are; I don't know.
JC: So we can presume that this tension strategy goes hand in hand with the doctrine of safety work (R2P): first, it causes chaos by manipulating different groups; Then, as a consequence of the humanitarian crisis, you request justification for intervention to "protect" people.
DG: Yeah, that's 1 way to do it. Another way is to organize demonstrations in the public square and then shoot any demonstrators to blame the government, only to overthrow it. This took place in Ukraine on 21 February 2014 – something we all witnessed only 12 months ago. Of course, the question is, who were the snipers? Today, thanks to researchers active in secret warfare, we know that These snipers in Majdan, Kiev killed both demonstrators and and militia. That's weird. Researchers like me gotta ask themselves, why would a president be ordered to shoot his own police officers? (I don't believe it; they usually don't). And then, on the same day, the government of Yanukovich (a friendly Moscow dictator or oligarch) collapsed, who was replaced by a fresh Poroshenko government (a Washington-friendly dictator or oligarch). These things do not belong to the distant past; They concern us today. The secret war didn't stop; This is something that we must consider most seriously erstwhile we think about global politics.
JC: You mentioned in vain the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Do you think this can be interpreted as a akin operation to Gladio? Paul Craig Roberts has serious suspicions about thisBut he's not ready to admit it. What's your reaction to this?
DG: My reaction is that I have quite a few doubts. This terrorist attack consisted of 2 parts: first, Charlie Hebdo editorials; Second, the judaic supermarket. (For the record, I will only address Charlie Hebdo.) The authoritative version is that 2 guys who are masked so that you can't see who they are, kills 12 people and drives away. OK, so far it's a simple story. But then (according to reports from Swiss media) they stop, change cars, and 1 of the assassins leaves an ID in an abandoned car. erstwhile I heard that, I thought, "What a stupid mistake! It's incredibly unprofessional." It was claimed that the card belonged to Saïd Kouachi, 1 of the 2 brothers, so the media immediately assumed that the second killer had to be his brother [Chérif Kouachi]. That's a beautiful shabby conclusion. Within twenty-four hours, Saïd's photograph appeared on all the news and was watched by people around the world. Consequently, the belief that Muslims are evil was strengthened, even though the details of the attack were circumstantial, simply on the basis of an identity card. (Of course, Muslims, as a group, they are not evil people, like Christians, Jews, Hindus or atheists. The fact is that all spiritual group has criminals in it.) But now, after this attack in Paris, people have become suspicious of Muslims. as groups – not truly knowing what happened – all due to alleged evidence in the form of this identity card. Then people can be moved and say, "They killed 12 people! This is crazy!" We must besides remember 2011 erstwhile NATO bombed Libya and killed 30,000 people. Most of them were Muslims. Isn't it amazing that people in Europe can rightly cry over 1 group and at the same time say about the other: "Oh, yes, 30 1000 people; it's no large deal?"
JC: Yeah, I find it hard to take this business ID seriously. I was reminded of a scene from the movie "A number Report" in which the incriminating photos are in an improbable way scattered on the bed so that everyone can easy find them, and it is described as an "orgy of evidence". It looks like another "opportunity of evidence," a small like a passport that "wonderfully" escaped the duplicate Towers.DG: Yes, these are hard subjects to rise for all researcher. For example, the 9/11 attack took place more than thirteen years ago, and it is expected that historians will scope a consensus on what truly happened by then. It was 9/11 that started the full alleged war on terrorism. This angry, fear-filled period of our lives has begun, reasoning that Muslims are terrorists or dictators with weapons of mass demolition who want to kill us all. So, of course, people like me who specialize in secret wars request to take a serious look at 9/11.
And erstwhile I looked at 9/11, I discovered that the collapse of the 3rd Tower, Building 7 [WTC7], is absolutely mysterious. People simply remember 9/11 as the minute erstwhile 2 planes hit advanced buildings in fresh York City. I have quite a few friends who say they even remember where they were that day. I mean, it's very uncommon in past that people remember where they were.
JC: I frequently respect 9/11, historically, as the beginning of the 21st century; possibly coup based on a deep country; the beginning of all these problems; It's a step towards this fresh era. Do you see it as coup based on a deep country?
DG: possibly so, but I'm not certain what truly happened. I can only talk from what I have observed. I know this image of 2 planes hitting these 2 buildings and falling buildings is incomplete. All those who have never bothered to look at 9/11 should seriously consider the fact that 3 buildings collapsed in fresh York that day. (I know any people say they are tired of proceeding about 9/11, but this is crucial to consider.) Three The skyscrapers collapsed erstwhile only 2 planes were involved. How is it possible that two planes will rotation over three Buildings? Then erstwhile you find out that WTC7 was never hit by a plane, you start to wonder, "Why did it collapse?" Then you hear people from NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States, saying, "Well, that fire led to the collapse of the building."
When I worked at the Swiss University of ETH, I asked experts in the field of construction and security, what they think about it: "Do you believe that WTC7 was destroyed by fires?" They said, "Let's see the evidence." So we discussed it. erstwhile they heard that the WTC7 had eighty-one truly solid steel columns and that the NIST study claimed that column 79 had been destabilized by the fire, they said, "This is complete nonsense."
DG: That's what concerns us as historians. I always effort to convince people that we historians work for the public, in the public interest; We're trying to figure out what happened on 9/11. Bush and Cheney first presented their version of the events; But these are politicians who lie a lot, so we can't trust them. Then we had the 600-page Commission study 9/11, which was published in 2004; but WTC7 is not even mentioned, so we cannot usage that either. So you gotta consider building construction and security, and talk to architects and engineers. And then you discover that something It's truly not like that. from 9/11. Now, although this rational intuition of mistake is powerful, it does not let us to say with certainty what historical period we are in. However, it encourages peace researchers to seriously consider terrorism under a false flag and manipulate the population through fear.
JC: Indeed. In fact, people seem to become increasingly aware of the word "false flag". It seems to me that around the time of the Boston Marathon bombing, Google's analysis suggested that people search this word more frequently than always before. I see it as a affirmative sign that awareness is growing.
DG: It's true. People request the right language to enter fresh spaces [conceptual]. It's been understood for a long time. If you do not have the language to capture the phenomenon, you will never realize it. If you only usage the word "terrorism", it will not lead you besides far; the word "terrorism of the false flag" is needed, which derives from the thought of hanging up an enemy flag to deceive. There is besides a request for the word "trouble strategy", which means that victims of terrorism are not only murdered and injured, but besides those who observe the slaughter and are shocked. They have tension, which is actually the mark of a terrorist attack. In the end, small can be done with the dead, but it can be done that those who witness panic and are in shock will be more willing to sacrifice their civilian liberties.
JC: Yeah, it's not just a combat operation; It's besides intellectual surgery.
DG: This is In fact, intellectual surgery, due to the fact that it allows the authorities to say, "We request more money to defend ourselves, either to war in Syria, or to bomb Libya or Iraq." And people start thinking, "Yeah, possibly it's a good thought due to the fact that that's where bad people live." This is simply a war propaganda that has always followed the maxim: Enter the head of the interior Front; because, ultimately, taxpayers decide whether to leave NATO, whether to stay in NATO, whether NATO should be extended and another specified issues.
JC: Or whether NATO should be audited (if possible).
DG: Yeah, that's a good idea.
JC: Anyway, we've talked about quite a few dark things here, so let me ask you this: Do you see hope in this increase in public awareness of specified problems?
DG: Yes, absolutely. I'm glad you brought that up. erstwhile I teach my students, I always tell them that secret wars are a very fascinating topic. However, erstwhile we consider the spiral of violence, only a very tiny number of the world's population are actively active in torture, terrorist attacks, bombing another countries, etc. If we put in 1 bag all the people who are fighting in Ukraine, with the muslim State, with the terrorists in Paris and fresh York City, it will turn out that there are very fewer of them, and yet they manage to disturb us all.
What I want to emphasize is that my individual conviction is that human beings are wonderful. average people aren't going to kill you, cut your heads off or blow you up. Not at all. Check with your friends. Who do you know who raped or shot individual in the head? Who would find satisfaction in bombing or torturing someone? erstwhile we think about our network of friends and household networks, the vast majority of us will never find anyone like that. The vast majority of people just want to decision on, make any money, perceive to music, fall in love, lie on the beach. People are friendly. (In fact, we are alternatively lazy; we like to rest!) Then they go and ruin it all, shocking us with these terrorist attacks.
JC: Yes, the component shock is the key to all of this; And this is produced by information manipulation. If so, then if people gradually become more aware that these events are manipulated by the media, then we could better say to ourselves, "No, I do not want to believe that this evil is characteristic of the full world. OK, there's been cruelty, but I gotta remember that I can be the object of manipulation too." If adequate people realized that, possibly his power would yet disappear.
DG: Yes, due to the fact that we are in the process of fighting for our minds and hearts. As long as it is possible to shock people with hatred and fear, you can ask them, "Give me 5% of GDP to defend yourself." But with more awareness people would be able to say, "No, I request money to educate my children and I want better schools." They would say, "You can't have better schools, due to the fact that there are terrorists out there and they'll kill you." Then you would have the freedom of head to say, "No, I don't believe you. I'm not giving money to a military-industrial complex that's been bombing Afghanistan for fourteen years. What good did you do there? Let me see your CD. What good have you done in Libya? It's a full mess. Let's look at Iraq! It's another mess." So I think people wake up and usage their heads. However, the problem is that mainstream media are not good at critically looking at NATO and manipulated terrorism. Unfortunately, they usually offer a very superficial narrative; And that's beautiful scary.
JC: Well, thank God we have alternate media, and I'm very glad you could come present to talk about this very tiny corner of alternate media, Dr. Ganser. It was large having you with me. I have been eagerly waiting for this interview for a long time, due to the fact that unfortunately, we had to postpone it respective times for this or another reason.
DG: Yeah, it was so busy. But now we have devoted time, and I think we have managed to discuss this subject rather in detail. So I hope that the listeners will benefit and read more about it while keeping an open and calm mind. And remember, the planet is not a bad place.
JC: Yeah, it was a large interview, and you gave us quite a few information, and by repeating what you're saying, I hope that people will take care of it. Finally, thank you very much for agreeing to spend your precious time with us today.
DG: Thank you, Julian Charles. Good luck.
JC: Thank you.
DG: Ciao Julian!
JC: Bye-bye.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-the-strategy-of-tension/5500132
