Jump to content
The Education Forum

The stay behind network.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Stephen Turner

The stay behind network was concieved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and put imto operation in 1948 by the National security council, it was staffed and funded by the CIA. Ultimately, coordination of the network took place under the auspices of NATO, it involved personel from the official security services of all countries involved, and also recieved additional covert funding from private industry, and the State(tax payers to you and me) Funding and support of such groups was one of the main tasks of the newly formed CIA, however, members of the network were mainly recruited from the civilian population, noteably "ex" facists and others whose anti Communist credentials were unimpeachable, no mater what horrors they were responsible for during the second World War.

The existence of this network was, of course, not a matter for public knowledge, however, the activities of the Italian branch- operation Gladio- were exposed in a series of Judicial investigations between 1990-1992. Gladio was set up in 1958 with full assistance fron British intellegence(MI6) and the CIA. This assistance was ongoing with units being trained in Britain throughout the 1970s, and by the US at a military base in the Canary Islands from 1966- mid 70s. Gladio had strong links with P2, a Facist Masonic lodge composed of top military brass, Political leaders, Indutrialists, Bankers and diplomats. P2 has been described as constituting a far right wing parallel Government in Italy.

Gladio was deeply involved in the so called "Strategy of tension" during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The aim of the strategy, of which the principle tactic was false flag terrorist outrages carried out by the "ex"facists, was to spread panic and fear, and to directly attack the Left, thus provoking them into an armed responce, which would both justify increased State power, and survailance, under the pretext of a "National emergency" And isolate the Left from popular support.

In an early, but well known incident, a bomb was exploded in December 1969 in the Banca Nazionale della Argicoltura in Milan. Police immediatly, and arrested an obscure Anarchist group, but the real perpetrators were the Facists, Franco Freda, and Giovanni Ventura.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

P2, almost certainly provided teh early finance for Fininvest, the parent company of Silvio Berlusconi's business empire. During the 2006 trial of Marcello Dell'utri,a close associate of Berlusconi's, and one of the founding members of his Forza Italia party prosecutors claimed "There are many obscure areas in the birth of Fininvest" and that there were "Substantial financial flows for which it has not been possible to find the source of the money involved." They should have had a close look at a venture Capitalist firm called Capitalfin, which set up a dummy subsiduary called Fininvest limited Gran Caman in 1974 as a pure money laundering operation, much of it passed through P2, with which Capitalfin had substantial links, during this time both Berlusconi, and Robert Calvi, Gods Banker, were playing active rolls in P2 activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladio was deeply involved in the so called "Strategy of tension" during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The aim of the strategy, of which the principle tactic was false flag terrorist outrages carried out by the "ex"facists, was to spread panic and fear, and to directly attack the Left, thus provoking them into an armed responce, which would both justify increased State power, and survailance, under the pretext of a "National emergency" And isolate the Left from popular support.

Odd how much we know about Italy, and how little about, say, Germany, where false flag terrorism was equally active. Was Baader-Meinhof a Gladio op, too? And how did Gladio manifest itself in the UK?

Paul

PS Yet another example of MI6's enduring role in European fascism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Gladio was deeply involved in the so called "Strategy of tension" during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The aim of the strategy, of which the principle tactic was false flag terrorist outrages carried out by the "ex"facists, was to spread panic and fear, and to directly attack the Left, thus provoking them into an armed responce, which would both justify increased State power, and survailance, under the pretext of a "National emergency" And isolate the Left from popular support.

Odd how much we know about Italy, and how little about, say, Germany, where false flag terrorism was equally active. Was Baader-Meinhof a Gladio op, too? And how did Gladio manifest itself in the UK?

Paul

PS Yet another example of MI6's enduring role in European fascism!

"WAS BAADER-MIENHOF A GLADIO OP, TOO."

Good question Paul, the short answer is I have no idea, more likely, if it was, to have been funded, and run by the Stay behind network, with its extensive MI6-CIA connections than Gladio-P2 alone. It does however bear many of the hallmarks of the Red Brigade false flag terror attacks, and badly damaged the left in Germany(Socialist left at least) for a generation.

"HOW DID GLADIO MANIFEST ITSELF IN THE UK"

Appart from the extensive, undercover training it recieved here, for the better part of the decade, all of it funded from MI6s deep tax payers pockets, again difficult to gage. I have done some work trying to establish a definite link between Gladio, and the British National Front, especially its para-military wing, Combat 18 but I still have some way to go. Should I strike gold I will post it here. Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

The official reason always given for the setting up of stay behind, and other CIA, MI6 Mossad right wing paramilitary style groups, was to counter possible Soviet expansionist ambitions. In 1945 Churchill Stalin and Roosevelt met at the Yalta conference, and Eastern Europe's future was scetched out on the back of a brown envelope. Stalin asked for, and was given, a free hand to expand into the Baltic States, as Churchill explained the Westen powers would not intervein if Britain was allowed to deal with the Greek Communists with extreme prejudice. A year later, in a speech given to the UN, Churchill hypocritically spoke of an "Iron curtain descending across Europe" And hey presto, another handy boogy-man was born, one that lasted the best part of fifty years, and one that offered an excuse to murder, and marginalise home grown disidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The official reason always given for the setting up of stay behind, and other CIA, MI6 Mossad right wing paramilitary style groups, was to counter possible Soviet expansionist ambitions. In 1945 Churchill Stalin and Roosevelt met at the Yalta conference, and Eastern Europe's future was scetched out on the back of a brown envelope. Stalin asked for, and was given, a free hand to expand into the Baltic States, as Churchill explained the Westen powers would not intervein if Britain was allowed to deal with the Greek Communists with extreme prejudice. A year later, in a speech given to the UN, Churchill hypocritically spoke of an "Iron curtain descending across Europe" And hey presto, another handy boogy-man was born, one that lasted the best part of fifty years, and one that offered an excuse to murder, and marginalise home grown disidents.

Stephen,

The really striking feature of post-WWII Anglo-American policy toward Germany is its continuity with the pre-1st WW stratagem outlined by Halford Mackinder. I don't know if you've come across the book before, but in case you haven't, try Guido Giacomo Preparata's Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005).

The author demonstrates that British policy from before 1914 was to prevent German and Russia uniting in trade, and collaborating extensively on the political level.

We see the same policy in action at the time of the Beria interregnum in the spring of 1953, when the tentative embrace of Beria's sweeping overtures to the West by Churchill and Eisenhower is sabotaged by what one can only call the permanent government. It would appear that British enthusiasm for the strategy waned considerably in the 1950s.

Kennedy's determined attempt to end the Cold War had no more prospect of success than any of his predecessors, not least because of the presence of Allen Dulles at the head of the CIA: Dulles was an important figure at the American end of the Mackinder strategy from as early as 1922.

Brandt's Ostpolitik could not be allowed to proceed beyond a certain point either. Hence the bewildering proliferation of pseudo-leftist terrorist groupings in Germany.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic of the Strategy of Tension. It is an aspect of history that I sure wish more knew about in the US. If only there was some way of spreading this knowledge around, it might represent hope. Unfortunately US left-gatekeeping is so effective that almost nobody know about it.

I did a bit of reading around Gladio a few years back. I think I remember that the stay-behind networks were closely associated with the Christian Democratic governments in both Germany and Italy, and that this common denominator facilitated some sort of cooperation. Trouble is I can't remember what this cooperation was. Ring a bell?

Also in Italy I think there were important connections to NATO as well as the CIA. Probably true for Germany as well.

There are two very good articles in the Book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak out Volume 1, dealing with the Strategy of Tension. On is by a Norwegian, the other is by some Swiss guy.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two very good articles in the Book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak out Volume 1, dealing with the Strategy of Tension. On is by a Norwegian, the other is by some Swiss guy.

Nathaniel,

Again, not sure if you need the pointer, but, for an overview, try Daniel Ganser's NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (Oxon & NY: Frank Cass, 2005).

I have a few other bits and pieces. Will add as find.

Thanks for the above references: will add them to the voluminous reading list.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladio comes across as this broad strategy as outlined above.

I suspect that early victims of its genesis, apart from the northern Italian (Communist) Partisans, were many many US Soldiers and Sailors in the curious stall of a couple of days at Anzio beach when a very successful start was bogged down by the German and Italian attacks that followed the 'stall'. Part of this was The Black Prince's guerilla units. Angleton took him under his wings after the fall of Italy to the Alllies. (Walker was also in the area, as well as Dealey Plaza witness RR Carr.) IOW many events could very well have taken a different course absent the influences that led to the strategy of tension. In this case apart from saving many US lives, would have been a united Partisan-US front. The upshot was that the Germans were left in position to eliminate the Northern Italian Partisans.

Other factors are that after the war, the ratlines took Nazis to South America. Yet there was also a movement to the Middle East. Today people such as David Duke and other Fascists like Piper have an audience there and in the muslim Asian countries. As well as aliies within the western Pro-Piper groupings. Zionism is not supported by all Jews, and it is supported by non Jews, yet the Jew is the victim along with the Muslims. This almost accopalyptic Anglisized Israelite Christian Identity Book of Revelation nonsense a la Bush etal and selective reading of the Koran in justifying Jihad combined with fascist agitation is well worth unravelling. It brings so much misery to so many innocents who are forced to take sides. If one can thoroughly ID the forces that drive this 'tension' one may be able to forge a new unity of people separate from Institutionalised Religion.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO'S Secret Armies author Daniele Ganser is actually one of the contributors to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out Volume 1 - his piece in there on Gladio and the stay behind networks is a good one.

Coincidentally, Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, author of THE WAR ON TRUTH and THE LONDON BOMBINGS, had a long, detailed entry on his blog from a week ago about the strategy of tension. It's quite worthwhile. In the interest of archiving the information, I've reposted it here:

................................

THE STRATEGY OF TENSION by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed

We are at War against International Terrorism, defending our Values and our Civilization.

Western anti-terror legislation does not allow the state to be considered in any way culpable for terrorist activities. As far as our elected representatives are concerned, terrorism is a problem of loosely associated groups of reactionary fanatics “attacking our freedoms”. The assumption, never explicitly stated for then it would be revealed, and easily and permanently ridiculed, is that the state is innocent, immune to indulging in such barbaric practices. Written into the rule of law itself, this assumption posits the state as a paternal Fuhrer, a God figure whom we must all entrust our lives and liberties to.

Yet whichever way you look at it, international terrorism has its origins in the state itself. There are many ways of understanding this, but perhaps the most pertinent for our purposes is contemporary history. We don’t need to go very far back either. Only twenty odd years, to the era of the Cold War, when we were also getting Trigger-Happy trying to defend the “Free World” from the “Evil Empire” of International Communism, as Ronald Reagan put it so aptly.

The “strategy of tension” denotes a highly secretive series of interconnected covert operations conducted jointly by the CIA and MI6 largely in Western Europe during the this period. Well-documented by several respected historians, confirmed by official inquiries, and corroborated by former intelligence officials, the “strategy of tension” is one of those unsavoury moments in contemporary history that we don’t learn about in school, or even university.

My favourite book on the subject, and the most authoritative in my view, is Dr. Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2004). Published in the UK as part of the “Contemporary Security Studies” series of London-based academic press Routledge, Ganser’s study is the first major historical work to bring the “strategy of tension” into the mainstream of scholarship.

During the Cold War, indeed through to the late 1980s, the United States, United Kingdom, and Western European governments and secret services, participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer terrorist attacks inside Western Europe, to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to galvanize public opinion against leftwing policies and parties, and ultimately to mobilize popular support for purportedly anti-Soviet policies at home and abroad – most of which were really designed to legitimize brutal military interventions against nationalist independence movements in the “Third World”.

Ganser was a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, before he moved to Basel University to teach history. Citing the transcripts of European parliamentary inquiries; the few secret documents that have been declassified; interviews with government, military and intelligence officials; and so on, Ganser shows how intimately the British were involved.

In fact, it wasn’t even an American idea – it was very much ours. The strategy of tension began on the order of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who in July 1940 called for the establishment of a secret army to “set Europe ablaze by assisting resistance movements and carrying out subversive operations in enemy held territory.” (p. 40) By 4th October 1945, the British Chiefs of Staff and the Special Operations branch of MI6 directed the creation of what Ganser describes as a “skeleton network” capable of expansion either in war or to service clandestine operations abroad: “Priority was given in carrying out these tasks to countries likely to be overrun in the earliest stages of any conflict with the Soviet Union, but not as yet under Soviet domination.” (p. 41) In the ensuing years, Col. Gubbins’ Special Operations branch of MI6 cooperated closely with Frank Wisner’s CIA covert action department Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) on White House orders, and in turn coordinated US and UK Special Forces, to establish stay-behind secret armies across western Europe. (p. 42)

Among the documents Ganser brings to attention is the classified Field Manual 30-31, with appendices FM 30-31A and FM 30-31B, authored by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to train thousands of stay-behind officers around the world. The field manual was published in the 1987 parliamentary report of the Italian parliamentary investigation into the terrorist activities of “P2”, the CIA-MI6 sponsored Italian anti-communist network. As Ganser observes: “FM 30-31 instructs the secret soldiers to carry out acts of violence in times of peace and then blame them on the Communist enemy in order to create a situation of fear and alertness. Alternatively, the secret soldiers are instructed to infiltrate the left-wing movements and then urge them to use violence.” In the manual’s own words:

“There may be times when Host Country Governments show passivity or indecision in the face of Communist subversion and according to the interpretation of the US secret services do not react with sufficient effectiveness… US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger. To reach this aim US army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the most radical elements of the insurgency… In case it has not been possible to successfully infiltrate such agents into the leadership of the rebels it can be useful to instrumentalise extreme leftist organizations for one’s own ends in order to achieve the above described targets… These special operations must remain strictly secret. Only those persons which are acting against the revolutionary uprising shall know of the involvement of the US Army…” (p. 234-297)

The existence of this secret operation exploded into public controversy when in August 1990 upon the admissions in parliament by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, the existence of ‘Gladio’ was exposed as a secret sub-section of Italian military-intelligence services, responsible for domestic bombings blamed on Italian Communists. Ganser documents in intricate detail how a subversive network created by elements of western intelligence services – particularly that of the US and UK - orchestrated devastating waves of terrorist attacks blamed on the Soviet Union, not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, i.e. throughout western Europe. Despite a number of European parliamentary inquiries; an European Union resolution on the Gladio phenomenon; NATO’s close-doors admissions to European ambassadors; confirmations of the international operation from senior CIA officials; and other damning documentary evidence; NATO, the CIA and MI6 have together consistently declined to release their secret files on the matter.

The Strategy of Tension simply isn’t part of our historical consciousness. Very few historians of the Cold War are fully conversant with it, let alone academics working in international relations and political science. This is despite the fact that it played an instrumental role in physically constructing a threat, projected into the USSR, which did not ultimately exist. Ipso facto, the Strategy of Tension belongs to the waste-bin of history.

The immense fear and chaos generated by the impact of the Operation Gladio phenomenon throughout western Europe was instrumental in legitimizing the interventionist policies of the Anglo-American alliance in the South, throughout the Cold War period. Although the Soviet Union was supposed to be the real threat and source of terror, and thus the ultimate object of the over 70 military interventions conducted since 1945 [see William Blum’s Killing Hope (London: Zed, 1995)] the Soviet threat was in fact actively exaggerated ideologically – and even physically constructed through clandestine operations – to mobilize the comprehensive militarization of western societies. This does not mean that many government officials did not believe their own propaganda. But we now know that there was a secretive sub-section of the Western intelligence community, known only to very few members of elected governments, that was involved in this.

The number of people who were killed across the “Third World” as a consequence of this militarization process is shocking, its implications genuinely difficult to absorb. According to Dr. J. W. Smith, a US development economist who runs the Institute for Economic Democracy in Arizona, in our glorious self-evidently noble fight to defend the “Free World” from imminent Soviet attacks, invasions, and general inconceivably irrational hell-bent pure evilness, Western states:

“… were responsible for violently killing 12 to 15 million people since WW II and causing the death of hundreds of millions more as their economies were destroyed or those countries were denied the right to restructure to care for their people. Unknown as it is, and recognizing that this has been standard practice throughout colonialism, that is the record of the Western imperial centers of capital from 1945 to 1990” [smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the 21st Century (2003)]

12 to 15 million people from 1945 to 1990.

I have to repeat these figures to myself to absorb their implications.

Repeat these figures to yourself.

Six million Jews in the Second World War, and now 12 to 15 million innocents in the post-WWII period. The former in the name of German lebensraum. The latter in the name of the free market.

Yet as a society, as a Civilization, we are oblivious, utterly blind, to our historic complicity in the systematic destruction of "Other" societies who fail to conform to our (deluded) self-image of universal prosperity.

It is a blindness with which we remain afflicted.

Consider Blair’s rendition of the “War on Terror” in early 2007, as “a clash not between civilizations”, but rather “about civilization.” The War on Terror is therefore a continuation of “the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence.”

And what is this "progress", this "modernity" that should be embraced? The "progress" that slaughtered millions of men, women and children across continents, in Nicaragua, El Salvador, in Somalia, Rwanda, in Kenya, Malaya, in Oman, Iraq, etc. etc. (in no particular order and with significant omissions)?

If this is modernity then I must be a backward, semi-feudal ignoramus. Along with most of the population of the entire world. But then, who cares what the world says? Bush, Blair, and their enlightened ilk are no doubt the modern civilized ones. As long as they do what they think is right. Right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of people who were killed across the “Third World” as a consequence of this militarization process is shocking, its implications genuinely difficult to absorb. According to Dr. J. W. Smith, a US development economist who runs the Institute for Economic Democracy in Arizona, in our glorious self-evidently noble fight to defend the “Free World” from imminent Soviet attacks, invasions, and general inconceivably irrational hell-bent pure evilness, Western states:

“… were responsible for violently killing 12 to 15 million people since WW II and causing the death of hundreds of millions more as their economies were destroyed or those countries were denied the right to restructure to care for their people. Unknown as it is, and recognizing that this has been standard practice throughout colonialism, that is the record of the Western imperial centers of capital from 1945 to 1990” [smith, Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle of the 21st Century (2003)]

12 to 15 million people from 1945 to 1990.

I have to repeat these figures to myself to absorb their implications.

Repeat these figures to yourself.

Six million Jews in the Second World War, and now 12 to 15 million innocents in the post-WWII period. The former in the name of German lebensraum. The latter in the name of the free market.

Yet as a society, as a Civilization, we are oblivious, utterly blind, to our historic complicity in the systematic destruction of "Other" societies who fail to conform to our (deluded) self-image of universal prosperity.

It is a blindness with which we remain afflicted.

Outstanding post, for which many thanks.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two very good articles in the Book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak out Volume 1, dealing with the Strategy of Tension. On is by a Norwegian, the other is by some Swiss guy.

Nathaniel,

Again, not sure if you need the pointer, but, for an overview, try Daniel Ganser's NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (Oxon & NY: Frank Cass, 2005).

I have a few other bits and pieces. Will add as find.

Damned if I can find the book, but I have found its title, and, from memory, it was very good:

Franco Ferraresi. Threats to Democracy: The Radical Right in Italy after the War (Princeton UP, 1996).

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I am sorry, that is not one of the points of my researches.

I must say anyway, found many errors in your posts, and a direct connection Gladio-Strategy of tension that was never proved.

in Italy, the case went out in 1992 when prime minister andreotti admitted the existence of Gladio/Stay Behind.

Many Committee - parlamentary - investigated on the fact and discovered the agreement in late '40s, signed by Cia and general Musco for the creation of an italian base in Sardegna. Money to build the base arrived directly from langley.

Gladio was a project known to Segni, maybe Taviani, and a little group of italian politicians.

It is reported some gladiators were used in an ''active role'' instead of passive, due to explicit requests from Usa in 1954 and 1959.

P2 has nothing to do with it, nor Sid or in general the facts of '70s. Gelli signed P2 in 1963... and P2 became to have a role after 1974.

This not mean people of the Gladio connection were used to cover something or to help individuals. But you cant address Nato for such facts.

In Italy, we call it ''SERVIZI DEVIATI", when individuals use a secret service in a different manner of a "public" service, for individual or subversive purpouse.

Also, it is to notice PCI had a collateral organization too, the so-called Gladio Rossa, and many of this people was actually Kgb or Gru agents....

It is not with the idea of ''good and bad'' that you can focus italian problems... Remember the agreement between Stalin and Churchill... Italy was to be a 50% nation...

ciao, hope this help

abstracts form relazione Pellegrino Commissione Stragi:

Ed infatti è solo tale riferimento esterno a rendere pienamente leggibile la scelta iniziale che caratterizzò negli anni 1951-1956 la nascita di Gladio e cioè da un lato l'iniziale rifiuto di associarsi al Comitato di pianificazione (Clandestine Planning Comittee) clandestina costituito da USA, Inghilterra e Francia, dall'altro l'affidare la costituenda organizzazione ad un sistematico rapporto bilaterale tra il nostro servizio e quello americano;

Vuol sottolinearsi cioè come il problema dell'intesa SIFAR-CIA del 1956 non può essere (tanto meno nell'ambito di una inchiesta parlamentare) affrontato e risolto in termini esclusivamente giuridico-formali, e cioè investigando soltanto da un lato sulla discutibile capacità del nostro servizio militare di porsi come soggetto di diritto internazionale abilitato alla conclusione e sottoscrizione di accordi, dall'altro sulla altrettanto discutibile possibilità di individuare in tale accordo del '56 un momento di attuazione ed esecuzione del trattato NATO del 1949 già approvato con legge, al fine di giustificare la mancata sottoposizione dell'accordo del 1956 all'approvazione del Parlamento in applicazione dell'art. 80 Cost. In contrario appare evidente come, in sede di ricostruzione storico-politica l'accordo SIFAR-CIA del 1956 non può essere valutato come avulso dal contesto degli obiettivi strategici perseguiti dalla politica estera degli USA (negli anni che immediatamente seguivano alla conclusione del secondo conflitto mondiale) e del ruolo che nel perseguimento di tali obiettivi alla CIA veniva assegnato nel medesimo periodo: gli uni e l'altro (obiettivi e ruolo) ormai quasi pienamente ricostruibili sul piano delle certezze documentali

Si è già ampiamente riferito, ad esmepio, in ordine alla vicenda della Osoppo e cioè di una divisione partigiana che, dopo il '45, viene ricostituita per essere utilizzata clandestinamente e segretamente dallo Stato Maggiore dell'Esercito nelle regioni nordorientali; una vicenda che può a buon titolo considerarsi emblematica nella sua irriducibilità ad un parametro di legittimità formale: un reparto partigiano clandestinamente organizzato dall'Esercito, nei cui ranghi pure non è ufficialmente inserito; e che poi viene trasformato - in un momento in cui il quadro democratico uscito dal dopoguerra andava consolidandosi - addiruttura in una organizzazione clandestina posta direttamente sotto il controllo del Servizio segreto militare. Una situazione che dura fino al 1956 quando l'organizzazione viene sciolta perché Gladio è stata costituita, tanto è vero che la prima confluisce nella seconda sia pure all'interno di una vicenda che per molti profili è destinata a restare in qualche modo confusa e indeterminata, ma che nella sua essenza non può essere negata. E si è già visto che la Osoppo non fu fenomeno isolato, perché altre organizzazioni del medesimo tipo devono essere esistite se di alcune è stato possibile alla Commissione rinvenire inequivoche ancorché labili tracce documentali.

and, most important:

Per comprendere a fondo la particolare attenzione degli americani per la Sardegna, si deve percorrere soprattutto il filo che porta a Gladio. Se la testa della Stay behind italiana era nascosta a Forte Braschi (e in qualche ministero romano) il cuore era sicuramente in Sardegna, proprio a pochi chilometri da Alghero. Per decenni, quindi, l'isola è stata un punto nevralgico della strategia anticomunista degli Stati Uniti e della Nato sul fronte della cosiddetta "erra non ortodossa".

I terreni di Poglina vennero acquistati 46 anni fa da una società, la Torre Marina srl, fondata da tre privati cittadini che nell'atto costitutivo si dichiararono "benestanti". Si trattava di Ettore Musco, Antonio Lanfaloni e Felice Santini. La ragione sociale della società era «l'acquisto, la vendita, la gestione, l'amministrazione e la locazione di immobili rustici e urbani dovunque siti». L'indirizzo della società, via XX settembre 8, era lo stesso del servizio segreto militare. E i tre "benestanti" altro non erano che il capo del Sifar, il capo del Sios Esercito e un dirigente dell'ufficio amministrativo dei servizi segreti militari.

Qualche mese dopo, la società fece il suo primo e unico acquisto: un terreno dieci chilometri a sud di Alghero. La spesa fu di 2.050.412 lire. Il 5 gennaio del 1956 i tre "benestanti" vendettero le loro quote ai signori Giovanni De Lorenzo, Giulio Fettarappa Sandri e Luigi Tagliamonte. Appena nove giorni prima, Di Lorenzo aveva sostituito Musco al vertice del Sifar. Il 5 settembre del 1961 la Torre Marina srl venne messa in liquidazione. Ma nel novembre del 1962 il ministero della Difesa provvide a espropriare i terreni della Torre Marina srl per «pubblica utilità».

I lavori di costruzione della base cominciarono nel 1963. I finanziamenti erano pronti da circa dieci anni. La Cia aveva infatti passato a Musco ben 300 milioni (quasi sette miliardi di oggi) per costruire la base segreta di Gladio.

Gli americani erano molto impazienti: già dal 1956 avevano inviato a De Lorenzo una nota con la quale gli intimavano di rispettare il piano Demagnetize (smagnetizzare). Di cosa si trattava? Secondo un documento dello stato maggiore Usa recentemente desegratato, il piano era costituito da una serie di «operazioni politiche, paramilitari e psicologiche, finalizzate a ridurre la presenza del Partito comunista in Italia».

Edited by Accogli Claudio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this reference to ANSA in Philip Agee's book 'CIA diary'. I though it might be relevant to post it here.

From Appendix 1

FERNANDEZ CHAVEZ, A. Montivideo correspondent of Agencia Orbe Latinoamericano, q.v., and ANSA, the Italian wire service. Montivideo station propaganda agent.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...