CIA Protected Nazi War Criminals

I am very much afraid, Nimh, that you have not read History.

Your list of the alleged "crimes" committed by the CIA does not take Realpolitik into account.

With your mindset, it would be logical to condemn FDR and Harry S. Truman as tools of the Soviet Union.

It is clear that we gave Billions to the Soviets in material when they were fighting our common enemy- the Nazis.

We defeated the Nazis in 1945.

Only three years later, the Cold War began when the Soviets blockaded Berlin.

Some dunderheads take the USA to task because they cooperated with Saddam five years before Desert Storm. They know nothing about Realpolitik and the shifting of alliances as conditions change.

Again, what would you propose to do about your list of CIA indiscretions?

And, just exactly what does it prove?

Err, no.

Its failure, re the subject of this thread, was their failure to 'out' Eichmann and other former nazis who were being protected.

The organisation that actually produced nazis like Eichmann - the NSDAP cs - were of course the more vicious and immoral ones.


A good idea in principle, but who would they have to compensate for helping to protect the bad guys? There's no direct victim of their action, only indirect ones.


That sentence doesnt make any sense. But no, I dont think any organisation should be "exempt from criticism".


Huh? Just because we acknowledge that the CIA did something bad doesnt make it worse than the Gestapo and NKVD... that just doesnt follow.

Most of us can easily acknowledge that the CIA did something bad while still realising that its Nazi-German and Soviet counterparts were worse.

But then for most of us, the other party being worse is no reason to reject any and all criticism of our own mistakes. "Hey, the Nazis were worse!" What kind of defence is that?


Thats a big jump. Ive cites the many dozens of articles that have appeared about this story re the recent Eichmann revelations, and I didnt see any of them make this point.

There might be those who want to do so, but I havent seen them, and even I - who oppose the present administration's intelligence strategies - would think it a bit of a stretch.

Most respectfully,
it seems to me that the Third World War, alias the Cold War,
began before the Second World War ended.

Stalin knew what he was doing.
What he was doing was trying to enslave the world,
not just defeat the nazis ( his partners, until Operation Red Beard on June 22, 1941 ).
David

Nimh says "most vicious and most immoral"

There is nothing as vicious and immoral as the fleshpots of the Dutch Cities. Every type of perversion in the world can be found in its full glory in Amsterdam.

I would say that, on balance, the CIA has done many good things. What have the whores and perverts in Holland done for the world.

You don't have your priorities straight,Nimh.

Err, no - that was you.

You'll note that I merely quoted you saying that. In a quote box marked "BernardR wrote:", in fact.

Nimh- I think you are mistaken-

NoteThe organisation that actually produced nazis like Eichmann - the NSDAP cs - were of course the more vicious and immoral ones.

Err, yes.

You wrote, proposing a possible take, "The CIA was, by far, the most vicious and immoral organization in the world sixty years ago."

And I responded that no, of course not - it was "the NSDAP cs" that "were of course the more vicious and immoral ones."

I think the Nazis were more vicious and immoral than the CIA. Do you disagree with that?

I'll add this: I also think the Nazis were also more vicious and immoral than "the fleshpots of the Dutch Cities". Do you disagree with that?

If not, what is your problem, exactly?

Of course, you are correct, Nimh- The NSDAP were the most vicious and immoral. Then we defeated Nazi Germany and the NSDAP was no longer in existence. But then you try to denigrate the CIA--for no good reason.

Mr. Asherman said it much better than I could:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its just that some folks are convinced that politics can/should be better and more virtuous than men. Actually, its the opposite. Most men are more consistently faithful to their principles than governments are. Any government that does not maintain an effective, believable military is at a disadvantage in diplomacy. Without the ability to enforce a treaty, it has little chance of lasting long. Some individuals and organizations truly believe that "Might Makes Right", and they use force to blackmail and coerce others. Some despise the peacemaker, the advocate of compromise, and those who play "by the rules". That is, unfortunately life in the political world, whether it be your local school board, the Senate of the United States, Tehran, the U.N., or in a secret cave somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistani border.

We should aspire to more, but being better, more virtuous, etc, counts for nothing if the nation is defeated by forces antithetical to your fundamental principles.

_________________

I criticized the CIA for something it did wrong and that it acknowledged itself. Do you really believe the CIA should be exempt from any criticism?

For the most immoral organization,
the NKVD or KGB get my vote.

I bear no ill will toward the people of Holland.

David

Sounds like you've done some personal research Bernard.

Nimh,

What is your purpose?

1. To inform us about something that has been public knowledge for over 50 years during the Cold War, or

2. To bring an agency of the U.S. government into disrepute?

3. To achieve some other purpose that isn't clear?

The Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War merely replaced Nazi chains with Communist chains. They had been actively spying on their allies while receiving the logistical support to counter German arms. They operated fifth columns through out most of the Free World. They were building a nuclear arsenal and the means of delivering it to any point on the earth's surface. "We will bury you!", was their motto in Security Council where they frustrated every resolution that didn't further their ambitions. The Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to freedom everywhere in the world.

By 1948, while the U.S. was still pouring resources into rebuilding Europe, the two superpowers came to an understanding that they would avoid direct confrontations that might get out of hand and lead to all out nuclear war. Hence forth, the Cold War would be fought in the shadows and along the periphery. During the Cold War, International Communism had as its clients: East Germany, the DPRK, North Vietnam, India, the Arab World, Cuba, much of South America and newly emerging colonial nations in Africa. The Free World clients were: West Germany, ROK, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Pakistan, Israel, Greece, Turkey, and any regime that was willing to fight the Communists.

In the world that emerged after WWII it would have been almost criminal not to exploit German assets. German scientists were needed by both the USSR and the US. The German polity had to be rebuild quickly and subservient to their principal's needs in the Cold War. The German military had to be able to resist if invaded through the Fulda Gap. Who better to operate espionage networks behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany than the people who built the original Secret Police in the country. These were often unsavory people with pasts that didn't bear too much scrutiny. It worked, and it worked largely because the brand new CIA made it work. Today Germany is reunited under a democratic government, and those old Nazi's played a role in that victory. Maybe you'd rather have hung them all and let the Soviet dominated STASI have full control of the board.

That the Free World made use of people with terrible pasts and did some pretty terrible things to defeat the Soviet Union (who did even worse) is old, old news.

That leaves us with the second possibility, that your intent was to bring our government into disrepute by linking it with the old Nazi regime. I doubt that this is likely to work with informed people, but it certainly supports the propaganda campaign of the radical Islamic terrorists who love pointing out how evil the United States is and how pure their religious motives are. I'm assuming that this isn't your purpose, so ........

What is your purpose of digging up and dressing old skeletons in costumes that serves the enemy while undercutting your government?

(My government?)

Asherman, this is one of the most surreal posts I have seen you post.

I didnt "dig up and dress old skeletons in costumes". The CIA itself has released the info from the archive. The news media around the world subsequently reported on it, prominently. And Blueflame1 then posted a thread about it on A2K, just like there are threads about pretty much any striking news story.

So far so normal. Unlike you, apparently, the world news media did consider it newsworthy that not just did "the Free World made use of people with terrible pasts and did some pretty terrible things", they actually protected Adolf Eichmann.

I'd agree with all those journalists that this merited some interest. As news from the archives goes, it's pretty striking. On that, you apparently disagree with me - and with the 234 media outlets listed on Google News who carried the story, from the Washington Post to the International Herald Tribune to The Age in Australia, The Globe and Mail in Canada and the Spiegel in Germany.

Ok - that much about the OP (Original Post) - which wasnt mine, btw.

------------------------------

Now - you asked specifically about my purpose. So let me see. How did I get here?

Blueflame copy/pasted the news story.

Your reaction was that there was nothing new, and it was all already known for 50 years.

That was of course untrue - the new bit here was that the CIA and the German government had protected Eichmann, too - for one. That was why it attracted so much attention.

So thats where I came in - to correct this falsehood/oversight of yours.

------------------------------

Now, what next? What other "purpose" have I since been pursuing in this thread? Let me go back ...

First, there was some of the usual banter that any international news story posted here attracts. Hamburger and I discussing to what extent it was just 'cogs in the wheels' that had been protected. I said, well, Eichmann ... hardly that category.

Any objection so far?

Then, from page 4 on, it's been basically BernardR and me. The only things I've posted on those pages were responses to his posts. So let me list them to see where the problem might be:

- Bernard said "it didnt happen the way it is presented".

I referred to the hundreds of news stories that all presented the same fact, so it did happen.

Do you object?

- He said the World Court at the Hague would have been immediately convened if it had really been true.

I explained that the WC doesnt take on cases from before it was established.

Do you object?

- He implied that I had called the CIA "the most vicious and immoral organization in the world sixty years ago".

I noted that I hadnt said so and wouldnt ever say so, since, for one, the Nazis were surely worse.

No objection there, I assume.

- He suggested that surely, "recompense" should be given.

I explained that I didnt see how that would be possible.

No objection there, I assume.

- He argued that "The CIA [is] exempt from criticism based on old data."

I responded that I think it's perfectly allright to take note of something bad it did 60 years ago.

Is that where the beef is?

It's not like I've done anything particular beyond that; I've chimed in on a thread about the topic, and since chiming in first, have merely engaged in y'r typically strange dialogue with Bernard/Italgato/Septembri/Chiczaira/Mortkat/Whatever name he currently carries. Mostly because it was easy and, why not rebut some outrageous claim when it comes up. And there were some:

- He suggested that this news story was in fact a ploy of "the left wing [to] denigrate the present Administration [and] restrict the efforts of the present administration to gather data".

I noted that this was "a big jump", since I havent seen any of the dozens of articles on this topic make any reference to the Bush admin's data-gathering ops. (Nor did anyone this thread, btw.)

I also actually added that there might be those who'd like to make the connection, but "even I - who oppose the present administration's intelligence strategies - would think it a bit of a stretch".

No objection there, then, I presume?

- He also suggested I was in no place to talk about "the most vicious and immoral" because "there is nothing as vicious and immoral as the fleshpots of the Dutch Cities". "What have the whores and perverts in Holland done for the world?".

I noted that it hadnt been me to use that phrase, and shrugged off the fleshpots bit.

------------------------------

<looks up>

Nope. I can not find what, in this exchange, could have possibly triggered the suspicion that I must have had some devious "purpose", and one that in effect "served the terrorist enemy". I mean, you've read through all this and it's MY posts you have a problem with?

Odd.


This is still pretty much my take on it. I'm a historian by education. I find archival finds interesting. I find it of interest that West-Germany and the CIA protected Eichmann, too, after the war, on top of the others we already did know about. Well, it is rather remarkable, isnt it? And that was a new piece of info. Not to mention that, I'm betting, to 4 out of 5 of our compatriots, the thing about the CIA having helped former Nazis is news in the first place.

Thats about it. I've remarked on it, corrected your claim that there was "nothing new" and have since merely come back to rebut each of Bernard's charmingly outrageous rhetorics.

What's the big deal?

We have Bernard jumping 50 directions to avoid having to own up that it even happened in the first place, insinuating that its all a leftwing conspiracy to discredit Bush and finally resorting to deriding Holland's fleshpots. And at the end of that we have you, Asherman, coming in to imply that the only motive you can think of that I might have had to reply to his posts, is wanting to bring your government into disrepute, "support[ing] the propaganda campaign of the radical Islamic terrorists" in so doing.

What about, I responded because what he said was either incorrect or irrelevant, and thats what we do here, pointing out such things when they come up?

Really. What a wild reaction. Is it purely the annoyance of seeing this topic keep popping up on your Your Posts page, that made you testy? Just to get some perspective: do you know how many pages the thread about Cheney's lesbian daughter went on for?

Me also thinks a restored sense of proportion is in order. This is a random discussion board on the world wide web - with a core group of users of perhaps a hundred or two. Nothing any of us will say here will have any effect whatsoever when it comes to "undercutting the government", "bringing it into disrepute", "supporting the propaganda campaign of the radical Islamic terrorists" or, for that matter, "spreading peace and love around the globe". This story was in all the major news media around the world. Do you seriously think that a procrastinative to-and-fro on a messageboard between a random leftie and the place's village idiot will exert any additional effect, whatsoever?

So, Nimh is an historian. Well, Historian, tell us this. What country has done more to offer the benefits of Democracy to the rest of the world in the last 100 years.

The problem with the Europeans is that they are consumed with ENVY and wish to denigrate the USA in any way they can.

The Netherlands is a sink hole. Despite the fact that the CIA( a country's secret defense) did some things, Mr.Nimh wants to trumpet it from the rooftops-

For what purpose? asks Mr. Asherman?

Why to denigrate the USA which, the learned historian, Nimh, obviously cannot abide.

Since you are a Historian. Mr. Nimh, if you really wish to show you are balanced and not an envious Left winger, you are invited to give your erudite views on the postive influences of the USA in the Twentieth Century.

If you are a doctrinate left winger or a recycled Communist, I am sure you have never deigned to study that aspect of History.

There are people on this venue who actually point with disdain at Mr. Rumsfeld's "alliance" with Saddam Hussein before Desert Storm and use it as PROOF that the USA is corrupt. They have never heard of realpolitik.

There are people on this venue who apparently do not know that although the USA was allied with the Soviet Union in 1945 when they worked together to defeat the Nazis, the Soviets began the cold war when they blockaded Berlin.

So, stop with your supercilious attitude, Mr. Nimh. You know nothing about the rationale and the needs that went into the decisions made by the CIA fifty and sixty years ago. I don't know them either but as IK good American I accept them as necessary.

I will not write a letter to the President demanding more oversight on the CIA and other such agencies. I think they are hobbled enough by the left wingers who hate their country.

You criticize the CIA,Mr. Nihm? Well, I criticize the cowardly Dutch who, instead of fighting to the last man as the Russians did in Stalingrad, wilted under the bombing of Rotterdam.

Why did the CIA have to work so hard in World War II? Perhaps because of the spineless People in the Netherlands who did not fight to the last!!!

I visited Amsterdam a few years ago
and had a pleasant time;good food;
nothing untoward was encountered.
David

You encountered nothing untoward. David, because you did not meet any of the Supercilious Dutch whose cities are filled with whores, Homosexuals, Transvestites, Pederasts, and Necrophiliacs. The immorality of the place is disgusting. It clearly stems from the left wing socialism and relativism which has no clear principles.

It arose in the nihililsm of the late eighteenth century which abandoned God and thought that they could set up a Socialistic Utopia.

I wonder how many of the people in Rotterdam who were blasted to bits by the Nazi bombings prayed in their last moments?

I'm glad you had a good time, OmsigDavid <smiles>

Believe it or not, but from 1918, when universal suffrage was introduced in the Netherlands, all the way up until 1994, the Christian-Democrats and their predecessor parties (Catholics and Protestants) were in government. Thats 76 years; Christian parties have ruled Holland longer than the Communist Party ruled the Soviet Union ;-)

In my experience, thay were polite n friendly,
as good as in my city, NY.


I have no means to judge the degree of sexual activity
of the ladies whom I met,
but I don 't usually apply that criterion
to deciding who is worthy of friendship, or who is admirable.




These r unfortunate mental disorders.

During my lifetime, I have been surprized
to learn of some of the people who r afflicted thereby;
people of whom I wud not have thought it,
until I see him dressed female.

I 'd prefer to treat someone with a sprained brain,
the same as someone with a sprained wrist,
applying the filosofy ( philosophy ) of " live n let live "
unless the problem is dangerous.




I have no information about them;
did not encounter any in Amsterdam, so far as I knew.
Admittedly, I did not ask them if thay were into that.




I have always been anti-socialist.
It appears that your knowledge of Dutch history
is of much greater depth than mine.