Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More
Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


Secrets Of The Bumbling Bear - CIA/NAZI Marriage

the CIA/NAZI marriage

URL for this article:

Alternative address is

Join our email list at Receive one article/day, or fewer.

Please feel free to reprint and re-post any Emperor's Clothes article. Also, please include the article's Web address and author(s). * [Emperor's Clothes]


by Jared Israel[Originally Posted 22 May 2001]
[Reposted 2 December 2001]

Below is an article from the 'San Francisco Bay Guardian', entitled, 'The CIA's Worst-Kept Secret.' It discusses some recently unclassified CIA files. These documents, 18,000 pages in all, confirm that U.S. intelligence recruited and protected Nazis starting at the end of World War II.

I am posting and writing about this article for two reasons. First, it includes some useful information about the Nazi-CIA marriage. Second, it presents that information from a perspective that I consider at once mistaken and widespread; hence worth discussing.

The article was written by Martin Lee. Mr. Lee argues that after World War II, Nazi spies duped the U.S. into hiring them, thereby protecting themselves and their networks from prosecution.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

He cites the example of General Reinhard Gehlen. Gehlen had been chief of Nazi intelligence in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. According to Mr. Lee, Gehlen fooled spymaster Allen Dulles, who later became Director of the CIA, in the following way:

"Gehlen was quickly spirited off to Fort Hunt, Va. The image he projected during 10 months of negotiations at Fort Hunt was, to use a bit of espionage parlance, a "legend" --one that hinged on Gehlen's false claim that he was never really a Nazi, but was dedicated, above all, to fighting Communism. Those who bit the bait included future CIA director Allen Dulles, who became Gehlen's biggest supporter among American policy wonks. " (From the text below)

There's a bit of a problem here.

Starting more than a decade earlier, Allen Dulles, a leading diplomat and spy, and his brother, John Foster, a Wall Street insider, had created a financial-intelligence apparatus to assist the Nazis. So Dulles had long-standing, friendly relations with Nazis. That being the case, why would Dulles be upset if he 'learned' that Gehlen (a top Nazi spy) was a Nazi? (1)

Moreover, Gehlen had not been some cloistered spy. His job had not been simply to coordinate the gathering of information. He had been a key leader of the work of fascist groups in the occupied East, such as the Iron Guard in Romania, the Latvian Vanagis and the Croatian Ustashe. These groups committed the most unimaginably brutal atrocities against 'Untermenschen', Jews, 'gypsies', Serbs and other Slavs and Orthodox Christians, as well as against anti-Nazis, both Communist and non-Communist, including various Nationalist groups, which resisted the Nazis. Gehlen was a leading war criminal.

Did Allen Dulles know all this? Of course he knew all this. He was a U.S. spymaster with almost three decades experience and he had worked with the Nazi leadership for two decades. Dulles arranged to have Gehlen secretly brought to the U.S. precisely so that the Russians wouldn't get hold of him and put him on trial for war crimes and hang him.

Once they had Gehlen safely in the U.S., Allen Dulles and other top U.S. Intelligence operatives met with Gehlen and planned a nightmare creation: a vast European spying-and-subversion apparatus, controlled by Washington but staffed by hundreds and then thousands of Nazi war criminals. The Nazis may have lost the war but Nazism had found new life. (6)

Since Allen Dulles knew that Gehlen commanded an army of monstrous war criminals in Eastern Europe and Russia, what is the significance of Dulles' supposed (though frankly unbelievable) belief that Gehlen was not a Nazi?

Mr. Lee's suggestion that Dulles' rescue and empowerment of Gehlen was somehow less monstrous because he was 'fooled' about Gehlen's Nazi beliefs is typical of the way the mass media has been whitewashing American foreign policy since 1945.

According to this reasoning, it is a crime if Nazis (or Islamist terrorists) go out and commit atrocities on their own. But if they commit atrocities at the behest of American leaders who are a) naive about who these Nazis (or Islamist terrorists) are and b) are only using these Nazis or terrorists in pursuit of good American values, then it is OK. This treats the American foreign policy establishment as if it were some perpetual teenager who may have fallen in with a bad crowd, but heck, he'll grow out of it.

Very few of us will ever read the declassified Nazi-CIA documents. Articles like Mr. Lee's from the 'San Francisco Bay Guardian', a left-leaning newspaper, must inform our view. Throughout the article, Mr. Lee portrays Washington as naive, trapped by a Cold War mentality into recruiting Nazis (or, as he suggests at the end of his article, by recruiting too many of know, Nazis are OK, but only if taken in moderation...)

Can it be that a smart guy like Mr. Lee really believes that the very sophisticated men who shaped US foreign policy over the past 50 years unknowingly blundered into bed with the worst butchers of the century? I cannot say; but by making this absurd idea the theme of his article, Mr. Lee, the critic, makes himself an apologist for the thing he is seemingly attacking.


This notion, which is put forward by Mr. Lee, is contradicted by two important facts:

Fact # 1 - No, Because It Started Too Early

Washington began working with high-placed officials in the Vatican at the end of the war to set up Nazi escape routes. Some of the Nazis whom they cooperated in rescuing were spies. Others were just Nazi butchers.

The escape routes, appropriately called 'ratlines', started in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, particularly Croatia, and terminated in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and so on. How could it be true that the U.S. got swept up in organizing the ratlines due to a Cold War mentality when the Cold War hadn't yet begun? (2)

Mr. Lee is aware that the U.S. began rescuing Nazis before the Cold War began. He points out that this:

"...belies the prevalent Western notion that aggressive Soviet policies were primarily to blame for triggering the Cold War."

Point well taken. But at the same time, Mr. Lee writes:

"The early courtship of Gehlen by American intelligence suggests that Washington was in a Cold War mode sooner than most people realize." (From the text below)

What does this mean? If aggressive Soviet policies were not to blame for triggering the Cold War, why does Mr. Lee say that "Washington was [already] in a Cold War mode" at the end of World War II? Doesn't a "Cold War" require two sides?

What Mr. Lee probably means is that at the end of W.W. II; Washington was in an "Attack Russia!" mode. Indeed, it was precisely Washington's belligerent and criminal actions, such as rescuing Nazi war criminals, that created the international climate of hostility and threat which became known as the "Cold War".

In the decade and a half before World War II, Washington and Wall Street, including the the Dulles brothers and the grandfather and great grandfather of President Bush, played a dangerous game. They helped put the Nazis in power and aided them once they got in power. With their assistance, the shattered German war industry was rebuilt in record time.

Why did Dulles and the Walker/Bush family and others in the U.S. Establishment help finance the creation of a powerful, fascist state in Germany? They did it in large measure because they planned to use the Nazis to attack Soviet Russia.

Alas, as the poet says, the best laid plans of mice and men often fail. Instead of settling for their assigned role, of conquering Russia, the German Nazi/Corporate state decided to conquer everyone. Washington and London responded to this unacceptable ambition in a measured fashion. First, they allowed the Nazis to inflict maximum damage on the Soviet Union. Then they opened a Second Front (the Normandy Invasion) in order to prevent the USSR from liberating all of Europe and to make sure the Nazis were not completely crushed.

After World War II Washington didn't go into "Cold War mode." It simply continued with its plan of using Germany and the Nazis against the USSR. Except now the Nazi apparatus existed all over Eastern and Southern Europe (including in Russia) and Soviet influence was far more extensive as well.

Fact # 2 - No, because the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment Didn't Use the Nazis Only to Spy

The Nazi murderers whom the U.S. helped rescue, in violation of law and decency, were not simply spies. Many of them were monstrous war criminals. And these war criminal/spies were not simply rescued, dumped in various countries, and then forgotten.

Instead the U.S. maintained a great network of the 'escapees' and their contacts all over Europe with three purposes:

* to spy;

* to nurture networks of fascists dedicated to infiltrating, subverting and sabotaging the socialist and non-socialist states of Europe, a network linked to U.S. intelligence (and to Germany);

* and to prepare a force that could be sent back into the socialist countries, especially the strategic Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and into the Balkans states, especially Yugoslavia, when the time was ripe.

The Nazi and pro-Nazi 'refugees' were maintained at the expense of U.S. taxpayers through programs such as the 'Assembly of Captive Nations' (3)

In the late 1980s and early 1990s many of the U.S.-protected Nazi war criminals (and/or their children) were shipped back to Eastern Europe and the Balkans where they helped to launch secessionist movements, install U.S. and German puppet governments, assassinate those who resisted and foster national hatreds. For example, returning Fascists helped Franjo Tudjman's neo-Nazi group, the Croatian Democratic Union, or HDZ, take over the Croatian Republic and launch a secessionist war against Yugoslavia in 1991. (4)


Why do critics of U.S. foreign policy so often present Washington as a passive force? Why are we constantly told that the U.S. is being 'used by the Cuban exiles for their own agenda' or that the U.S. has 'screwed up once again by backing the Kosovo Liberation Army' and that 'sooner or later the Americans will find out what kind of monsters these Albanian secessionists are' and so on. (5)

Two explanations come to mind.

First, wittingly or unwittingly, people tend to censor themselves in confrontation with reckless power.

When one is criticizing an Establishment that bombs pill factories because it doesn't like the government (as the U.S. did in Sudan), that bombs Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq with radioactive weapons and then sends its own and allied troops into the contaminated areas, that refuses to punish submarine commanders who cause the deaths of Japanese fishermen while performing daredevil stunts with nuclear submarines - in criticizing such an Establishment one may experience the temptation to exercise restraint.

If, for example, one argues that Washington was tricked into working with Nazis one may feel reasonably secure. One is not challenging the basic legitimacy of the Wall Street-Washington axis. But if one argues that the nightmares of U.S. foreign policy have been, like most large-scale human activities, planned, then one will be accused of being conspiratorial, or extremist, or worse. One may find that certain doors, previously open, are now shut tight. Or worse.

Second, American TV and films, viewed by people all over the world, project an image of the Innocent American official: kind hearted, too powerful for his own good; easily fooled and manipulated. This plays a big role in conditioning people to think of the U.S. government as a bumbling bear.

Since the movies are partly responsible for this nonsensical image of American leaders, let me paraphrase a famous movie speech by way of refutation:

"Don't be too sure we're as naive as we're supposed to be. That sort of reputation might be good business, toning down the critics and making it easier to deal with the enemy." (With apologies to Sam Spade in the 'Maltese Falcon', for which see )

Was Washington an innocent bystander during World War II? It was most surely not. The OSS, predecessor of the CIA, was engaged all over Europe. OSS operatives knew - and reported - that monstrous crimes were being committed by Nazis, following which Washington recruited these same Nazis into its burgeoning covert apparatus, the most sensitive branch of the U.S. government.

Think about this. The OSS was a small organization. The Nazi apparatus was huge and well organized. Absorbing the Nazis into U.S. intelligence was like a garter snake eating a rat. What does this mean? It means the most powerful forces in the U.S.A. had decided that the CIA was to be, in essence, a Nazi organization.

Washington's goal was to break up the USSR and other Socialist states and bring them under U.S. domination. The way Washington planners viewed things, Nazis had many virtues. They respected capitalism. They despised a host of groups (including Serbs and other Slavs, 'Gypsies', other dark-skinned people, etc.) who tended to resist U.S. domination. They were good at playing on prejudice against these groups. Moreover, the intensity of their hate gave an energy of persistence to their work. They were skilled at demagoguery, subversion, assassination, and torture.

Numerous virtues; only one fault: a very bad reputation, regarding which, no problem unless the truth came out. And should the truth come out, (as it is indeed trickling out today) the important thing from Washington's point of view was and is to make sure the inevitable criticism has the proper slant. Let the critics declare that it was all a terrible, stupid, unforgivable mistake and we should learn 'our' lesson and never never do such bad things again.

Better to be attacked for being unforgivably stupid than for being unforgivably evil. To this end, President Clinton set up an 'Interagency Working Group' (IWG), made up of "scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification." It would appear that Mr. Lee has accepted the IWG's spin on the Nazi-CIA connection.

Below is the 'San Francisco Bay Guardian' article.

Following the article I have posted a few dissenting remarks.

-- Jared Israel, 21 May 2001


The CIA's Worst-Kept Secret From 'San Francisco Bay Guardian', May 7, 2001

Newly Declassified Files Confirm United States Collaboration with Nazis by Martin A. Lee


"Honest and idealist ... enjoys good food and wine ... unprejudiced mind ..."

That's how a 1952 Central Intelligence Agency assessment described Nazi ideologue Emil Augsburg, an officer at the infamous Wannsee Institute, the SS think tank involved in planning the Final Solution. Augsburg's SS unit performed "special duties," a euphemism for exterminating Jews and other "undesirables" during the Second World War.

Although he was wanted in Poland for war crimes, Augsburg managed to ingratiate himself with the U.S. CIA, which employed him in the late1940s as an expert on Soviet affairs. Recently released CIA records indicate that Augsburg was among a rogue's gallery of Nazi war criminals recruited by U.S. intelligence shortly after Germany surrendered to the Allies..

Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the Cold War-- the CIA's use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a clandestine campaign against the Soviet Union.

The CIA reports show that U.S. officials knew they were subsidizing numerous Third Reich veterans who had committed horrible crimes against humanity, but these atrocities were overlooked as the anti-Communist crusade acquired its own momentum. For Nazis who would otherwise have been charged with war crimes, signing on with American intelligence enabled them to avoid a prison term.

"The real winners of the Cold War were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused after the war on challenging each other," says Eli Rosenbaum, director of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations and America's chief Nazi hunter. Rosenbaum serves on a Clinton-appointed Interagency Working Group committee of U.S. scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification.

Many Nazi criminals "received light punishment, no punishment at all, or received compensation because Western spy agencies considered them useful assets in the Cold War," the IWG team stated after releasing 18,000 pages of redacted CIA material. (More installments are pending.)

These are "not just dry historical documents," insists former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the panel that examined the CIA files. As far as Holtzman is concerned, the CIA papers raise critical questions about American foreign policy and the origins of the Cold War.

The decision to recruit Nazi operatives had a negative impact on U.S.-Soviet relations and set the stage for Washington's tolerance of human rights' abuses and other criminal acts in the name of anti-Communism. With that fateful sub-rosa embrace, the die was cast for a litany of antidemocratic CIA interventions around the world.

The Gehlen Org

The key figure on the German side of the CIA-Nazi tryst was General Reinhard Gehlen, who had served as Adolf Hitler's top anti-Soviet spy. During World War II, Gehlen oversaw all German military-intelligence operations in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

As the war drew to a close, Gehlen surmised that the U.S.-Soviet alliance would soon break down. Realizing that the United States did not have a viable cloak-and-dagger apparatus in Eastern Europe, Gehlen surrendered to the Americans and pitched himself as someone who could make a vital contribution to the forthcoming struggle against the Communists. In addition to sharing his vast espionage archive on the USSR, Gehlen promised that he could resurrect an underground network of battle-hardened anti-Communist assets who were well placed to wreak havoc throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Although the Yalta Treaty stipulated that the United States must give the Soviets all captured German officers who had been involved in "eastern area activities," Gehlen was quickly spirited off to Fort Hunt, Va. The image he projected during 10 months of negotiations at Fort Hunt was, to use a bit of espionage parlance, a "legend" --one that hinged on Gehlen's false claim that he was never really a Nazi, but was dedicated, above all, to fighting Communism. Those who bit the bait included future CIA director Allen Dulles, who became Gehlen's biggest supporter among American policy wonks.

Gehlen returned to West Germany in the summer of 1946 with a mandate to rebuild his espionage organization and resume spying on the East at the behest of American intelligence. The date is significant as it preceded the onset of the Cold War, which, according to standard U.S. historical accounts, did not begin until a year later. The early courtship of Gehlen by American intelligence suggests that Washington was in a Cold War mode sooner than most people realize. The Gehlen gambit also belies the prevalent Western notion that aggressive Soviet policies were primarily to blame for triggering the Cold War.

Based near Munich, Gehlen proceeded to enlist thousands of Gestapo, Wehrmacht, and SS veterans. Even the vilest of the vile -- the senior bureaucrats who ran the central administrative apparatus of the Holocaust -- were welcome in the "Gehlen Org," as it was called, including Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann's chief deputy. SS major Emil Augsburg and Gestapo captain Klaus Barbie, otherwise known as the "Butcher of Lyon," were among those who did double duty for Gehlen and U.S. intelligence. "It seems that in the Gehlen headquarters one SS man paved the way for the next and Himmler's elite were having happy reunion ceremonies," the Frankfurter Rundschau reported in the early1950s.

Bolted lock, stock, and barrel into the CIA, Gehlen's Nazi-infested spy apparatus functioned as America's secret eyes and ears in central Europe. The Org would go on to play a major role within NATO, supplying two-thirds of raw intelligence on the Warsaw Pact countries. Under CIA auspices, and later as head of the West German secret service until he retired in 1968, Gehlen exerted considerable influence on U.S. policy toward the Soviet bloc. When U.S. spy chiefs desired an off-the-shelf style of nation tampering, they turned to the readily available Org, which served as a subcontracting syndicate for a series of ill-fated guerrilla air drops behind the Iron Curtain and other harebrained CIA rollback schemes.

Sitting ducks for disinformation

...Third Reich veterans often proved adept at peddling data -- much of it false -- in return for cash and safety, the IWG panel concluded. Many Nazis played a double game, feeding scuttlebutt to both sides of the East-West conflict and preying upon the mutual suspicions that emerged from the rubble of Hitler's Germany.

General Gehlen frequently exaggerated the Soviet threat in order to exacerbate tensions between the superpowers. At one point he succeeded in convincing General Lucius Clay, military governor of the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany, that a major Soviet war mobilization had begun in Eastern Europe. This prompted Clay to dash off a frantic, top-secret telegram to Washington in March 1948, warning that war "may come with dramatic suddenness."

Gehlen's disinformation strategy was based on a simple premise: the colder the Cold War got, the more political space for Hitler's heirs to maneuver. The Org could only flourish under Cold War conditions; as an institution it was therefore committed to perpetuating the Soviet-American conflict.

"The agency loved Gehlen because he fed us what we wanted to hear. We used his stuff constantly, and we fed it to everyone else -- the Pentagon, the White House, the newspapers. They loved it, too. But it was hyped-up Russian bogeyman junk, and it did a lot of damage to this country," a retired CIA official told author Christopher Simpson, who also serves on the IWG review panel and was author of "Blowback: America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War."


Members of the Gehlen Org were instrumental in helping thousands of fascist fugitives escape via "ratlines" to safe havens abroad --often with a wink and a nod from U.S. intelligence officers.

Third Reich expatriates and fascist collaborators subsequently emerged as "security advisors" in several Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, where ultra-right-wing death squads persist as their enduring legacy. Klaus Barbie, for example, assisted a succession of military regimes in Bolivia, where he taught soldiers torture techniques and helped protect the flourishing cocaine trade in the late 1970s and early '80s.

CIA officials eventually learned that the Nazi old boy network nesting inside the Gehlen Org had an unexpected twist to it. By bankrolling Gehlen the CIA unknowingly laid itself open to manipulation by a foreign intelligence service that was riddled with Soviet spies. Gehlen's habit of employing compromised ex-Nazis -- and the CIA's willingness to sanction this practice -- enabled the USSR to penetrate West Germany's secret service by blackmailing numerous agents.

...Slow to recognize that their Nazi hired guns would feign an allegiance to the Western alliance as long as they deemed it tactically advantageous, CIA officials invested far too much in Gehlen's spooky Nazi outfit. "It was a horrendous mistake, morally, politically, and also in very pragmatic intelligence terms," says American University professor Richard Breitman, chairman of the IWG review panel.

More than just a bungled spy caper, the Gehlen debacle should serve as a cautionary tale at a time when post-Cold War triumphalism and arrogant unilateralism are rampant among U.S. officials. If nothing else, it underscores the need for the United States to confront some of its own demons now that unreconstructed Cold Warriors are again riding top saddle in Washington.


*** (C) 'San Francisco Bay Guardian,' Reprinted for Fair Use Only ***


by Jared Israel

Mr. Lee writes that General Gehlen passed Washington false information about a supposed Soviet buildup and adds that:

"Gehlen's disinformation strategy was based on a simple premise: the colder the Cold War got, the more political space for Hitler's heirs to maneuver. The Org could only flourish under Cold War conditions; as an institution it was therefore committed to perpetuating the Soviet-American conflict."

First, this is speculation presented as fact. Who knows whether Gehlen invented any particular piece of misinformation, or whether someone in the CIA instructed him to 'invent' it.

Second, so what if CIA Nazis sometimes made false reports to heighten tensions or make themselves look good. That sort of thing is always possible in intelligence organizations. (Graham Greene's wonderful novel, 'Our Man in Havana,' is about a British intelligence 'asset' in Cuba who manufactures an entire spy network to keep himself employed.)

Indeed, the CIA is itself famous for telling tall tales about the misdeeds of those resisting U.S. domination. Such statements help create a provocative atmosphere in which aggressive policies seem justified.

The question is not whether the Nazis sometimes misled Washington, or whether Soviet intelligence could sometimes use the Nazis against Washington. The question is: what were and are Washington's plans?

Did Washington want to crush the Soviet Union and install puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe and the Balkans? Does Washington now wish to turn the Balkans into a safe rear while it moves NATO bases up to Russian borders in order to facilitate 'low intensity war' against Russia? I would argue that the answer to both questions is: yes.

The Nazi apparatus was and remains useful in carrying out these strategies.


Mr. Lee writes:

"Slow to recognize that their Nazi hired guns would feign an allegiance to the Western alliance as long as they deemed it tactically advantageous, CIA officials invested far too much in Gehlen's spooky Nazi outfit. 'It was a horrendous mistake, morally, politically, and also in very pragmatic intelligence terms,' says American University professor Richard Breitman, chairman of the IWG review panel."

'Feign allegiance'? What evidence is there that the Nazis were feigning? The problem is Mr. Lee is proceeding from his assumption that Washington made a mistake in recruiting the Nazis. This assumption is wrong; that is, it is plainly contradicted by the evidence he presents. Like many people, he finds it awkward to change his assumptions; so instead he offers, by way of compromise, this notion that the Nazis were insincere. (Am I alone in finding that the mind boggles at the notion of the insincere Nazi?)

And what if these Nazis did sometimes feign loyalty? Many employees 'feign allegiance.' The question the employer asks is: are they getting the job done.

Says Mr. Lee, "CIA officials invested far too much in Gehlen's spooky Nazi outfit." Earlier he refers to the "Gehlen gambit." And elsewhere he comments that this was "more than a bungled spy caper"!

This language suggests that that Mr. Lee, like so many Americans, does not fully grasp what is involved here. The 'people' whom Allen Dulles and Co. rescued and recruited into the CIA were not spooky. This was not simply 'more than a bungled spy caper.'

These unimaginably vicious thugs were rescued to do a job.

Therefore the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had at the core of its field staff, from the time of its creation, mass murderers. They were used all over the world to do what they had done during World War II.

What had they done during World War II? What skills did they bring to the CIA?

Let us consider the Croatian Ustashe. These henchmen of a clerical-fascist regime (the term "clerical" is used to describe the Ustashe because the Catholic clergy controlled this fascist movement) carried out the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and 'Gypsies.'

"The Ustasa regime in Croatia and particularly this drive... to exterminate and dispossess the Serbs, was one of the most horrendous episodes of World War II. The murder methods applied by Ustasha were extraordinarily primitive and sadistic: thousands were hurled from mountain tops, others were beaten to death or had their throats cut, entire villages were burned down, women raped, people sent on death marches in the middle of winter, and still others starved to death..." ('Encyclopedia of the Holocaust,' Macmillan Publishing Company, 1995)

Members of the Ustashe were among those whom U.S. intelligence 'rescued' and whose ranks swelled the CIA and other U.S. covert and semi-covert organizations.


Mr. Lee quotes IWG panel member Professor Richard Breitman to the effect that the CIA-NAZI marriage was a:

"horrendous mistake, morally, politically, and also in very pragmatic intelligence terms."

What does it mean for Professor Breitman to describe as a mistake something that was elaborately planned? The recruitment of Nazi's required the movement of thousands of war criminals, setting them up with new identities and financing them for half a century at a cumulative cost of billions of dollars. In the late 1980s and early 1990s they were dispatched with their children to install fascist regimes in power in Croatia and Bosnia; these regimes were universally - and amazingly - described in the Western media and by Western leaders as 'democratic'. Repatriated Nazis were used to install a government in Lithuania that honors pro-Nazi Lithuanians who during World War II massacred local Jews, Orthodox Christians and Bolsheviks.

By what standard can all of this be described as a 'mistake'? Was it a mistake because it didn't work?

But it did work.

Or perhaps Breitman and Lee think it was a mistake because it was evil?

But what makes an evil policy a mistake?

Professor Breitman is using sloppy reasoning in order, one suspects, to achieve a political effect. By labeling the Nazi-CIA marriage, with its 'ratlines' and 'captive nations', a mistake, he lets Washington off the hook. "This was counter-productive," he tells us and we think, "Well, if it was counter productive then in a sense Washington as suffered a fool's punishment."

But in fact the U.S. Establishment never paid a price for the monstrous crime of saving the Nazis and then unleashing them, once again, on the world.

Quite the contrary. It gained mightily from the ruthless use of Nazi monsters. It gained a ready-made apparatus in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It gained the use of an army of covert operatives ready to carry out any crime any place in the world.

Among other things, this apparatus helped destroy the Soviet Union, which had been a major obstacle to the U.S. drive for world domination.


The author concludes with the following comment:

"If nothing else, it [that is, the revelations about CIA-Nazi ties] underscores the need for the United States to confront some of its own demons now that unreconstructed Cold Warriors are again riding top saddle in Washington."

First, why should "nothing else" be done? Why does Washington have the right to set up War Crimes Tribunals to punish people (for instance, Serbian leaders like Milosevic) whose only crime is that they resisted Washington, but when it comes to Washington's own very real war crimes - such as rescuing and unleashing these Nazi monsters - "confronting some of its own demons" is sufficient? (8)

And second, what about this "now that unreconstructed Cold Warriors are again riding top saddle in Washington"?


If by "Cold Warriors" Mr. Lee means advocates of empire, then pray tell, when did they leave the saddle? Does Mr. Lee mean that William Clinton was not an Imperial warrior, but Mr. Bush is?

For all or part of its eight years in office, the Clinton administration waged unrelenting proxy military wars against the people of Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, Colombia, Congo, Rwanda, waged a war of sanctions against 70 countries, routinely bombed Iraq while starving its children, and so on. It continued to employ 'captive nations' Nazis in Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe. It greatly developed the use of the National Endowment for 'Democracy', USAID and other government and semi-private agencies and NGOs to create a Fifth Column apparatus in countries around the world.

To be sure, the Bush administration is continuing these efforts. But the notion that Bush's foreign policy represents some sea change from Clinton's foreign policy is without foundation in fact.

-- J.I. 21 May 2001




(1) Concerning Allen Dulles and the Nazis, see: "Nazis in the Attic." The article is broken into 6 parts. Parts 3 and 5 deal specifically with Mr. Dulles. The article begins at

The sections that deal specifically with Allen Dulles are part 3, at and part 5 at: Part 5 also deals with involvement of the Bush family, since the 1920s, in helping the Nazis.

(2) For a brief introduction to the ratlines see 'The Vatican, Croatia and the Nazi Gold' by Seán Mac Mathúna at

(3) See excerpts from 'Blowback' by Christopher Simpson which can be read at and

(4) For more on U.S. support for Nazi butchers after World War II, see the book, "Blowback: America's Nazis and Its Effect on the Cold War" by Christopher Simpson, April 1988. You can find it on For more on the Nazi-like state re-created in Croatia during the early 19900s, see

(5) Washington was a key force in creating the Albanian secessionist movement in Kosovo. The evidence is there, every step of the way. We will soon post an article, 'Dole Does Kosovo', which documents Washington's open attempt to foster secessionism in Kosovo in 1990. Eight years later, Washington used the cover of the Kosovo Verification Mission to import intelligence operatives and military experts to (attempt to) train the Kosovo Liberation Army so it could function as a modern Army. See: * 'The Cat is Out of the Bag' by Jared Israel at and * 'Why Albanians Fled Kosovo During NATO Bombing' at

This interview includes information unavailable elsewhere. It is well worth reading if you want to understand just how sophisticated and ruthless 'poor, mistake-prone' Washington really is.

(6) For more on General Gehlen, see

(7) The assault on Yugoslavia has occasioned perhaps the most extreme examples of the Washington's foreign policy doctrine, which might be paraphrased as follows: "The lie is mightier than the sword."

Case in point: the Kosovo Liberation Army.

The U.S. and Germany created this terrorist group. It's strategy, as described by the pro-NATO publication, 'Jane's Defense Weekly', was and remains: to commit acts of terror in order to provoke a government response which can be miss-portrayed as ethnic repression and thereby used to justify NATO intervention.

In other words, the KLA is openly terrorist. In addition it is openly racist - it appeals to and encourages hatred of Slavs (especially Serbs) and 'Gypsies.'

Here's the point: At a rally two years ago, Senator Joe Lieberman described this bunch of terrorist-Nazis as follows:

"[The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army stand for the same human values and principles ... Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." ('Washington Post,' April 28, 1999)

The lie is mightier than the sword.

For more on Senator Joe Lieberman, see 'SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN - APOLOGIST FOR THE FASCIST KLA' at

8) On Slobodan Miloshevich, see 'KLA Attacks Everyone. Media Attacks...Miloshevich?' Can be read at

and "Statement of President Slobodan Milosevic on The Illegitimacy of The Hague 'Tribunal'" Can be read at


Join our email list at Receive about one article/day.

Emperor's Clothes can use your help.

You can donate using PayPal - at

Or go to our secure server at

Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)

Or call the donation line, (U.S.) 617 916-1705. * [Emperor's Clothes]

This Website is mirrored at and at

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
Top Scoops Headlines


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.