AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: CIA protected ex-Nazis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Quote:The documents, among 27,000 pages of CIA records released by the National Archives here, indicate that the agency was told in 1958 by then West German intelligence that Eichmann was living under an alias in the Buenos Aires area. But the CIA did nothing, and Eichmann - the infamous organiser of the trains that carried Jews to the Nazi extermination camps - was eventually seized by Mossad agents in 1960, and flown back to Israel where he was tried and, in 1962, executed.

The CIA's inaction reflected the shift in US foreign policy goals almost as soon as the Second World War was over, from hunting down Nazi war criminals to enlisting help for the new priority of fighting Communism, as it threatened to engulf not only all of Germany, but parts of western Europe as well.

In the case of Eichmann, the documents show the CIA was desperate not to compromise Hans Globke, a former Nazi who stayed on in West Germany and helped organise anti-Communist initiatives there.

Eichmann was only one prominent former war criminal to benefit. In 1983, Washington admitted that US Army intelligence officers helped the Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie, the "Butcher of Lyons," flee to Bolivia and escape prosecution by France after the war. A government report at the time admitted that the officers "interfered with the lawful and proper administration of justice" by protecting him after he had been recruited as an anti-Communist spy.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/amer...656938.ece
Your link is not correct Anon.

Further, you left out this one little part

Quote:In the case of Eichmann, the documents show the CIA was desperate not to compromise Hans Globke, a former Nazi who stayed on in West Germany and helped organise anti-Communist initiatives there.

In other words the title of your thread here is not accurate. The US did not protect Eichman for it's own sake, but rather to protect the actions of another former member of the NSDAP. Further, there is no evidence that Hans Globke committed war crimes. The above paragraph changes the entire equation, and shows that it was Globke who was being protected, not Eichman. giving away Eichman's cover would have compromised the other.
Intelligence acitivities are easy to take out of context and spin in order to harm the United States. Listen they could have done what you thought was right and gone after Eichmann or used Eichmann to go after a much more bigger threat which could commit much worse war crimes on a larger scale.

I think considering the circumstances the CIA did the right thing as did the Mossad. It comes down to interest and the interest of the CIA was containing the larger threat of communism.
So? We protected frickin' Nazis because of the big, bad Soviets. You of all people John should know how overinflated the latter threat was.
Quote:So? We protected frickin' Nazis because of the big, bad Soviets. You of all people John should know how overinflated the latter threat was.

Che, I see you have 20/20 hindsight.

Quote:The CIA's inaction reflected the shift in US foreign policy...

If you are able to use a dictionary, I think you will find that "inaction" and "protection" have two different definitions. Your propaganda efforts to distort what the article actually said may play well to delusional lefties, but you're only preaching to the choir. Nobody else is converting.

-S
It was a good move for us. It saved American lives and asssisted the destruction of our enemy.

What else matters?
If we recruited former baath party officials to assassinate Al Qaeda members in Iraq to win the war would it be wrong Anonymous24?

What if we recruited a few Taliban guys to help us capture UBL, would that be wrong?
Anonymous24 Wrote:So? We protected frickin' Nazis because of the big, bad Soviets. You of all people John should know how overinflated the latter threat was.

Anon, I am also an idealist. However, unlike you, I am tempered with realism. Eichman was going to eventually be caught, and the CIA was surely aware of this. However, the protected Nazi was only a party member, and had not history of criminal behaviour. Most Nazis joined the party in order to get ahead. Obviously this was the case here. Plus, during the Cold War, countering the Peace Loving Union of Soviet Soviets was the higher priority.

How are your priorities Anon?
First of all, the CIA was able to protect the guy after Eichmann was caught. Second, the article never says it 'saved American lives'. Third, how is it distorting what the article says to say that the CIA kept info about Eichmann secret? It only vaguely says that the guy they were protecting was helpingn anti-communist efforts.
Quote:Third, how is it distorting what the article says to say that the CIA kept info about Eichmann secret?

It isn't distorting the article to say the CIA kept information about Eichmann as a secret. But that's not what you said the first time.

What the CIA did with regards to Eichmann, which was nothing, was simply passive in nature. The word "protect" is a verb, which of course implies action, not passivity. You could have said "CIA failed to pursue Eichmann", which would have had a much different tone.

While bringing ex-Nazis butchers to justice is very satisfying from an emotional point of view, after the defeat of Germany, they no longer posed a threat to entire nations of people. The Communists in the Soviet Union, however, did present a threat to entire nations of people.

It was better that a few undeserving Nazi cockroaches lived a short while longer rather than short sightedly weakening opposition to the new biggest threat: enslavement of entire nations of people by Soviet commies.

Try and get some realistic perspective.

-S
The Communist threat was drastically exaggerated. Since the Israelis would capture Eichmann, and the CIA was evidently able to protect him, so why didn't they pass the info over to the Israelis?
Anon,

The CIA did not protect Eichmann. They just didn't tell the Israelis what they knew. The Jewish man who DID tell them had to beg them to get him and it took a couple of years before they tried.

Our government made the right move,it saved American lives and I don't think you or any other guilt complex Americans have the right to even wish some more Americans died young to please your skewed conscience.

If you want to die,it's YOUR business,but you have no right to endanger or wish that the previous generation had been endangered to please your guilt complexes.
Quote:CIA was evidently able to protect him

Again, you describe positive action on the part of the CIA by using the word "protect", when the article you cited simply used the word "inaction". I guess you think if you use the word "protect" enough, you'll convince us the CIA was actively taking measures to prevent Eichmann's capture. You are an excellent propagandist.

Quote:The Communist threat was drastically exaggerated.

By and large, the exaggerating was done by the Soviet commies themselves. They kept state budgets secret, and intentionally leaked disinformation to make their economy appear stronger than it actually was. They only allowed foreigners in a few big cities of European SU, making it difficult to independently and accurately assess the true state of their economy. It was always fuzzy as to just how strong they actually were. It is possible for people to have unintentionally over estimated the actual danger posed by the Soviets, simply because of the uncertainties resulting from the secretiveness of the Soviets.

But one thing is not in dispute, the Soviets made it clear their intention to encourage and support communist revolution to the world at every opportunity. If they could've, they would've.

Now, I have a question: Why does it bother you if people exaggerate? You started this whole thread off with exaggerated statements about the CIA...

-S
Because people are saying that the CIA 'inaction' somehow saved lives.

And 'protect' is not exaggeration because they were protecting him by not giving the info to the Israelis.
Quote:Because people are saying that the CIA 'inaction' somehow saved lives.

Is it really so unreasonable to believe the preventing the spread of communism could save lives? Lot's of lives?

My wife grew up in a communist country. All males of her grandparents' generation died, 2 from Nazis and 6 from the Soviets. All women of that generation except her 2 grandmothers died, because of living in a commie-engineered famine zone. The commies were rotten people, and their record of governance was one to be highly concerned about.

Using select low- level Nazis to fight the spread of communism wasn't inherently a bad idea. Most egregious Nazi offenders were executed via the Nuremberg trials, and the rest were eventually rounded up. At best, Eichmann got an additional 2 years of freedom before being captured.

Eichmann died at the end of a rope - All's well that end's well.


Quote:And 'protect' is not exaggeration because they were protecting him by not giving the info to the Israelis.

Not even the left leaning British press that you brought to our attention used the word "protect". I suggest you go to Pravda and do some research, you might have better luck bolstering your contention from disgruntled commies; they hated both Nazis and the US.


-S
S,

Anon lives in an Ivory Tower of innocence.
No, the innoncents are those who don't want to admit the many nefarious dealings of the U.S. government.
Anon,

No,the innocents are people like you who want to blame the people of the USA for all evil. Our governments are ELECTED and supported by us rocket scientist. Up for a ballot every 4 years.

You like our enemies,I like us.
No, you only like some of us.
Anon,

You're part of my extended family and I want you protected as much as myself and using means which YOU,but not ME,would oppose.

You side with the enemies of our people friend. It's a fact you should reflect on without responding right away.

All these "wrongs" you seem to know about were to extend and our independence and safety and to harm our enemies.

You say we are bad to have done these "wrongs". I know we have done some nefarious stuff,but by and large are a force for good and all our enemies are a force for evil.

I would request you to supply the board with a list of enemy peoples you think are morally superior to the American folk.

Nazi Germany,fascist Japan,the USSR and Communist allies,Islamic terror states,Libya,Iraq,Iran since 1979,Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Tell us which you would prefer to live with.
Pages: 1 2 3