Änderungen

Colby makes it clear that the NATO allies with whom he worked in Scandinavia were full partners in such plans:

Colby makes it clear that the NATO allies with whom he worked in Scandinavia were full partners in such plans:

            … the governments themselves would build their own stay-behind nets, counting on activating them from exile to carry on the struggle.  These nets had to be coordinated with NATO’s plans, their radios had to be hooked to a future exile location, and the specialized equipment had to be secured from CIA and secretly cached in snowy hideouts for later use.  (p. 82)

… the governments themselves would build their own stay-behind nets, counting on activating them from exile to carry on the struggle.  These nets had to be coordinated with NATO’s plans, their radios had to be hooked to a future exile location, and the specialized equipment had to be secured from CIA and secretly cached in snowy hideouts for later use.  (p. 82)

Conclusion

Conclusion

A thirty year-old Soviet forgery has been cited as one of the central pieces of “evidence” for the false notion that West European “stay-behind” networks engaged in terrorism, allegedly at U.S. instigation.  This is not true, and those researching the “stay behind” networks need to be more discriminating in evaluating the trustworthiness of their source material.  

A thirty year-old Soviet forgery has been cited as one of the central pieces of “evidence” for the false notion that West European “stay-behind” networks engaged in terrorism, allegedly at U.S. instigation.  This is not true, and those researching the “stay behind” networks need to be more discriminating in evaluating the trustworthiness of their source material.  

Created: 20 Jan 2006 Updated: 20 Jan 2006</ref>

Created: 20 Jan 2006 Updated: 20 Jan 2006</ref>

==Quellennachweise==

==Quellennachweise==