WALLOWING IN A DEAD REGIME S ATROCITIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000100370013-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2010
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: August 24, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

I;AS'H:NGT OIL TIME
24 Angus: 1983
STAT
I'ATBtCK BUCFIAn?4,N
Wallowing in a dead regime's atrocities
Ironic, is it not? The United States,
which gave thousands of its sons to
help free France from the grip of
Adolf Hitler, finds itself apologizing to
the French nation, many of whose citizens
actively collaborated with Hitler.
On hearing that the State Department
had sent America's "deep regrets" to
France - for our having employed and
sheltered Klaus Barbie, the wartime
"Butcher of Lyon" - one is reminded of
the insight of Malcolm Muggeridge: Men
are never more passionate or eloquent than
when denouncing the sins of a previous
generation.
The U.S. official who urged the formal
expression of regret is Allen A. Ryan Jr.
Until recently, Ryan was chief of the Jus-
tice Department office which specializes
in running down and deporting - before
their Maker can get to them - 65- and
75-year-old Central European immigrants
who permitted or perpetrated atrocities in
a war that ended some 40 years ago.
In Ryan's verdict, here is America's
offense:
.. officers of the United States govern-
ment were directly responsible for protect-
ing a person wanted by the government of
France on criminal charges and in arrang-
ing his escape from the law." This episode,
cannot "be considered as merely the unfor-
tunate action of renegade officers ... the
United States government cannot disclaim
responsibility for their actions." What the
men of the Army Counterintelligence
Corps did, in refusing to deliver up Barbie
to the French in 1950, says Ryan, was "inde-
fensible"
Strong words. Yet, it is probably a good
deal easier to be dogmatic and judgmental
in memos tapped out in an air-conditioned
office at the Department of Justice in 1983,
than it was for those U.S. officers faced
with their painful personal and ethical
dilemma in 1950 and '51.
Recall, if you will, the situation the
United States faced in West Europe. In
1947, the great U.S. Army had been
demobilized; Stalin's divisions, at full bat-
tle strength, were just over the border.
Ahead lay the coup in Czechoslovakia, the
Berlin blockade, the airlift, possible com-
munist political takeovers in France and
Italy. And perhaps war with the Soviet
Union.
Into-Army hands falls an ex-Nazi, a
Gestapo,type, who can offer valuable intel-
ligence on Soviet activities in the
American zone, and on communist pen-
etration of the French secret service.
Unknown to these officers, the ex-Nazi is a
Grade A war criminal.
When the Americans, in 1949, learn who
Barbie is, and the French demand that he
be turned over, the officers confront their
dilemma. They can deliver up their agent
who has spied faithfully, and, after the
French get through "interrogating" him,
expose the fact that French intelligence
has been a target of American spying. Or
they can deny they have Barbie, dissemble
to their superiors, and get Barbic a one-
way ticket on the "rat line" to Bolivia. The
latter course would permit a war criminal
to escape justice; it might also advance
American and allied interests by prevent-
ing a blowup that could only benefit Joseph
Stalin.
Perhaps the officers made the wrong
decision. Was it "indefensible?"
Surely, anti-Americans will find in the
episode further proof of the affinity they
lung ago detected between the U.S. military
and fascist police types. And those
Americans who relish beating their breast
and apologizing for U.S. behavior will have
new reason to do so. But, again, to Mug-
geridge's observation:
Given that Barbie is a particularly
revolting Nazi specimen who deserves the
death penalty for his maltreatment of
French prisoners, his deportation of
French Jews, why are we so pre-occupied
with the atrocities of four decades ago, yet
so indifferent to the identical crimes of
today?
In 1972, when Nixon made his "histuric
journey" to China, he had to shake the hand
of perhaps the greatest tyrant in human
history, Mao Tse-tung. Mao's revolutionary
CONT L D
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000100370013-8
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000100370013-8