Gladio's tentacles

[Jan Klimkowski]

Firstly, the world is a better place for the existence of Lobster, and there are very few publications I would say that about.

Secondly, Robin Ramsay is Robin Ramsay.

I've been reading him for decades, sometimes with huge respect and admiration, sometimes with teeth gnashing in frustration.

In his Cottrell review, he makes some good points, some marginal points and some poor points.

His conclusion is classic Ramsay:

The author is offering a hidden hand' conspiracy theory about post-war European history. He has history X-ray specs on which enable him to see through the veil of falsehoods. The hidden hand was Gladio. In some areas it has been documented as true; in some of those he discusses here there is little or no evidence; and in the British section, about which I know enough to comment, he has neither the evidence to sustain his thesis nor the basic attention to detail required to do so even if he had it.

Ramsay's comments on much of the British detail being wrong are strong, with the caveat that I would be fascinated to know if there is anything new in the Italian language material.

Ramsay also asserts that this is a "Conspiracy Theory", that Cottrell must be a comic book superhero to see through the falsehoods. This is colourful rhetoric which has the effect of undermining the entire hypothesis.

And yet, Ramsay also writes of that hypothesis:
"The hidden hand was Gladio. In some areas it has been documented as true;"

And here lies my frustration. It is as if, in his rhetorical dismissal, Ramsay is declaring that Cottrell doesn't live up to his expectations as a resesarcher and his hypothesis is thus dismissed. Yet Ramsay knows, better than almost anyone on the planet, the difficulty of researching Gladio and getting primary source material amidst the Oswald LeWinters and the false trails. He also knows the importance of Gladio to understanding post-WW2 history.

Amidst the good and important points, Robin Ramsay risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.