Talk:Operation Gladio

Inaccuracy in the beginning
As you can read by the article itself, the aim of Gladio was not just to face a possible Warsaw Pact invasion, but also to fight any kind of communism rise (expecially in Italy, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party were very strong, and the possibility that they could have won the elections was not so unlikely). So the actual incipit is a little bit reductive. As a non-native speaker I prefer not to edit the article myself, but I would find appropriate to improve it. The Italian version (which you could take the cue from) says, approximately: "Operation Gladio is the codename for a clandestine operation promoted by CIA and NATO during the Cold War to build a "stay-behind" paramilitar structure to oppose the possible attack by the Warsaw Pact countries against the West Europe countries, as well as to fight communism with the use of psychological warfare and the tecniques of the false flag". I see you have issues about the last part of the sentence (psychological warfare and false flag), and I'm not interested in (nor I have the competence to) debating about it properly. However, the fact that Gladio wasn't just created agianst a possible military invasion but also against inner communist forces, is well-known and confirmed, and I think it should be mentioned in the opening lines. Ripepette (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Late response, but thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, as many american historians ignore and/or disapprove of the italian investigations, I cannot put this as a fact in the headline. But it is necessary to put the results of the judicial and parliamentary investigations. Seekallknowledge (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the latest, peer-reviewed serious scientific study which is based on recently declassified Italian documents the above myth is finally laid to rest.


 * I quote: "A note from March 1972 specified that the possibility of using ‘Gladio’ in the event of internal subversions, not provided for by the organization’s statute and not supported by NATO directives or plans, was outside the scope of the original stay-behind and, therefore, ‘never to be considered among the purposes of the operation’. The pressure put forward by the Americans during the 1960s to use ‘Gladio’ for purposes other than those of a stay-behind network would appear to have failed in the long term."
 * and:
 * "Finally, General Paolo Inzerilli, Chief of Staff of SISMI and responsible for ‘Gladio’ from 1974 to 1986, in a testimony to the Italian parliament confirmed that during the 1970s, the bilateral agreements between American and Italian services were subject to annual reviews, and they concluded definitively in 1976, thus ending all relations between the CIA and the Italian services regarding stay-behind operations."


 * I intend including this in the article in order to finally start to re-balance the article onto solidly researched information and away from the conspiracy theories. Para medic TaSi (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am noticing a concern with getting the facts right, and that this challenging approach has produced a disjointed and confusing article. A more harmonious approach would be to bring the diverging narratives together in a dialogical style. I have revised the article's introduction according to this approach, and would encourage my fellow editors to apply the same method throughout. HussainHx (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

High Fog Index
Based on the third paragraph of the section entitled "Post war creation" ("NATO provided a forum to integrate, coordinate, and optimise... ...in support of SACEUR’s military forces.") this article has a Gunning Fog Index of 18 - is pitched above the reading level of a College Graduate. I am a college graduate and I am finding this article extremely hard going.

Just one example. The sentence, "After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the "Clandestine Planning Committee" (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after France's official withdrawal from the NATO military organization – but not from NATO – which was not followed by the dissolution of the French stay-behind paramilitary movements." What exactly is being said here? Several events are being assembled into one sentence but it is far from obvious what the order of these events is and whether there is any causal connection between them.

Specifically, what was founded in 1951? NATO, CCWU or CPC? (I can find the answer to this but shouldn't have to if I am reading this.) Was CCWU transferred after the creation of NATO or after the withdrawal of France from the NATO military organisation? What caused (or failed to cause) the dissolution of French stay-behind paramilitary movements?

This article is stacked with prose like this making its usefulness limited.

I took the liberty of deleting the paragraph you refer to. It does not add any information that can not be found elsewhere in the article and, on top of that, in clear English.Para medic TaSi (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Moved quote from intro to Italy section.
But that quote needs contextualizing. Please add context. What efforts is the author referring to in that article? The quote as it stands is vague, and I don't understand to what it specifically refers.

That information needs to be added.

Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)