Order the summer edition here

The US plans were real – but the defense minister still won't respond

ORIENTERING 6. SEPTEMBER 1969 / On Monday last week, the West German magazine "Stern" reported that it had received a secret American plan for, among other things. ABC warfare in Europe. It states in detail how nuclear, chemical and biological weapons should be used in both Western and Eastern Europe. According to Arbeiderbladet, this has attracted "considerable attention" on the continent.


Here at home has the revelation of it
the same plan certainly did not attract any significant attention. In No. 25, June 28th
this year, published namely Orientering one of the documents in «COMSOTFE OPLAN
no. 10-1 »- or operation plan from no. 10-1 from the commander of« Support
Operations Task Force Europe". The plan, which consists of a four-page document
with 29 pages of appendices, draws up guidelines for "unconventional warfare",
based on the use of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare agents and
guerrilla tactics.

The Americans confirm

An American military spokesman has confirmed to Stern that the plan is genuine. Norway, too, is within the scope of the plan, and it raises a number of fundamental questions about Norway's membership of NATO, about the constitutional rights of Norwegian constitutional authorities in wartime, and about our nuclear and base policies. 

This plan for "unconventional warfare" also includes use
of biological and chemical weapons.

As known published Orientering in its 1967 Christmas issue excerpt of another top secret US plan (USCIN CEUR OPLAN No. 100-1). In that case, it was the guidelines and draft for a regular US occupation of NATO member states. And Norway was at the top of the list of countries in which the United States would find it necessary to intervene if our country's military subordination to the United States was compromised.

But the defense minister is still silent

This plan has now been known for a year and a half, but Defense Minister Otto Grieg Tidemand has yet to comment on it. The question was raised in the Storting on June 13, 1968 in connection with the announcement of Norway's participation in NATO and four days later, on June 17, in connection with the Main Guidelines for the Defense Organization. Then Grieg Tidemand stated that “with and without Mr. Gustavsen has taken up the matter in the Storting, it should now be possible to have it clarified on a responsible level. "

But it doesn't look that way. Since 21 June last year, the Minister of Defense has had photocopy copies of these documents. Orientering has requested a comment in No. 4/68, No. 45/68, No. 24/69 and No. 25/69. But the defense minister did not want to answer. 

Similar plans in Greece, Italy and Spain. These two document more clearly than anything else
the plans that 

NATO membership in
today has become a threat to the small countries in the alliance. We know that correspondingly
plans were behind the Junta's takeover of power in Greece on 21
April 1967. We know that Italian officers with General de Lorenzo i
the striker had in mind to stage a coup d'état in Italy in 1964 on the basis of a
similar plan. And we know that US forces have participated in one
"liberation games" in Spain where they were tasked with defeating guerrilla forces
who fought against the Franco regime.

The Americans themselves have admitted that
"COMSOTFE OPLAN No. 10-1" is genuine. And they have also failed to document that
to plan Orientering published in 1967, were supposed to be illegitimate. But
the defense minister is still just as silent.

Our national lie of life

Minister of Defense Otto Grieg Tidemand

The most recently published plan states, among other things: “National politics will allow the use of local personnel in time of war to assist in the equipment, use and firing of nuclear weapons. This does not include the use of local personnel in peacetime. "

The guidelines in this plan show what the NATO politicians' position on Norwegian nuclear and base policy is really worth. Nuclear weapons will also be used in our country. The wording of the document fully confirms the statements that Major Svein Blindheim, Vice-Chairman of the Norway Campaign out of NATO, has previously made Orientering: «Norway's base policy is 1) based on the fact that in the event of war we shall use nuclear weapons, 2) that we practice using them and 3) that procedures have been established for how the weapons are to be requisitioned delivered against the targets operational Norwegian commanders choose to use them against. " Blindheim's conclusion is that NATO membership and nuclear policy have become our great national life lie.

Bestial weapons – unmanageable consequences

This plan for "unconventional warfare" also includes the use of biological and chemical weapons. It states that "Specific targets for the use of chemical and biological charges, which include defoliants, plant poisons and agents that destroy agricultural crops, will be determined as the situation and operational requirements dictate". Furthermore, chemical and biological charges and training aid can be transferred to "guerrilla and indigenous forces" if it takes place under the leadership of COM SOTFE.

American forces
today uses chemical and biological warfare agents to break it
the Vietnamese people's resistance to the Americans' war of aggression. It's beastly
weapons that have incalculable consequences for the human organism, for
heritage plants for future generations and weapons that destroy soils and
life opportunities for future generations. The US is making plans to use such
arms also in Europe, at the same time as the country's disarmament, the ambassador is participating in
solemn and prolonged deliberations in Geneva on the control of biological and
chemical warfare agents. 

Norway has the opposite
to the USA signed the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banning the use of such
guns. The documents that have now been made public raise fundamental questions,
not only about our official nuclear and base policy, but also about Norwegian
authorities' discretion in their own country at war and about our NATO membership. Why is
the otherwise eloquent ship owner in the Ministry of Defense now so silent?

You may also like