the authoritarianism of postwar Gaullist France, huh? So what was that about, you dummy? You mean the US didn't manage to take over France as a military protectorate (despite the fact that even the banknotes were printed in preparation) because De Gaulle stood in the way, is that what you mean? And the "messiness" of Italy, you mean the country that was run for many long years after the war by the CIA and their puppets, which was kinda messy?
Before I piss off American readers, believe me I don't mean to diminish one wit the contribution, the sacrifice, of Americans in the cause of freedom from Nazism. Nor even really to complain about some of the rather crude hegemonist views held in DC at the time. Just to wonder what this fuckwit ignorant wanker Friedman is still doing parading as the top op-ed writer of the US "newspaper of record". Finished. Apologies.
With that said, de Gaulle was about as authoritarian as a person can be and still be a democratic leader. Hostility to de Gaulle in the US is often driven by his independence, but that's a separate issue.
On Italy - did the CIA really care one way or another about what was going on as long as the communists were kept firmly out of power? De Gondi could probably answer that question, but my impression was that they didn't - whatever it took, with the help of whoever was available, but beyond that? What I mean is I'm not sure if it's accurate to describe the CD and assorted helpers as simply CIA puppets. More willing allies who represented a significant fraction of Italian society and who were what they were.
The motive in Italy was to keep the Commies out, yes. But I think there was a great deal of CIA-CD connivance (with a Mafia connection on the other side, so to speak).
Friedman's way of writing? Just look at that c alliteration up there. He forgot caviar. (Sort of thing BHL would remember...)
